The main legal point established in the judgment is that an arbitration award can only be set aside on specific grounds outlined in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and must not violate public policy in India.

Gita Mittal, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 placing its objections to the arbitration award dated 27th May, 2004. So far as the essential facts giving rise to the petition are concerned, there is no material dispute thereto and, to the extent necessary for adjudication of the present petition, the same are noticed hereinafter.

2. The petitioner was allegedly running its business from property bearing No. 1/1142 B-1143, 1st floor, Railway Road, Shahdara. The Union of India and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, in order to cut down the load of traffic on the existing roads and to ensure smooth flow of traffic has conceptualised the `Mass Rapid Transit System. In order to implement this project, it had necessitated evacuation of what was termed as the `Project Affected Persons.

3. The petitioner has submitted that with the intention of rehabilitating such project affected persons, a circular dated 31st January, 2002 was issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. As per this circular, a decision dated 10th December, 2001 had been taken by the Cabinet that the project affected shopkeepers as were verified by the concerned ADM/LAC would be recommended to DDA for making alternative allotment of developed plots at `predetermined price. This circular contains guidelines for relocation or rehabilitation of affected persons evacuated for acquisition of property for the project of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `DMRC for brevity).

4. The respondent/DMRC has contended that the DMRC had no scheme or policy to rehabilitate affected persons. It simply places its requirement of land before the Government of NCT of Delhi who acquires land and allots it to DMRC on payment of requisite amount of consideration. The DMRC has also stated that it is not a land acquiring agency for the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

5. So far as the land of the petitioner is concerned, the same was acquired by the Government of NCT of Delhi pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on the 12th June, 1997 notifying the acquisition of this property. The declaration under Section 6 of the Statute followed on 28th July, 1997. the petitioner before this Court had staked a claim for compensation as also a right to a suitable alternative site. The Land Acquisition Collector has made an award dated 20th July, 1999. The petitioner has filed a reference against the same in accordance with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

6. The petitioner has placed reliance on an assurance allegedly given by the respondent No. 1 for providing inbuilt rehabilitation/re-settlement scheme in its project to the project affected persons. This position is disputed by the respondents who submit that they have no liability to make such allotments in law and further that the circular dated 31st January, 2002 is not applicable and cannot be enforced against the respondents.

.7. Both parties are, however, ad idem that they had executed a license agreement dated 6th September, 2000 which is the basis of the claim made by the petitioner. Perusal of this license agreement shows that the respondents had agreed to provide covered space measuring about 15 sq. mtrs. to the petitioner who was a project affected shopkeeper on a license for a period of 50 years starting from the date of handing over possession on the terms and conditions stated in the license deed. So far as the location of the shop was concerned, Clause 2 of this license agreement clearly provided that the allotted shop would be on an appropriate floor matching the existing shop being dismantled and the exact location would be decided after construction of the new shops by lottery to be held in public with due notice to all concerned.

8. The respondent No. 1 constructed shops at the metro ra