Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the said Act') seeking appointment of an arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes between the parties in view of the failure of the respondent to commence the arbitration proceedings despite notice dated 30.09.2004.

2. The facts leading to the present petition are briefly set out hereinafter. The petitioner had purchased the land situated in Village Mamurpur, Narela, Delhi in the year 1959, which was developed. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1891 on 30.10.1963 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of that Act on 10.01.1969. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioner in CWP No. 149/1987. The respondent herein was also impleaded as a party in view of the fact that the land was being acquired by the Government of India, for the benefit of the respondent.

3. The parties in the present petition entered into a settlement on 30.09.1988 when the writ petition was still pending and filed an application, which was registered as CM No. 4773/1988. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on 05.10.1998 .In terms of the agreement between the parties. It was further directed that the agreement would form part of the order.

4. The agreement acknowledged that the petitioner was in actual physical possession of the land and in view of the agreement, half of the land was to continue to vest with the petitioner, while the balance half was to vest with the respondent. Since the acquisition proceedings had been initiated, the methodology adopted for implementation of the said .settlement was that the acquisition would be given effect to and the land would be re-conveyed to the petitioner to the extent of the half share. Such re-conveyance was to take place in pursuance of a proper deed to be executed by the respondent. The compensation to be received by the petitioner was also in turn to be shared equally between the parties as the same was for the whole land, while the half land was to continue to vest in the petitioner. One of the clauses of the said settlement is as under:

"(k) That if any dispute touching the effect and meaning of this Agreement arises in between the parties, it shall be referred to the Chairman of the Board, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties."

5. The aforesaid agreement dated 30.09.1988 was not implemented and, thus, the petitioner filed an application in the writ proceedings seeking implementation of the settlement. On the other hand, the respondent herein also filed an application seeking to repudiate the settlement. Both the applications were disposed of by the Order dated 06.08.2002 and the Division Bench was of the view that the miscellaneous application of the petitioner would not be maintainable and it was for the petitioner to seek enforcement of the settlement by taking out appropriate proceedings as may be permissible in law. The respondent was also given liberty to take such defence as are available in law including the one set out in their application.

6. It is thereafter that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner" seeking invocation of clause (k), which is stated to be an arbitration clause agreed to between the parties.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 11.11.2005:

"(i) Whether the clause in question amounts to an arbitration clause in an agreement;

(ii) Whether the arbitration is maintainable in view of an alleged alternative remedy available to the petitioner by filing a revision petition u/S 121 of the Delhi Agricultural- Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998."

8. Learned counsels for the parties have advanced their submissions by reference to the legal authorities. The findings on the issue are set out hereinafter.

Issue No.1:

9. The basic question, which arises, is whether the clause (k) containe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document