1. These two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though preferred by different petitioners, are with respect to similar/identical orders of the same Additional District Judge on the similar objections preferred by each of the petitioners to the execution petition filed for execution of a decree pursuant to an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, made rule of the Court. The counsel appearing for both the petitioners has addressed same arguments in both the matters. Whatsoever, the objections before the executing court may have been and which have been dismissed, the arguments before this court were confined only to the contention that the decree sought to be executed is a nullity, being in violation of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the DLR Act).

2. The arbitration award dated 31st March, 1973 records that the parties to the arbitration were members of a joint Hindu family owning immovable and movable properties and carrying on businesses of brick kiln, nursery and florists; that lands and other immovable properties at various places were owned by the members of the aforesaid family either in the name of any of the member or more members or even in the name of their relations, friends and other persons as benami; that disputes had arisen between the aforesaid members of the joint Hindu family and with a view to settle the same amicably they had entered into an arbitration agreement dated 13th April, 1971 and referred all their disputes and differences to the arbitration of Mr. L.R. Gupta, advocate and Dr. M.L. Sharma. The award, after recitals and listing the points for determination, divides the properties of the family amongst the five branches of the family. 3. Mr. L.R. Gupta, advocate being one of the arbitrators filed the award aforesaid in the Court for being made rule of the Court. It appears that objections to the award were preferred by only one branch of the family (not the petitioners herein). However, subsequently the parties arrived at a compromise, terms whereof were recorded in Ex.CA. As per the compromise, the award dated 31st March, 1975 was to be made rule of the Court, subject to amendments detailed in Ex.CA. This court recorded the statements of the parties in support of the compromise application and made the award as amended through Ex.CA, a rule of the court and passed the decree in terms thereof on 1st September, 1975.

4. Execution proceedings from which these petitions have arisen, was filed by one branch of the family i.e. who had preferred objections to the award. By way of execution, possession of several properties which were stated to have been awarded to the party applying for execution was sought. Though the execution was filed in or about August, 1987 but objections thereto were filed by the petitioners in or about the year 2003. It was inter alia stated in the said objections that the decree if implemented / executed will violate DLR Act.

5. The said objections have been dismissed vide the order impugned in these petitions. The counsel for the petitioners has besides addressing oral arguments also filed written submissions. It is his contention that the arbitration award supra forming the basis of the decree under execution resulted in partition of agricultural land; that the DLR Act which is a complete code in itself provides a detailed mechanism for partition of agricultural properties; Section 185 of the said Act prohibits the courts other than the court mentioned in Column 7 in schedule I of the said Act from taking cognizance of any suit, application or proceeding mentioned in Column 3 thereof; that a suit for partition is mentioned in column 3 of Schedule I. It is further his contention that the decree holder has admitted in the pleadings that the award would result in partition of agricultural land. He contends that the exclusive jurisdiction for partitioning agricultural land being with the