IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the arbitral award directing possession and damages, affirming the applicability of limitation provisions to arbitration proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The appellants have filed the intra court appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act) impugning a judgment dated 05.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned judgment) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P.(COMM) 250/2021 captioned Mohd. Amin (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. v. Mohd. Iqbal (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.

2. The appellants had preferred the said application under Section 34 of the A&C Act impugning an arbitral award dated 18.05.2021 (hereafter the impugned award). The learned Single Judge found no grounds to interfere with the impugned award and consequently, rejected the application preferred by the appellants to set aside the impugned award.

3. The impugned award was rendered in the context of the disputes that had arisen in connection with the Compromise Agreement (hereafter the Agreement) dated 25.02.1991 entered into between Mohd. Amin (represented through the appellants being the legal representatives) and Mohd. Iqbal (represented through the respondents being the legal representatives). For the purposes of the present appeal, we would refer to deceased Mohd. Amin and his successors as the appellant, and Mohd. Iqbal and his legal representatives as the respondents, unless the context indicate otherwise.

4. The appellant is the owner and is in possession of the property known as Nasim Bagh [described as “land comprising bearing Khasra No. 138 (5 Bigha, 3 Biswa), 139 (11 Biswa), 140 (2 Bigha, 6 Biswa) and 141 (2 Bigha, 1 Biswa] comprising of an area measuring about 8430 sq. metres land, which at the material time included residential houses, servant quarters and outhouses constructed thereon. The appellant decided to develop an area approximately 6000 square meters of the aforesaid property (referred to as the Project Land) into a Multi-storeyed Group Housing Complex. For the said purposes, the appellant had entered into an agreement with the developer (M/s Unitech Ltd.). However, at the material time the respondent was allegedly in illegal and unauthorized possession of piece of land measuring 435 (four hundred and thirty-five) square yards. Accordingly, the appellant and the respondent entered into the Agreement dated 25.02.1991. The recitals of the Agreement also indicates that the respondent had raised illegal construction on the said portion of appellant’s property.

5. In this regard, the appellant had instituted an action in this Court (Suit bearing no.331/1989 captioned Mohd. Amin v. Mohd. Iqbal), inter alia, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from raising any illegal construction. This Court had also passed an order dated 27.11.1989 restraining the respondent from raising any construction on the said plot of land during the pendency of the suit. At the time of the Agreement, the said injunction was in operative.

6. Since the piece of land measuring 435 square yards was included in the Project Land and was required for the purposes of the project, the parties entered into the Agreement whereby the appellant agreed to deliver 6% of the total land built-up area in the aforesaid project to the respondent. The respondent agreed to pay to the appellant all development and betterment charges as may be levied by Land and Development Office, Delhi Development Authority or any such government authority for permitting construction of group housing on the Project Land, in proportion to his share of 6% of the developed project.

7. The respondent also agreed to pay any compounding fees or other charges that may be levied and to bear all taxes that may be chargeable proportionate to his share of the developed project.

8. The Agreement also provided that in the event for any reason, the Multi-Storey Group Housing project is abandoned, the area of the plot measuring 435 square yards (subject land) which was in possession of the respondent, would be reverted to him and the Agreement would be rendered nul