Banwari Lal Sharma, J.

Appellant-New Pinkcity Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. in this misc. Appeal assailed the impugned order dated 10.09.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Arbitration Application No. 415/2007 whereby learned Court below allowed the application of respondent-petitioner submitted under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and restrained the non-petitioner not to transfer the disputed land in favour of other person and not to initiate construction on the land in dispute and maintain status-quo.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on or about 21.8.2007 the respondent Nanak Das made an application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur praying injunction against the appellant-New Pinkcity Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited in terms that the appellant, non-applicant in the said application be restrained from making any construction over the land described in para 10 of the application from making allotment or executing any other document in respect of the said land and to maintain status-quo in respect thereof. The respondent alleged that in the suit earlier filed by him against the respondent for permanent injunction in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) East, Jaipur City, the appellant having relied upon the arbitration agreement in the document dated 3.6.2000 disputed the maintainability of the suit. By the order dated 19.1.2007 passed in the said suit the application was allowed and the plaint was returned to the respondent, plaintiff in the said suit, for invoking arbitration clause. The said order dated 19.1.2002 attained finality on dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court and revision by the Hon'ble Court.

3. Respondent-applicant in his application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act inter alia contended that the agreement to sell dated 3.6.2000 in favour of the appellant society in respect of the land measuring 1.33 hectares as described in para 10 of the application was forged and fabricated. The appellant society did not acquire any right over the land. The respondent and other co-sharers were seized and possessed of the land. The appellant otherwise also under the law could not acquire any right over the land under an agreement to sell. The alleged sale being in contravention of Section 46-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was void. The appellant did not obtain any decree for specific performance of contract in respect of the agreement to sell dated 3.6.2000. The appellant society was bent upon to forcibly occupy the land by dispossessing the respondents and it was so attempted on 20.8.2008. The respondent on the allegations, succinctly stated above, prayed for injunction. The said application was registered as Arbitration Application No. 415/2007 in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

4. In reply to the application appellant society inter alia contended that the respondent's father Panchu and another co-sharers having received the entire sale consideration in cash and by cheques transferred the land in favour of the appellant-society with delivery of possession and the appellant society developed housing scheme over the said land including adjacent lands in the name of Siddharth Nagar-D-Block. The plots as subdivided under the scheme, aforesaid, were allotted to the members of the Housing Society back in the year 1980-81. The charges for land use conversion were also deposited with the State Government and by order dated 24.1.1990 the State Government allowed change of land use and the map of the scheme was for approval. A handsome amount of Rs. 26 lac was deposited in the State exchequer towards conversion charges and an amount of Rs. 38,750/- was deposited towards sub-division charges. The plots under the scheme were in use and occupation of the members/allottee's of the appellant-Society with constructions thereon. The appellant denied that the respondent was in