Disputes regarding land ownership and mutations can be arbitrated under an existing agreement, reaffirming the limited role of courts in arbitration matters.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The petitioners (Dalbir Singh and Charanjit Singh @ Charanpal) have preferred the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure P-26) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram vide which the application filed by the respondent under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the '1996 Act') for referring the matter to Arbitration was allowed.

2. As is evident from the voluminous petition, the parties are engaged in an intense legal conflict for the last number of years. The facts, as stated in the instant petition, are that the petitioners were owners in possession of land measuring 3 Bigha 13 Biswa comprised in Khasra No.446/1/1 (3-13) situated within the revenue estate of village Chakarpur, Tehsil and District Gurugram. The land is said to be the ancestral property of the petitioners, having been owned and possessed by their forefathers for the last more than 150 years. In 1997, land measuring 8 Biswa-8 Biswansi (hereinafter referred to as the 'initially acquired land') out of the aforesaid land was acquired for the construction of a road. Thereafter, further acquisition of land measuring 2 Bigha 4 Biswa 12 Biswansi (hereinafter referred to as the 'subsequently acquired land') took place. The petitioners were left with land measuring 1 Bigha. It is the case of the petitioners that they have 27.5 % undivided share in land measuring 3.25 acres qua which a license had been obtained by the respondent (M/s Krisam Properties Private Limited). It is also the case of the petitioners that they continued to be in possession of the acquired land and as such, they are in possession of the entire land owned by them as is evident from the photographs (Annexures P-2 to P-4).

2.1 On 17.07.2003, the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (for short 'HSVP') exchanged the subsequently acquired land with the respondent and pursuant thereto, license No.85 of 2004 dated 21.07.2004 was granted to the respondent for the development of a commercial colony on land measuring 3.25 acres which included the subsequently acquired land. It is the case of the petitioners that the possession of the total acquired land was never taken over from the petitioners and, therefore, it was not handed over to the respondent.

2.2 CWP No.12573 of2003 filed by the petitioners challenging the acquisition of land was dismissed on 21.05.2004 whereafter SLPNo.12297 of 2004 was filed. Vide order dated 22.07.2004, the Supreme Court of India ordered the maintenance of status quo as regards possession and further ordered that no third party interest would be created.

2.3 During the pendency of the SLP, a Memorandum of Settlement dated 07.02.2011 was executed between the parties (Annexure P-5). Broadly, it was agreed that the petitioners possessed right, title and interest in the licensed land to the extent of 27.5 % or were entitled to 27.5 % share in the sale proceeds. It was also agreed that a site plan (Annexure P-6) would be prepared in respect of 1 Bigha of land which remained after acquisition which would continue to be under the ownership and possession of the petitioners. Upon an application having been moved by the petitioners for disposal of the SLP in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement, the same was disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2011 (Annexure P-7).

2.4 It is the case of the petitioners that they continued to be in possession of the subsequently acquired land since the site plan as agreed was not prepared which would have showed the ownership and possession of the petitioners over the remaining land measuring 1 Bigha. It has also been stated that even no such site plan was prepared at the time of execution of the Memorandum of Settlement and, therefore, is not a part of the certified copy of the SLP also (Annexure P-8).

2.5 In 2018, it came to the notice of the petitioners that a mutation bearing No.1588 had b