[2025:RJ-JD:22514]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20238/2024 Shiv Kumar S/o Tehla Ram Ji Arora, aged about 74 Years, resident of A-6, Yotri Kripa Society, Near Civil Hospital, Mahar Road, Surat, also director at Maharana Beverage Bottling Plant Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Sadar Bazar, Near Bata Showroom, Abu Road, Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus Regional Officer, RIICO Limited, Abu Road, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia Mr. Pushkar Taimni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

09/05/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirohi in Execution Petition No.2/2023 (35/22) whereby the petition filed by the present petitioner for execution of the order passed by the District Judge, Sirohi in case No.1/2021, which was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act aggrieved by the order of the Arbitrator/ District Collector dated 05.11.2020 was dismissed.

2. The background of the facts disclose that the petitioner was initially allotted an industrial Plot no. E-25 admeasuring 4000 square meter, for establishing an industry. In pursuance of said allotment, a lease deed dated 29.12.2011 was also executed. One of the conditions stipulated in the lease deed was that the industry must be established within the stipulated time.

3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner could not establish the industry within the stipulated period under the lease deed on account of encroachment by neighbouring plot owner of B-4 on the northern side of the petitioner’s plot. In this regard, the petitioner raised a dispute with the RIICO, contending that he ws unable to raise the construction for the industry as the neighbouring plot owner had constructed a wall on the outer line of the land allotted to the petitioner without leaving any setback. As a result, the petitioner fails to commence the activity of construction and therefore, he made a request to the RIICO to take steps for removal of such encroachment/ non maintaining of the setback by the neighbouring plot owner.

4. It appears that RIICO initiated a proceedings against the neighbouring plot owner by issuing a notice for removal of the unauthorized construction. On account of fact of contemplation of cancellation due to the industry is not being established and no decision has been taken by the RIICO authorities for removal of encroachment in order to commence the construction by the petitioner. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause provided under the lease deed by approaching the District Collector, Sirohi who is the nominated arbitrator under the lease agreement.

5. The arbitrator conducted proceedings; afforded opportunities of hearing to both the petitioner and RIICO and finally passed an award holding that RIICO should decide the proceedings which are pending instead of the arbitrator making any interference in such a proceedings.

6. Aggrieved by the said award, the writ petitioner invoked the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the District Judge, Sirohi and the District Judge, Sirohi vide order dated 22.08.2022 refused to interfere in the arbitration award of the District Collector, Sirohi, however a direction was given to the RIICO to conclude the proceedings as referred by the arbitrator within a period of six months. When RIICO failed to concluded the proceedings within the time stipulated by the District Judge, Sirohi, the petitioner moved an execution petition before Additional District Judge, Sirohi. The said execution petition has been dismissed; thus, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the executing Court has wrongly held that there is no order to be executed and wrongly dismissed the execution petition. According to him,