RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 5622 and 5346 of 2006 (Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.). Father and a son are fighting hard for properties and have even gone up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The record of these two writ petitions being disposed of together is bulky but the issue is hardly of any significance. Still, these writ petitions are pending adjudication since April 2006. The petitioner would require this Court to interpret an arbitration award given by a retired Judge of Supreme Court and made rule of Court by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. How this Court would interpret an arbitration award in exercise of writ jurisdiction, would be the first question, which may have to be addressed. Is there a need to interpret the award, when it is worded clearly and would not, this exercise, if done, lead to adding something to the award and beyond the purview of writ Court? These questions would directly stair at us.

(2.) The prayer made in the present writ petitions is to set aside the impugned orders dated 16.5.2005, Annexure P-13 and 31.1.2006, Annexure P-16 being illegal and unjust. Annexure P-13 is an order passed by Assistant Collector Grade I, Ludhiana, whereby prayer by the petitioner for transfer of ownership pursuant to the arbitration award and the supplementary award has been declined. Through Annexure P-16, the appeal filed by the petitioner against this order stands rejected by the Collector. The Bone of contention between the parties is interpretation of the arbitration award and that too to a limited extent. The petitioner would contend that the property which has been divided in the ratio of 62:38 between Gurcharan Singh and Raghbir Singh is to be mutated on the individual names and not on the names of group they represent. As per the petitioner, the arbitration award is clear in this regard. The property was apportioned to the individuals and not to the group and as such, the prayer for mutating the same in terms of the arbitration award made by the petitioner was justified and is wrongly rejected. Counsel for the respondents, however, would submit that the property was meant for groups and was apportioned accordingly and as such, the impugned orders are fully justified in terms of the arbitration award and so would not call for any interference.

(3.) Mr. Anand Chhibbar, appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions, had taken this Court through the award to substantiate his plea that the property was apportioned between two individuals and is not meant for group they would represent. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents would join issue with Mr.Chhibbar to say that award can not be interpreted in the manner as urged by the petitioner.