AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Tumkur, in Arbitration Case No.2/2007 thereby dismissing I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment as additional respondent.
Proceedings in Arbitration Case No.2/2007 are initiated by the National Highways Authority of India against the 8th respondent herein aggrieved by the award dated 15.02.2007 passed by the Arbitrator - the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur determining the amount of compensation payable to the acquired lands in terms of the provisions contained under the National Highways Act, 1956.
The case of the National Highways Authority before the Court below in the arbitration suit is that the award passed by the Arbitrator (Deputy Commissioner) enhancing the compensation payable was illegal and unsustainable in law.
Petitioner claims to be the purchaser of a portion of the acquired land under an Agreement of Sale dated 22.10.1997. He also relied upon a General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed by the 8th respondent on 06.10.2005 in continuation of another General Power of Attorney dated 14.09.1998.
This application was resisted by the 8th respondent. The Court below, on consideration of the respective pleas taken by the parties, has dismissed the application holding that the petitioner had failed to produce the copies of the Agreement of Sale and the General Power of Attorney to show that he had any interest in the property. The Court below has also found that the applicant - petitioner herein had failed to show his locus standi in the matter to appear in the arbitration suit as he was not a party before the Arbitrator.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Hanumanthappa submits that due to old age, petitioner was unable to produce the copies of the Agreement of Sale and the Power of Attorney. However, he has produced the said documents along with this writ petition and therefore this Court may look into the same and remit the matter back for fresh consideration by the Court below.
Learned counsel for the respondent strongly supports the order passed and refutes the contentions urged by the counsel for the petitioner.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order, I find that the scope of the proceedings before the Court below which are initiated as per Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined only to consider the validity or otherwise of the award passed by the Arbitrator. Whether the petitioner has got interest in the acquired land and therefore entitled for payment of compensation out of the compensation payable in respect of the lands in question is not the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, petitioner could not have maintained this application to come on record as an additional respondent in the proceedings pending in the arbitration suit. If at all, the petitioner has any right in the property in question, he has to establish the same by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and not by making an application for his impleadment in the arbitration suit.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy to establish his right.