CIVIL WRIT PETITION 5622 OF 2006 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 24, 2009 Raghbir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. D. S. Kamra, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 to 7. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.5622 and 5346 of 2006 (Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others). 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION 5622 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: 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. 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION 5622 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: arbitration award and so would not call for any interference. 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. The counsel for the petitioner was asked as to how a writ Court would be in a position to interpret the award given by the Arbitrator. No doubt, the order of mutation or the prayer having been declined may be amenable to writ jurisdiction but it could be challenged on well recognised grounds for exercise of writ jurisdiction. Apparently, there is no other basis made to challenge the impugned order, declining the prayer of the petitioner to amend the revenue record in terms of the arbitration award. The ground as urged to seek interference in the impugned orders by interpreting the arbitration award would appear beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. The award was given by an Arbitrator, who alone can clarify this aspect. If the language used in the award is to be interpreted, then also it has to be done by the Arbitrator. The award, which is in issue, was made rule of the Court by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The submissions were either made before the Arbitrator or the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is either the Arbitrator or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which ought to have been approached for any interpretation of the award. It is also not made clear as to which writ would the Court issue in this regard to interfere in the impugned order by interpreting CIVIL WRIT PETITION 5622 OF 2006 :{ 4 }: the arbitration award. The writ Court would not be the appropriate Forum to seek interpretation of the arbitration award, there being no challenge to the impugned order on any other ground. Thus, case to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court in these cases is not made out. The counsel for the petitioner could not seriously dispute this position, when confronted with the same. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Arbitrator for clarification/interpretation of the award. The counsel for the respondents prays for binding the petitioner to seek clarification within a time bound period. The prayer is justified. The petitioner may file an appropriate application in this regard within a period of three months from today, in case he desires to seek interpretation of the arbitration award. The parties would maintain status-quo till then and thereafter, would seek further orders in this regard from any appropriate Forum. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. April 24,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE