IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4990 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.01.2011 Welfare Association ...Petitioner Versus HUDA and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Bijender Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Saroha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Saroop, Advocate for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the grievance that the respondents have demanded some enhanced sum of money from the petitioner, which the petitioner would not be liable to pay. The petitioner would not seriously dispute that there was clause in the allotment letter and also in the Haryana Urban Development (Department of Land & Building) Regulations, 1978 through which respondent/HUDA would be in a position to ask for additional payment if some compensation is enhanced subsequently. Counsel for the parties, however, agree that there is an arbitration clause in the allotment letter and in some of such similar cases, the issues were referred to Arbitrator, it being the efficacious alternative remedy in view of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 3115 of 2008 decided on 10.09.2009, which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-6. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the counsel for the petitioner to Civil Writ Petition No. 4990 of 2010 -2- move an application for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. Counsel for HUDA says that the Chief Arbitrator, HUDA is competent to appoint the Arbitrator. Since the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of seeking arbitration for resolving the dispute, the petitioner is relegated to this alternative remedy. Let the petitioner move an application for appointment of an Arbitrator and the Chief Arbitrator, HUDA would take immediate action to appoint the Arbitrator. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. January 13, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE