- (1.) THE appellants and others filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against the respondents. THE case in the writ petition, briefly stated, was that the writ petitioners were owners of agricultural lands, residential buildings, tubewells, etc. at Gaddiwara within the municipal limits of Panipat. THE second respondent, the National Fertilizers Limited, had installed a plant for the manufacture of fertilisers in the vicinity. THE second respondent had constructed a 'kucha' bund around the original pond and was using it for depositing effluents. THE bund was made of earth which breached due to the excessive pressure of the effluents and the accumulation of burnt ash. THE result was that water and ash had escaped from the pond and had damaged the writ petitioner's standing crops, mango gardens and residential properties. THEre had been a loss of soil, from 6 inches to 2 feet, on their lands which had made them unfit for cultivation until such time as they were reclaimed. THE second respondent had not done anything to redress the grievances of the writ petitioners. THE writ petitioner, therefore, prayed for a direction to the second respondents to close its plant until effluent disposal arrangements were made and "to pay the damages of Rs. one crore for the destruction of residential houses, crops and Mango Garden. THE respondent No. 2 may also be directed to reclaim the agricultural land of the petitioners which has been rendered unfit for cultivation. THE respondents No. 1 and 3 may be directed to take steps for civil and criminal (action) against the respondent No. 2."
(2.) THE writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge because it raised disputed questions of fact which could not be resolved in proceedings under Article 226. THE order of the learned single Judge was upheld by a Division Bench, the appeal being summarily dismissed. The appellants (being five of the writ petitioners) filed a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Division Bench. Notice thereon was issued to the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the parties informed this Court on 15/07/1997 that they had agreed to go to arbitration to settle their disputes and an adjournment was granted for one week to file the arbitration agreement. On 21/07/1997 the following order passed : "Pursuant to our order dated 15-7-1997, the contestants have filed an Arbitration Agreement whereby they have referred their disputes to the two named Arbitrators therein. Therefore, we grant leave and keep the matter pending till the arrival of the arbitration award. Let the Arbitrators be informed so that they enter upon the reference."
(3.) THE arbitration agreement stated, in clause 1, thus : "That the disputes and differences arising between the parties hereto in S. L. P. (Civil) No. 17106 of 1996 shall stand referred to the arbitration of Mr. Justice K. S. Tiwana and Mr. Justice G. R. Majithia, the retired Judges of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, who shall resolve and decide the aforesaid disputes between the parties." THE agreement required the two learned arbitrators to appoint an umpire before entering upon the reference and provided for the modalities thereof. Pursuant thereto, Mr. S. S. Dewan, a retired Chief Justice, was appointed the umpire. On 20/09/1997 the learned arbitrators, sitting with the learned umpire, entered upon the reference. The appellants filed a settlement of claim dated 27/09/1997 before the learned arbitrators. They contended that effluents such as fly ash emitted by the second respondent's plant and slurry converged to the appellants' land because of successive breaches of the bund and pond had caused havoc to the agricultural land, agricultural crops, mango orchards and fishery ponds and had destroyed the appellant's land. Details were stated. The estimated value of profits lost by the appellants were set out, aggregating to Rs. 4.2 lakhs for the years 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990 and 1991. The appellants submitted that by August, 1991 their land had become completely unfit for cultivation because of chemical pollutants which had seeped therein and fly ash had been deposited over the trees, etc.. "The value of the land thus totally diminished in so far as the land was completely destroyed. . . . . . . . . .The land being completely destroyed and having become worthless both for commercial and non-commercial use, the party No. 1 is claiming the entire value of the land estimated at (Rs.) 2 crores and 40 lakhs as damage of property being total loss in the year 1991." The appellants claimed interest "on the sum of entire loss or damages incurred ever since 1984 at the rate of 18 Per Cent up to August 1991" and "interest at the rate of 18 Per Cent per annum till the date of re-payment of the entire amount." The appellants quantified their claim at Rs. 5 crores 28 lakhs, including Rs. 2 crores 40 lakhs for "total loss suffered on account of the destruction of land making it worthless both for agricultural use ever since the year 1991".;