A.K.MATHUR,J. - (1.) PETITIONER by this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order passed by the respondents Ex.16 dated 26th May, 1981 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to handover the possession of remaining lan i.e. 5,250 Section mtrs to petitioner allotted by the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER firm was allotted a land measuring 9250 sq. mtrs. in Basni Industrial Area, II Phase, Jodhpur consisting of plots E -215, F -270 and 271 by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Co -operation Ltd. (here inafter referred to as 'RICCO') by lease deed dated 27th September, 1978. At the time of allotment petitioner was not given the possession of the land and there were some occupants over a portion of this land. Petitioner therefore, requested the respondents for puttying in possession but possession was not given. Petitioner by various communications dated 5th June 1979, 6th June, 1979, 8th September, 1979 and 13th September, 1979 repeatedly requested the respondents for handing over the possession. Meanwhile, petitioner in terms of the lease deed deposited the money and development charges. On 3rd March, 1980 petitioner Received a letter to show cause why his lease deed should not be cancelled. Petitioner filed a reply thereof but reply was not at all considered and on 29th March, 1980 the allotment of the aforesaid land was cancelled and amount which was deposited was forfeited. Thereafter petitioner submitted a letter on 14th April, 1980 requesting for setting aside the cancellation order, thereupon the cancellation order was withdrawn by the order dated 5th May, 1980. It is submitted that inspite of several letters, the petitioner was not put in possession instead petitioner again received a letter dated 27th May, 1980 by which petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 26,462.43. Petitioner, thereupon, deposited Rs. 14,250/ - under protest. Then petitioner again submitted representation in which he requested for putting in possession of the land. Thereafter, petitioner did not receive any reply and again on 27th March, 1981 petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 12,212.43. Petitioner sent a letter in which he requested that the petitioner has not been put in possession of the land. Then petitioner was again asked to attend personally for discussions. The petitioner thereupon attended and insisted upon giving possession of the whole land allotted. Thereafter, the petitioner by the communication dated 26th May, 1981 was informed that his allotment is reduced to only 4000 sq. mtr of land and rest of the allotment of land stand cancelled (coy placed on record as Ex 16). Aggrieved against this order, petitioner filed the writ petition. A reply has been filed by the respondents and respondents have contested the matter and submitted that the petitioner has not completed the construction as required by the Clause 2(d) which required that the petitioner shall commence the construction within 6 months and start production within 24 months. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has not completed the construction, therefore, various notices were given and it is also pointed out that as per the Clause 3(h) there is an arbitration clause and petitioner should be asked to resort to this arbitration clause before entertaining this writ petition. Clause 3(h) of the arbitration reads as under: (h) Every dispute, difference or questions, touching or arising out or in respect of this deed or the subject matter thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Collector of the district wherein the leased plot is situated or any person appointed by him, the decision of such arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. Therefore, it is submitted that the matter should be disposed of on this preliminary objection that since petitioner has a remedy of arbitration as per the lease deed executed which is placed on record as Ex.2/1 by the respondents, therefore, petitioner should be asked to exhaust the remedy as per the lease deed instead of deciding the matter by this Court. I think the objection of respondents deserves to be accepted. As there is an arbitration clause in the lease deed and as per that arbitration clause petitioner should first resort to the arbitration instead of approaching this Court. Therefore, it is in fitness of things that the matter is referred back to the respondents to refer the matter to the arbitration because the petitioner has seriously disputed that the Annexure 16 issued by them reducing the area of the petitioner form 9,250 sq. mtrs to 4,000 sq mtrs. whether reduction of area is right or wrong.
(3.) THUS , it is directed that the respondent No. l RIICO, Jodhpur shall refer the matter to the Collector for arbitration in terms of the Clause 3(h) of the lease deed.;