RAJINDER KRISHAN KHANNA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 12-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAJINDER KRISHAN KHANNA AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 1998 
[S. P. BHARUCHA AND V. N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Sections 16, 31(7) (a) and 
34(2) (iv). 
C 
Arbitration-Writ filed by appellants against respondent-Allegation 
that due to effluent disposal arrangement of respondent's plant damage was 
caused to land crops and property of appellants-Relief sought for-Damages 
for the destruction of residential houses, crops and mango gardens-Direction 
also sought to reclaim the land that had been rendered unfit for cultivation-
D No claim made for damages for the alleged loss of the potential of the /and--
Dismissal of writ petition by High Court-Dismissal order upheld by Division 
Bench of High Court-Special leave preferred before Supreme Court-Dispute 
between the parties referred for arbitration-Statement of claim filed by 
appellants before Arbitrator-Respondents' objection that claim made in the 
statement was beyond the scope of writ petition and thus beyond scope of 
E arbitration-Award made by Arbitrators-Alternate relief of compensation 
for land granted by Arbitrator~-Award of sum for loss of potential of land-
Objections by respondent to make the award a rule of Court-What was 
referred to arbitration was the dispute in the writ petition-Granting 
compensation for the alleged lost potential of the land was not permissible-
F It was not moulding the relief that was sought-It falls outside the scope of 
the reference lo arbitration and is not in relation to a contemplated dispute-
Jn the circumstances, the respondent cannot be said to have acquiesced in 
the determination of damages for the alleged loss of potential of the appellants' 
land. 
G 
State of Orissa v. B. N. Agarwal/a, (1997) 2 SCC 469, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5203 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.2.96 of the Punjab and Haryana 
H High Court in L.P. A. No. 68of1996. 
302 
R.K. KHANNA v. U.0.1. 
303 
D.D. Thakur, A.V. Palli, Atul Sharma and Ms. Rekha Palli for the A 
Appellants. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, N.N. Goswamy, G. Joshi, S. Bawmik, G. Kandpal, Devika 
Bezboruah, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Y.P. Dhamija and P. Parmeshwaran for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by 
B 
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 C 
of Panipat. The second respondent, the National Fertilizer 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 D 
damaged the writ petitioners' 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. fht: writ petition, therefore, prayed for a E 
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. I and 3 
may be directed to take steps for civil and criminal (action) against the F 
respondent No.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. 
G 
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 15th H 
304 
SUPREME COURT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.