JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. These four writ petitions have been preferred for assailing a common judgment-cum-award dated 21.09.2015 passed by the respondent. No. 1 National Arbitral Tribunal, Jasol House, Paota B Road, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) The petitioners herein are hapless litigants, who claim to have been embroiled in this totally unwarranted controversy and deprived of their proprietary rights owing to the high-handed and illegal action of the respondent No. 1 private Arbitration Tribunal. It may be stated herein that in all the writ petitions, serious allegations of mala fides, arbitrariness, fraud etc. have been levelled by the petitioners against the Tribunal, which has been impleaded as party respondent and through its Registrar as well. However, nobody has put in appearance on their behalf in these matters despite service of notice. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent No. 7 Smt. Kamla owned plots Nos. 135, 136, 137 and 138 in the Hari Om Nagar, Jhanwar Road, Jodhpur. Petitioner Mrs. Lilly Mishra purchased the plot No. 137 directly from the respondent No. 7 Kamla in the year 1994, while the other petitioners purchased the plots Nos. 135, 136 and 138 from other individuals, to whom Smt. Kamla had transferred the same through registered sale deeds; agreement to sale; power of attorney between the year 1992-1994. The petitioners claim to be holding the entire channel of documents for establishing their lawful ownership and rights on the plots in question. The sequence by which the plots in question were transferred is elaborated in the table below. S. No. Writ Petition No. and Name of the petitioner Plot No. Purchase details 1. 4200/2016 Mrs. Lilly Mishra 137 Purchased from Smt. Kamla on 15.04.1994 through registered sale deed. 2. 4201/2016 Mrs. Daya Kaur 138 Purchased from Mr. Abdul Rasheed, power of attorney holder of Mrs. Chanchal Kanwar, on 05.11.2003 through registered instrument. Mrs. Chanchal Kanwar had purchased the same from Smt. Kamla on 07.05.1993 through registered instrument. 3. 4202/2016 Deepak Gyanchandni 135 Purchased from Mrs. Meena Devi on 05.08.2005 through registered sale deed. Mrs. Meena had purchased the same from Smt. Kamla on 16.03.1992 through registered instrument. 4. 4203/2016 Lalu Ram Jangid 136 Purchased from Mrs. Tara (wife of the petitioner) on 25.11.2014 through registered sale deed. Mrs. Tara had purchased the same from Smt. Kamla on 07.05.1993 through agreement to sale and power of attorney. 3. Petitioners Mrs. Mrs. Meena had purchased the same from Smt. Kamla on 16.03.1992 through registered instrument. 4. 4203/2016 Lalu Ram Jangid 136 Purchased from Mrs. Tara (wife of the petitioner) on 25.11.2014 through registered sale deed. Mrs. Tara had purchased the same from Smt. Kamla on 07.05.1993 through agreement to sale and power of attorney. 3. Petitioners Mrs. Lilly Mishra and Mr. Lalu Ram Jangid claim to have constructed residential buildings on their respective plots bearing Nos. 137 and 136, where as plots of Mrs. Daya Kaur and Mr. Deepak Gyanchandani bearing Nos. 138 and 135 were lying vacant with gated boundary walls having lock and key. The petitioners claim that to their utter surprise and shock, the Registrar of the respondent No. 1 Tribunal assisted by a police team came to their respective properties on 02.04.2016 and while evicting them, took forcible possession of their houses and the plots in question under the garb of execution of the orders dated 21.09.2015/20.02.2016 passed by the National Arbitral Tribunal (R-1) on a joint application filed by Jitendra Kumar Gurbani, Mrs. Vanshika Gurbani, Gopal Agrawal and Chhagan Lal Prajapat (the respondents) seeking specific performance of an agreement allegedly executed inter se between them and one Mr. Chautha Ram Jod, being the power of attorney holder of Smt. Kamla. The said agreement to sale was allegedly executed between the respondents and Mr. Chautha Ram Jod on 04.10.2014, whereby the four plots (all alleged to be vacant) bearing Nos. 135, 136, 137 and 138 ad measuring 40 x 70 feet each were agreed to be sold to four persons named hereinabove (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent- applicants’) for a total consideration of Rs. 1 crore 45 lacs. As stipulated in the agreement, a sum of Rs. 1 crore 35 lacs was allegedly paid by the purchasers to the power of attorney holder Mr. Chautha Ram Jod on the very date of execution of the agreement. It was further stipulated in the agreement that the balance amount of Rs. 10 lacs would be payable on or before 15.10.2014 and on receiving the entire amount of Rs. 1 crore 45 lacs, Mr. Chautha Ram would get the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the respective purchaser. It is claimed that the purchasers offered the balance consideration of Rs. 10 lacs to Mr. 10 lacs would be payable on or before 15.10.2014 and on receiving the entire amount of Rs. 1 crore 45 lacs, Mr. Chautha Ram would get the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the respective purchaser. It is claimed that the purchasers offered the balance consideration of Rs. 10 lacs to Mr. Chautha Ram on 15.10.2014 and requested him to get the sale deeds registered, but he avoided to do so on one pretext or the other. Thereupon, acting in furtherance of the following stipulation made in the agreement dated 04.10.2014, the purchasers filed claim applications before the National Arbitral Tribunal seeking a direction for specific performance of contract: ^^;g gS fd bl cspku bdjkjukek ds lEcU/k esa ;fn dksbZ fookn mRiUu gksrk gS rks nksuksa i{kdkj vius fookn dks ^^vkjfcVªs'ku** ds tfj;s fuiVkjk djus gsrq ck/; o ikcUn jgsaxsA vkjfcVªs'ku dh izfØ;k ^^izkbZosV dksVZ vkWQ vkjfcVªs'ku** ¼baLVhV~;qV vkWQ ijekusaV vkjfcVªs'ku fVªC;wuy vUrxZr /kkjk 2¼,½ ,.M 2¼Mh½ vkjfcVªs'ku ,.M dUlhfy;s'ku] ,DV 1996 ds vUrxZr LFkkfir laLFkku gS] ftldk dk;kZy; LFky%& 4] tlksy gkml] ikoVk] ch jksM+ tks/kiqjA vkjfcVªsVj fu;qDr djus rFkk vkjfcVªs'ku dh izfØ;k ^^izkbZosV dksVZ vkWQ vkjfcVªsVj fVªC;wuy ds fu;eksa ds rgr dh tk;sxh rFkk vkjfcVªsVj }kjk tkjh vokMZ nksuksa i{kdkjksa ij ekU; o ck/;dkjh gksxkA^^ Smt. Kamla and Mr. Chautha Ram were impleaded as party respondents in the applications. 4. It is relevant to mention here that Smt. Kamla put in appearance before the Tribunal and filed an application through her advocate Mr. Raju Chaynan supported by her affidavit and prayed to take her reply on record. It was specifically averred by Mrs. Kamla that she had never sold the plots in question to the claimants through any agreement or through a power of attorney etc. At para No. 3 of the reply, it was specifically mentioned that she had sold these very plots by registered sale deeds executed long back and possession had also been given to the respective purchasers. It was further alleged in the reply that Chautha Ram had misled Smt. Kamla into putting her thumb impressions upon certain blank papers under the garb of procuring loan for her and taking undue advantage of the blank signed papers, he prepared her forged power of attorney, on the strength whereof, the fraudulent agreements were executed in favour of the respondent-applicants. After this application had been moved by Smt. Kamla, the respondent-claimants filed an application seeking summoning of the registered sale deeds and the scientific comparison of the thumb impressions/signatures of Smt. Kamla on these sale deeds branding them to be forged and fabricated. Strangely enough, soon after the application for permission to file reply had been filed on behalf of Smt. Kamla in the above terms, another application came to be submitted before the Tribunal under thumb impressions alleged to be appended by Smt. Kamla, in which it was averred that the Advocate Mr. Raju Chaynan, who submitted the earlier application/reply on her behalf, was a close acquaintance of one Mr. Bhera Ram, a person confidante of Smt. Kamla, and that as a matter of fact, Mr. Bhera Ram had fraudulently induced her into executing the earlier sale deeds for which she had never received any consideration and that she had been allegedly cheated in those transactions. Along with such application, a compromise deed allegedly bearing the thumb impressions of Smt. Kamla was presented to the Tribunal by Advocate Mr. S.K. Mathur on 17.09.2015, wherein Smt. Kamla purportedly agreed to execute the registered sale deeds in favour of the applicant-purchasers. In the said application, it was also prayed that the sale deeds allegedly executed in favour of the erstwhile purchasers should be got examined through the handwriting expert so as to test their veracity. 5. It is further relevant to mention here that the next date fixed in the claims was 30.09.2015, but after receiving the compromise application, the Tribunal, proceeded to prep one the date fixed by it from 30.09.2015 to 17.09.2015 and accepted the applications and issued a common award dated 21.09.2015, directing execution of the registered sale deeds in favour of the respective claimants by accepting the compromise. Soon after passing of the order dated 21.09.2015, the Tribunal suo moto proceeded for execution of its own award. The Registrar of the Tribunal took police aid under the garb of an alleged execution order purportedly passed on 20.02.2016; visited the properties in question on 02.04.2016; formally expelled the occupiers from their respective properties and affixed notices of possession thereupon. Soon after passing of the order dated 21.09.2015, the Tribunal suo moto proceeded for execution of its own award. The Registrar of the Tribunal took police aid under the garb of an alleged execution order purportedly passed on 20.02.2016; visited the properties in question on 02.04.2016; formally expelled the occupiers from their respective properties and affixed notices of possession thereupon. Being aggrieved by the said award issued by the National Arbitral Tribunal and their forcible eviction from their lawfully owned properties, the petitioners have approached this court through these writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal as well as all the applicants- claimants before the Tribunal; Smt. Kamla and the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur have been impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition. Notices have been served upon all. 6. Numerous grounds amongst others including illegality, arbitrariness, abuse of process of law, high-handed action, mala fides and fraud etc. have been alleged by the petitioners for assailing the impugned award as well as the subsequent action, whereby the Tribunal, totally ignoring the procedure provided in law for execution of the arbitral award, directed the police authorities to provide forces to execute its own award and the petitioners were attempted to be forcibly ousted from the properties over which they have been in possession on the basis of lawful title. 7. Mr. Om Mehta, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that the proceedings of the Tribunal are wrought and tainted with fraud, illegality, mala fides and arbitrariness. The petitioners had purchased the plots in question through registered sale deeds and neither Smt. Kamla nor her power of attorney holder had any authority or right to sell the same again. He further urged that fraud is writ large on the face of record in the proceedings of the Arbitration Tribunal. For satisfying the court on this issue, Mr. Mehta urged that it is inconceivable that having entered into an agreement for purchase of the four plots for a total consideration of Rs. 1 crore 45 lacs and having allegedly paid a lion's share of the total settled consideration i.e. Rs. 1 crore 35 lacs, the parties would not outright proceed for registered sale deeds and keep the sword hanging for a paltry proportion of Rs. 10 lacs as pending consideration with the duration for specific performance being just 11 days. 1 crore 45 lacs and having allegedly paid a lion's share of the total settled consideration i.e. Rs. 1 crore 35 lacs, the parties would not outright proceed for registered sale deeds and keep the sword hanging for a paltry proportion of Rs. 10 lacs as pending consideration with the duration for specific performance being just 11 days. He urged that the entire transaction was fraudulently designed in such a manner so as to involve the Tribunal, which is indulging in high handed activities time and again and is even advertising itself on social media and similar platforms so as to lure and trap innocent people in its illegal activities. He contended that the very inclusion of the condition in the agreement that in case the registered sale deeds were not executed by 15th October, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal would be invoked, clearly shows that the entire conspiratorial design was hatched at the instance of the National Arbitral Tribunal and more particularly its Registrar. He further submitted that no sooner, reply of Smt. Kamla was received apprising the Tribunal of the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, fairness and propriety demanded that the Tribunal should have given notices to the petitioners being the true owners, who had purchased the plots for valid consideration through registered sale deeds. He further questioned the approach of the Tribunal in preponing the date of hearing from 30.09.2015 to 17.09.2015 and accepting the so-called compromise, which was filed by a lawyer, without verifying that Smt. Kamla had, as a matter of fact, executed any such compromise or not. He contended that the verification of the compromise by calling the party in person is mandatorily required for ensuring a fair and lawful exercise and the compromise could not have been acted upon without verification as it was not presented by Smt. Kamla in person. He pointed out that Smt. Kamla has, as a matter of fact, challenged the Tribunal's award through an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed before the District Judge, Jodhpur and thus, as per him, the impugned award, apart from being arbitrary, perverse and high-handed was passed by a gross misuse of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Mr. Mr. Mehta further submitted that as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to execute its own award and execution, if any, had to be undertaken before the competent civil court by invoking the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, as per him, the Tribunal exceeded all limits and cannons of rationality and reasonableness and suo moto not only directed the execution of its own award, but even went beyond the scope of the award and mandated the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur to provide force for taking possession of the premises in question and handing the same over to the claimants. He submitted that this high-handed action of the Tribunal reflects sheer hooliganism and thus, this court, in addition to striking down the impugned award, should issue a writ for restraining the very functioning of the Tribunal so as to prevent innocent persons from falling into the trap of its illegal activities. He further submitted that the concerned police authorities should be hauled up and their acts should be deprecated for conniving in the illegal activities of the Tribunal and for dispossessing innocent citizens from their lawfully owned properties and for infringing upon their fundamental rights. On these grounds, Mr. Mehta urged that the writ petitions deserve to be accepted and the impugned award be set aside with heavy cost upon all the wrongdoers including the Tribunal and its Registrar. 8. As stated above, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the Tribunal or its Registrar despite service of notice of these writ petitions. 9. Mr. Harish Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents (applicants before the Tribunal), has filed detailed reply in all the writ petitions for defending the impugned award and the follow up action. However, the following pertinent assertions made in the writ petitions have not been disputed or denied in the replies filed on behalf of the private respondents:— (1) Through the application filed by Smt. Kamla on 16.05.2015, the Tribunal was apprised of the registered sale deeds executed by her for the plots Nos. 135, 136, 137 and 138. However, the following pertinent assertions made in the writ petitions have not been disputed or denied in the replies filed on behalf of the private respondents:— (1) Through the application filed by Smt. Kamla on 16.05.2015, the Tribunal was apprised of the registered sale deeds executed by her for the plots Nos. 135, 136, 137 and 138. (2) That the respondents applicants themselves moved an application for summoning these registered sale deeds before the Tribunal; (3) That the application filed on behalf of Smt. Kamla for changing her advocate and the so called compromise were never presented by her nor was the compromise verified by the Tribunal by summoning Smt. Kamla in person; (4) The Tribunal preponed the date fixed by it from 30.09.2015 to 17.09.2015; (5) That the Tribunal took note of the fact that the plots had been sold earlier to other parties, but still it did not issue show cause notice or hear those parties (the petitioners herein) by conjecturaly observing and without any foundation that the registered sale deeds did not bear thumb impressions of Smt. Kamla; (6) That the execution of an arbitral award lies exclusively within the domain of a civil court and the Tribunal has no powers to embark upon such an exercise; (7) That neither was any prayer made in the claims that possession should be provided to the applicants, nor was any such direction given in the impugned award dated 21.09.2015. (8) In the agreement dated 04.10.2014, allegedly executed by Chautha Ram in favour of the claimants, the purported sale was made for all four plots by showing them to be vacant. However, when the Registrar of the Tribunal went to execute the award, houses constructed long back were existing on the plot Nos. 136 and 137 and the Registrar affixed the possession notice on the boundary walls of these houses. [The petitioners have specifically alleged that the respondent claimants are also residing in the very same area and thus, it is inconceivable that they would not be knowing that the plots were owned by someone else, more so when houses exist since long on two plots bearing Nos. 136 and 137.] 10. The basic and fervent thrust of arguments of Mr. 136 and 137.] 10. The basic and fervent thrust of arguments of Mr. Harish Purohit for supporting the impugned award and for seeking dismissal of the writ petitions was that Smt. Kamla has filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the District Judge, Jodhpur and if this court decides the writ petitions on merits at this stage, and interferes in the impugned award, it would amount to pre-empting those proceedings. He raised a fervent objection regarding maintainability of these writ petitions urging that the petitioners, if they so desire have available to them the remedy of approaching the District Judge by filing applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for challenging the impugned award. However, he could not dispute the fact that despite being apprised of the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners (through the application and reply filed by Smt. Kamla), the Tribunal did not care to summon the purchasers (the petitioners) and while evading this significant aspect in an absolutely cavalier manner, the Tribunal went on to discard the unquestionable worth of the registered sale deeds by making a fanciful and conjectural observation that the finger print expert's report indicated that the documents did not bear the thumb impressions of Smt. Kamla. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are reproduced here under:— “2. The claimants seeks award for specific performance against respondents to get the sale deed registered in their favour in terms of agreement to sale dated 04.10.2014. The detailed reply to the claim petition has been filed by both the respondents. There was some confusion between the parties wherein it was alleged that the subject plots have been sold to other parties earlier. This has been denied by first respondent, Kamla. The report of the handwriting expert has also been placed on record. AS per the report of the handwriting expert, the alleged documents does not bear the thumb impression of Kamla.” 11. It may be noted here that the so called expert report was not issued by a Government Handwriting Expert but was that of a private person named Bhanwarlal Swami claiming himself to be a handwriting expert and thus no sanctity could have been attached to such report. 12. It may be noted here that the so called expert report was not issued by a Government Handwriting Expert but was that of a private person named Bhanwarlal Swami claiming himself to be a handwriting expert and thus no sanctity could have been attached to such report. 12. Suffice it to say that approach of the Tribunal, apart from being absolutely illegal, high-handed, is also perverse, capricious and arbitrary on the face of the record. As these totally conjectural capricious findings were recorded without hearing the affected parties, i.e. the petitioners herein, the impugned action also suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice. Without summoning the documents on record; without perusing the same and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the registered owners (i.e. the petitioner herein), the Tribunal, acting in pre-determined manner, proceeded on its whims and caprices by preponing the date and accepted the alleged compromise without verifying whether it was actually presented by Smt. Kamla and even went on to the extent of castigating and trashing the registered sale deeds in a baseless and atrocious fashion holding without any basis that the same did not bear the thumb impressions of Smt. Kamla. Manifestly, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain any challenge to the registered sale deeds while exercising powers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Such a challenge could only have been brought by the person aggrieved by filing a civil suit within the prescribed period of limitation. However, the Tribunal embarked upon an absolutely perverted and highhanded exercise and annulled the registered sale deeds in an absolutely cavalier manner. 13. The facts noticed above, viz. the reply of Smt. Kamla admitting the transfer of the plots in question by way of registered sale deeds/power of attorney executed more than twenty years ago; failure of the tribunal to summon either the registered sale deeds; or the registered owners despite being apprised of these facts; preponement of the date fixed in the proceedings without any cause or justification; acceptance of the compromise application without verifying whether it was actually presented by Smt. Kamla or not, are such glaring circumstances which give rise to a strong suspicion on the very bona fides of the Tribunal's actions. Considered in the backdrop of the contents of the agreement dated 04.10.2014 wherein, the Tribunal's jurisdiction was involved in anticipation, a strong suspicion arises that the entire conspiracy might have been hatched and designed at the instance of the Tribunal. Since the petitioners were never made party in the proceedings before the Tribunal and were not heard in the matter, manifestly, the bogey of maintainability of these writ petitions raised by Mr. Purohit can in no manner come in their way for challenging the absolutely arbitrary, perverse, high handed and fraudulent award passed by the Tribunal in gross abhorrence of the principles of natural justice. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal indulged in virtual hooliganism and fraud while deciding the matters and in getting its perverse award executed even beyond its scope and area of operation. As is evident, the claim applications were filed by the claimants before the Tribunal with a limited prayer for specific performance of the agreement; meaning thereby that the highest relief, which the Tribunal could entertain and grant, was to direct that the sale deeds be registered. As is evident, the claim applications were filed by the claimants before the Tribunal with a limited prayer for specific performance of the agreement; meaning thereby that the highest relief, which the Tribunal could entertain and grant, was to direct that the sale deeds be registered. The prayer clause of the claim application and the compromise allegedly submitted by Smt. Kamla are reproduced herein below for ready reference:— “Prayer clause of the claim application : vr% izkFkhZx.k viuk ;g Dyse fuEu izdkj izLrqr dj vf/kdj.k ls fuosnu djrs gSa fd mudk Dyse Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa vokMZ bl vk'k; dk ikfjr dj vizkFkhZx.k dks ;g vkns'k fn;k tkosa fd os izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr bdjkjukek fnukad 04@10@2014 dh vius ikVZ ij ijQksjesUl dj izkFkhZx.k ls izfrQy dh cdk;k jkf'k :i;s 10]00]000@& v[kjs nl yk[k ek= gkfly dj vius vkoklh; Hkw[k.M la[;k 135] 136] 137 ,oa 138 tks xzke lawFkyk rglhy o ftyk tks/kiqj ds [kljk uacj 172@129] 173@130 ds CykWd la[;k 16 esa gfjvksme uxj ;kstuk esa vk;s gq, fLFkr gSa] ftudk izR;sd dk uki 40 xq.kk 70 QqV gSa ftudk dqy {ks=Qy 1244-44 oxZxt gSa dk foØ;i= izkFkhZx.k vFkok muds funsZf'kr O;fDr ds i{k esa la;qDr vFkok vyx vyx fu"ikfnr dj iathc) djokosa] vizkFkhZx.k }kjk ,slk ugha fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa vf/kdj.k viuh 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx vf/kdj.k vius dkfjUnksa ds ek/;e ls cspkuukek fu"ikfnr dj iathc) djokosaA vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa gks] d`ikdj ikfjr Qjek;k tkosaA fd okn O;; izkFkhZx.k dks vizkFkhZx.k ls fnyk;k tkosaA** Compromise : ^^jkthukek Jheku~ th] bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZx.k ,oa vizkFkhZx.k ds e/; jkthukek fuEu izdkj is'k gSa %& ¼1½ ;g fd iwoZ esa IykWV uacj 135 ls 138 [kljk la[;k 172@129 ,oa 173@130 gfjvksme uxj ;kstuk] lwaFkyk tks/kiqj dh tks rFkkdfFkr cspku jftLVªh;ka vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ls fu"ikfnr djuk crkbZ xbZ gSa mu nLrkostkr~ ij vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds vaxwBk fu'kku vafdr ugha gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us os jftLVªh;ka ugha djok;h gSaA fdlh nwljs us vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds QthZ vaxwBs dj nLrkostkr~ fu"ikfnr djok;s gSa tks esjs vaxwBk fu'kku ls esy ugha [kkrs gSaA bl vk'k; dh tkap vaxqBk fu'kkuh fo'ks"kK Jh Hkaojyky Lokeh y{eh uxj] tks/kiqj ls djokbZ xbZ gSa ftUgksaus tkap dj rFkkdfFkr cspkuukeksa ij esjs vaxwBk ugha gksus dh iqf"V dh gSa tks tkap fjiksVZ bl jkthukek ds lkFk is'k gSaA ¼2½ ;g fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dh vksj ls vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds vke eq[R;kj vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 us gh bdjkjukek cspku fu”ikfnr fd;k Fkk ijUrq fj'rs esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds cguksbZ HkSjkjke us mls bl ckr dk Hk; fn[kk j[kk Fkk fd vc vxj vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa cspkuukesa fu"ikfnr djok;saxh rks mlls mlds fo:) nkafMd dk;Zokfg;ka gksxh vkSj mls tsy tkuk iMs+xkA bl ckr ls Hk;Hkhr gksdj vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa jftLVªh;ka djokus esa vkukdkuh dh FkhA ¼4½ ;g fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us izkFkhZx.k ls Hkw[k.M la[;k 135 ls 138 dh izfrQy dh jkf'k :i;s 1]35]00]000@& v[kjs ,d djksM+ iSarhl yk[k iwoZ esa gkfly dj yh Fkh vkSj cdk;k izfrQy dh jkf'k :i;s 10]00]000@& v[kjs :i;s nl yk[k ek= vkt vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us izkFkhZx.k us gkfly dj leLr fooknksa dks lekIr djrs gq, izkFkhZx.k ls jkthukek dj fy;k gSa ftlds vuqlkj vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 vkt ls 03 fnu ds Hkhrj Hkhrj izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa fookfnr Hkw[k.M 135 ls 138 ds cspkuukesa fu"ikfnr dj iath;u djokus dks rS;kj gWwA ¼5½ ;g fd lkFk gh vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ekuuh; vf/kdj.k ls mDr gS.MjkbZfVax ,DliVZ dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ekeys esa xq.k voxq.k ij U;k;ksfpr fu.kZ; ikfjr djus dk vkxzg djrs gSa ftlls fd mlds fo:) Hkw[k.M la[;k 135 ls 138 ds rFkkdfFkr nLrkostkr esa mYysf[kr [kjhnnkjksa o vU; fgrc) O;fDr;ksa }kjk dksbZ nkafMd dk;Zokgh ugha dh tkosaA vr% jkthukek izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd bl izdj.k dk ekfQd jkthukek fuLrkj.k dj le>kSrk vokMZ tkjh fd;k tkosaA** 14. While passing the impugned award dated 21.09.2015, the Tribunal verified the compromise deed, which stipulated that the seller would get the registered sale deed executed in favour of the purchasers within three days. The operative part of the impugned award is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference :— “During arbitral proceedings, parties have settled the dispute and placed on record a composition in writing duly signed by both the parties and identified by their Advocates. I am satisfied that claim has been adjusted wholly between the parties by a lawful compromise. On the request of the parties, I record the compromise in the form of arbitral award on agreed terms, as follows : (i) izLrqr jkthukek ds vuqlkj vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us fookfnr Hkw[k.M la[;k 135 ls 138 dh izfrQy dh jkf'k :i;s 1]35]00]000@& v[kjs ,d djksM+ iSarhl yk[k ek= iwoZ esa gkfly djuk Lohdkj dj cdk;k izfrQy dh jkf'k :i;s 10]00]000@& v[kjs :i;s nl yk[k ek= vkt gkfly dj leLr fooknksa dks lekIr djrs gq, vkt ls 03 fnu ds Hkhrj Hkhrj izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa fookfnr Hkw[k.M la[;k 135 ls 138 ds cspkuuk esa fu"ikfnr dj iath;u djokus dks rS;kj gSaA (ii) The detail award is in terms of order dated 17-09- 2015. (iii) There shall be no order as to cost.” 15. In this background and as the law prohibits such a course of action, here was no occasion for the Tribunal to have embarked upon the grossly illegal and high-handed exercise of securing possession for the purchasers under the garb of execution of its virtually fraudulent award. From a bare reading of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it is manifest that an arbitral award can only be enforeced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court. Meaning thereby, for seeking enforcement/execution of an arbitral award, the claimants would have to file execution proceedings in the competent civil court. The petitioners’ counsel contended that his clients could not lay hands on the order allegedly passed by the Tribunal on 20.02.2016, under effect whereof, the Registrar took aid of the local police officers and dispossessed the petitioners. Meaning thereby, for seeking enforcement/execution of an arbitral award, the claimants would have to file execution proceedings in the competent civil court. The petitioners’ counsel contended that his clients could not lay hands on the order allegedly passed by the Tribunal on 20.02.2016, under effect whereof, the Registrar took aid of the local police officers and dispossessed the petitioners. The very existence of any such order comes under a serious cloud of doubt because neither the respondent purchasers nor the State police authorities have placed the same on record with their replies. Be that as it may. The notice of taking possession which was affixed by the Registrar on the properties in question has been annexed with the writ petitions and its language reads thus :— ^^lwpuk loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd us'kuy vkjfcVªy fVªC;wuy] tks/kiqj izdj.k la[;k NAT/AP/2015/25 cvuoku ftrsUnz o vU; cuke Jh efr deyk esa lksy vkjfcVªsVj ekuuh; tfLVl Jh ,u-,u- ekFkqj ¼lsokfuo`r½ }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-2-2016 dh ikyuk esa ;g Hkw[k.M la[;k 137 gfj vkse uxj ;kstuk dk HkkSfrd o okLrfod dCtk jftLVªkj us'kuy vkjfcVªy fVªC;quy] tks/kiqj ds vkf/kiR; esa gSA bl Hkw[k.M esa vukf/kd`r izos'k djus ij fu;ekuqlkj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA 2-4-2016 jftLVªkj us'kuy vkjfcVªy fVªC;quy] tks/kiqj** 16. Thus, it is manifest on the face of the record that not only did the Tribunal exceed all limits of legality and reasonableness and good conscience while passing the impugned award, but it did not stop there after; by way of a totally illegal follow up, it directed its Registrar to get the sale deeds registered and also managed involvement of the police officers to ensure ouster of the true owners from their lawfully owned properties in a draconian and fraudulent manner. This approach of the Tribunal deserves to be deprecated to the hilt. 17. In view of the discussion made here-in-above, it is manifest that the impugned award, apart from being illegal, arbitrary, perverse and fraudulent, also suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice so far as the petitioners are concerned and thus, the same can not be sustained. 18. 17. In view of the discussion made here-in-above, it is manifest that the impugned award, apart from being illegal, arbitrary, perverse and fraudulent, also suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice so far as the petitioners are concerned and thus, the same can not be sustained. 18. This court is of the firm opinion that action of the Tribunal, its Registrar and the Police authorities acting in cahoots with the alleged purchaser claimants in managing ouster of the petitioners from their lawfully owned properties by transgressing the scope of the patently illegal award amounts to criminal trespass, house breaking in conspiracy with each other and thus, heavy cost has to be imposed upon all the respondents by way of deterrence and in order to provide solace to the highly wronged and harassed petitioners, who had to face this uncalled for litigation. 19. As a consequence, the writ petitions deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment-cum-award dated 21.09.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1 National Arbitral Tribunal and all subsequent actions taken in furtherance thereof are hereby quashed and struck down. 20. The conduct of the concerned police authorities in abetting and aiding in execution of the fraudulent award and expulsion of lawful owners from their residential premises/plots is deprecated. 21. A cost of Rs. 1 lac each is imposed on (1) respondent No. 2 the Registrar, National Arbitratal Tribunal, Jodhpur (2) respondent No. 1 National Arbitral Tribunal, Jodhpur (3) respondent No. 3 Jitendra Kumar S/o Mr. Nanak Ram Gurbani, (4) respondent No. 4 Mrs. Vanshika W/o Mr. Jitendra Kumar Gurbani, (5) respondent No. 5 Gopal Agrawal S/o Mr. Ram Niwas Agrawal, (6) respondent No. 6 Chhagan Lal S/o Mr. Chathura Ram Prajapat and (7) respondent No. 8 Chautha Ram S/o Mr. Shyam Lal Jod and a cost of Rs. 3 lacs is imposed on the State of Rajasthan, Department of Home Affairs for failing in its duty to protect the rights of innocent citizens. The State Government shall be free to recover the amount of cost from its erring officials. Cost, upon being realized shall be disbursed amongst the petitioners in equal proportions. The stay applications are also disposed of.