ORDER : 1. The instant application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed seeking a direction for appointment of sole Arbitrator for resolution of dispute in view of arbitration clause as contained under Clause 55 of the Development Agreement dated 23.03.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made on behalf of the petitioner-applicant, reads as under: The petitioner is one of the reputed company to develop residential and commercial complexes in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. Sometime in the year 2007, the respondents visited the office of petitioner and showed their willingness to enter into a development agreement for construction of commercial-cum-residential building on conversion basis on their land, admeasuring more or less 23 kathas situated at Mouza Barhgain. The respondents stated that their land is free from all encumbrances, believing the same, the petitioner entered into an Development Agreement on 23.03.2007, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner agreed to construct a residential complex on the land owned by the respondents and the share of land owners/respondents was agreed to be 38.5% whereas the share of developer/petitioner was decided to be 61.5% of the Super Build Up Area. Accordingly, on 23.03.2007 a registered power of attorney was executed by the landowner/respondents in favour of petitioner-company. On the representation of the landowners/respondents and believing the assurance of the respondents that the land was marketable and free from all encumbrances, the petitioner submitted an application before the RRDA, the sanctioning authority of the building map, and deposited requisite fee. On receipt of the application, the RRDA demanded current rent receipt of the land for sanctioning the map. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner demanded a copy of current rent receipt who on the one pretext or other did not provide it. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Circle Officer where it was informed that there was a dispute over the land and some case is pending against the land. Despite several requests made by the petitioner, the landowner/respondents did not provide the details of the dispute or case detail. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request to Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau to provide investigation report to the Circle Officer, Sadar so that the rent receipt may be issued by him. Despite several requests made by the petitioner, the landowner/respondents did not provide the details of the dispute or case detail. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request to Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau to provide investigation report to the Circle Officer, Sadar so that the rent receipt may be issued by him. Thereafter, the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act for verification report of the said plot, which was replied by Anti-Corruption Bureau vide letter dated 22.04.2013 stating that one case is pending against the said plot. Thereafter, the petitioner filed one writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5199 of 2013 with a prayer to direct the Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi to issue rent receipt which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.01.2017. However, due to continuous and persistent efforts of the petitioner, current rent receipt was issued in the name of land owner on 02.11.2018. Since 2015, it has become mandatory in the State of Jharkhand for a development agreement to be registered, therefore, the petitioner requested the landowners/respondents to execute a registered development agreement, as mandated by law to proceed as per development agreement of the year 2007 but it is contended that instead of executing the agreement the respondents started to blackmail the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner wrote letter to the respondents for providing peaceful possession of the plot in question and for execution of registered Development Agreement but the respondents failed to do so and cancelled the development agreement so entered into in the year 2007 without informing the petitioner. Further, on 10.02.2020 the respondent without informing the petitioner refunded part payment amounting to Rs. 17,50,000/- through RTGS without any information. On 16.02.2020, the petitioner received reply of the respondent dated 12.02.2020 wherein it has been disclosed that they have revoked the development agreement dated 23.03.2007. However, on 17.03.2020, the Chairman of the petitioner company visited Ranchi and entered into an agreement with respondents, wherein the respondents have agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 61,00,000/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs), out of which 17.5 lakh was paid earlier by RTGS. But the respondents failed to honor agreement dated 17.03.2020. However, on 17.03.2020, the Chairman of the petitioner company visited Ranchi and entered into an agreement with respondents, wherein the respondents have agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 61,00,000/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs), out of which 17.5 lakh was paid earlier by RTGS. But the respondents failed to honor agreement dated 17.03.2020. It is further case of the petitioner even the agreement dated 17.03.2020 is non-est in the eye of law as only one of the landowners is a signatory to it and the fact that the terms of the agreement is totally lopsided and was signed under duress. It is the further case of the petitioner/applicant that efforts to amicable settlement of dispute between the parties failed as such the petitioner invoked arbitration clause of the Development Agreement but the respondent failed to act in terms of the Development Agreement and as such the petitioner has approached this Court for appointment of independent arbitrator. 3. No objection has been raised on behalf of respondent in allowing this application. However, he seeks leave of this Court to take all the points before the sole arbitrator. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record, more particularly, Arbitration Clause 56, which reads as under: “55.That in case of dispute and differences arising out, relating to this development agreement, the same shall be settled by reference for the dispute of difference to the arbitrator appointed by both the parties under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 as amended from time to time.” 5. The petitioner/applicant, made request for appointment of arbitrator in a situation where the dispute has arisen but the admitted position is that no arbitrator has been appointed even after such request having been made, therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the power conferred to this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is required to be exercised for appointment of Arbitrator, considering Clause 55 of the contract. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised no objection regarding appointment of arbitrator, rather, it has been submitted on behalf of respondent that arbitrator may be appointed so that the dispute may be resolved finally. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have suggested the name of Hon’ble Mr. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised no objection regarding appointment of arbitrator, rather, it has been submitted on behalf of respondent that arbitrator may be appointed so that the dispute may be resolved finally. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have suggested the name of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitav Kumar Gupta (Retd.), High Court of Jharkhand to act as an Arbitrator. 8. Accordingly, this Arbitration Application is being disposed of by appointing Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitav Kumar Gupta (Retd.), High Court of Jharkhand, residing at 304-Solitaire Apartment, Behind Bachpan Play School, Chandni Chowk, Kanke Road, Ranchi, as Arbitrator for resolution of dispute. 9. Needless to say that the parties will be at liberty to raise all the legal issues for its consideration by the learned Arbitrator, in accordance with law. 10. Learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of the entire records of this case along with entire order sheet with this order to the learned Arbitrator forthwith. 11. The instant arbitration application is allowed and accordingly, disposed of. 12. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.