P L D 1953 Lahore 61 (PLP)

Mian Inayat Ullah for Appellant. S. A. Karim for Respondent No.

2. KAYANI, J.‑‑Nazeer Ahmad and Ibrahim are members of the Mirpur Co‑operative Society for the consolidation of holdings. In a proceeding between them, the managing committee of the Society decided that Nazeer Ahmad should have Khasra No. 230 and Ibrahim Khasra No.

52. Upon Ibrahim's objection, the general meaning of the Society gave Khasra No. 230 to Ibrahim and No. 52 to Nazeer Ahmad. Thereupon Nazeer Ahmad sub mitted an application for arbitration which was referred by the Assistant Registrar of Co‑operative Societies to Chaudhry Muhammad Hussain who gave an award in favour of Nazeer Ahmad. An appeal from the arbitrator's decision was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar. Nazeer Ahmad then applied to the Civil Court for execution of the award. It was objected that as the award created interest in property exceeding Rs. 103 in value, it should be registered. The objection was upheld by the executing Court and also by the Court of Appeal. Nazeer Ahmad has, therefore, come in second appeal. It is true that an award is compulsorily registerable under the Registration Act but learned counsel for the appellant has relied on section 17 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1936, which is as follows:‑ "

17. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, (a) no instrument in writing shall be necessary in order to give effect to a transfer involved in carry ing out any scheme of consolidation of holdings, and (b) no such instrument, if executed, shall require registration." It was argued for the respondent that the proceeding in the award was independent of the proceeding in consolidation, that reference to arbitration was made under the Co‑operative Societies Act, not under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and that as the award has resulted from arbitration, section 17 does not apply. It should be clear, however, that by section 1 (2) of the Consolida tion of Holdings Act the Act applies to all societies having as their object the consolidation of holdings and registered under the Co operative Societies Act, 1912. It should also be clear that when ever there is a dispute of any sort between two members of a Co‑operatvie society, there is no option but to refer the dispute to the arbitration of the Registrar under rule 18 of the rules made by the Government under section 43 of the Co‑operative Societies Act. A reference to arbitration in this case was, therefore, an essential part of the proceedings between the parties, in the event of a dispute. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the award records "a transfer involved in carrying out any scheme of consolidation of holdings". Undoubtedly what the managing committee and the general meeting did was a proceeding intended to carry out a scheme of consolidation of holdings. But for the Co‑operative Societies Act the Consolidation officer would have, in the event of failure to remove an objection, referred the scheme to the Collector under section 7 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Collector's decision would have been open to appeal to the Commissioner. The final decision whether of the Collector or of the Commissioner would again undoubtedly have been the record of a transfer involved in carrying out a scheme of consolidation, for it cannot be argued reasonably that what was a scheme before the Consolidation Officer ceased to be a scheme at the stage of appeal. The Co‑operative Societies Act has merely altered the forum by introducing arbitration. The proceeding is the same and it records a transfer in pursuance of a scheme of consolidation of holdings. I have no doubt that it is covered by section 17 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and that consequently it does not require registration. The appeal is accepted with costs. A.H. Appeal accepted.