P L D﷓1961 (W (PLP)

A Co‑operative Consolidation Society was formed in village Bua, Tahsil Shakargarh. In the consolidation proceedings khasra numbers 18, 19 and 20 were allotted to Alst. Imam Bibi and others who are appellants before this Court while khasra numbers 90 and 91 were allotted to the respondents. The appellants were not satisfied with this allotment. Consequently they filed an application befope the Registrar Co‑operative Societies challenging the allotment. The Registrar appointed Khan Muhammad Ayub Khan, President Consolidation Society of Sultanpur as a sole arbitrator, who gave an award whereby he reversed the allotment made by the Society and ordered that khasra numbers 90 and 91 be given to the appellants. The appellants filed an application t‑ for t;:wcution of the award in the Court of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Sheikhupura. The respondents took various objecti:,ris and the learned Civil Judge framed the following issues ~‑ (t) Whether the award is not binding on the judgment‑debtor in view of the objections raised in para. 3 of their statement? (2) Relief.

2. The learned Civil Judge held the award to be valid and dismissed 'the objections by his order dated the 21st of October 1958. On appeal the tearned Senior Civil Judge upheld the objec tions and accepted the appeal. This is a second execution appeal againgst this order of the Senior Civil Judge.

3. The learned Senior Civil Judge held that as a person aggrieved by an order of the Consolidation Officer has a right of appeal to the Collector under section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act with a further remedy of a second appeal to the Commissioner, the proceedings before the Arbitrator in pursuance of rule 18 of the Co‑operative Society (Rules), Act It of 1912 were invalid. The very basis of this finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge is wrong. The consolidation had never been done by a Consolidation Officer under the Punjab ConsoltdationA of Holdings Act. It was done in accordance with the rules framed] under the Co‑operative Societies Act. It seems that section I‑A of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act (IV of 1936) was not brought to the notice of the Senior Civil Judge. Section 1‑A reads as follows:‑ "In relation to any society having as its object the consolida tion of holdings, and registered or deemed to be registered . under the Co‑operative Societies Act 1912, nothing contained in this Act shall affect the validity or enforceability of ‑ (a) the acts or proceedings of any society as aforesaid, or of its managing committee or servants ; (b) any decision of any society as aforesaid approving by a two‑third majority of its whole membership, a scheme for the re‑arrangement of the holdings of all or any members of such society ; or (c) the acts, proceedings and awards done, taken or made by the Registrar acting as arbitrator or by a person appointed by the Registrar, in accordance with the bye‑laws of such society and the rules made by the Provincial Government under the Co‑operative Societies Act. 1912, to act as arbitrator in respect of any dispute arising out of or relating to any scheme of re arrangement as aforesaid ; but all such acts, proceedings decisions and awards shall have such effect in relation to the holdings which have been re‑arranged hereby, as is provided by the aforesaid bye‑laws and rules." It is clear from the above section that if a society formed under the Co‑operative Societies Act takes upon itself the work of the g consolidation of holdings, its actions will be governed by the bye‑laws of the society and rules framed under section 43 o the Co‑operative Societies Act. Section 43 of the Co‑operative Societies Act gives power to the Provincial Government to framE rules and in pursuance of that power the Government framed the rules known as Co‑operative Societies (Rules), Act II of 19 1

2. Rules 18 (a) and (h) provide :‑ "Any dispute concerning the business of a co‑operative society between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through them, or between a member or past member or persons so claiming and the committee or any officer shall be referred to the Registrar Reference may be made by the committee or by the society by resolution in general meeting or by any party to the dispute; or if the dispute concerns a sum due from a member of the committee to the society, by any member of the society. . (b) The Ragistrar may either decide the dispute himself, or appoint an arbitrator or refer the dispute to three arbitrators, of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties and the third shall be nominated by the Registrar and shall act as Chairman." Rule 18 (j ) provides that in case the Registrar does act ‑as an arbitrator the award given by him shall not be called into question in civil or revenue Court.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has shown me the bye‑laws of the Co‑operative Consolidation of Holdings Society. By‑laws 30 of that Society also provides that if there is any dispute co cerning the bye‑laws or the business of the society between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through them or between a member or past member or person so claiming and the committee or any officer it shall be referred to the Registrar as provided in the rules notified by the Local Government. .5. The consolidation proceedings in the present case were taken by a Co‑operative Society unaer the rules framed under the Co‑operative Societies Act and the only remedy available to an aggrieved person against the allotment made by the society was to apply to the Registrar who could either himself act as an arbitrator or appoint any other person as an arbitrator. In case some other person was appointed as an arbitrator the aggrieved party had a right of appeal against the order to the Registrar and the order of the Registrar was to be the final adjudication of the dispute. The learned counsel for the respondent frankly conceded that the learned Senior Civil Judge was wrong in holding that the consolidation of holdings had taken place under the Consolidation of Holding Act, but he contended very vehemently that since the work of the consolidation had been completed, there was no dispute between the parties and, therefore, no reference could have been made to the Registrar. But the learned counsel is unable to cite any law or authority in support of his argument. The right to apply to the Registrar against an order of a society has been given by the Co‑operative Societies Act and the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the aggrieved party, who were the appellants in the present case, had a right to apply to the Registrar and the Registrar acted within his powers in appointing Muhammad Ayub Khan, a President of the Consolida tion Society of another village to act as a sole arbitrator. His award was executable through a Civil Court unless it was set aside by an appeal before the Registrar. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent,that no appeal challenging this award was filed b,fora the Regi:tr.tr. C >nse4uently the award was validly given and the objections filed by the respondent. before the execution Court were correctly overruled by .the first .Court. I would, therefore, accept this appeal with costs throughout, set aside the order of the lower appellate Court and restore the order of'the Civil Judge, Second Class. Shakargarh dated the 21st of October 1958. . K. B A. Appeal accepted.