2000 PLP 1811 (CLC)

Petitioner and respondent No.6 were one time partners in joint business of running a dealership under a licence from Market Committee, Hujra Shah Maqeem. They separated and respondent No.6 made a claim of Rs.44,474 from the petitioner. This claim has been adjudicated by respondents Nos.3‑ and 4 as Arbitrators and they have passed a decree for that amount in favour of respondent No.6. This decree was sent for execution to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who issued warrants under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 and apparently the petitioner was arrested and confined for sometime. The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition for seeking a declaration that decision, dated 16‑6‑1991 of alleged Arbitrators and the decree, dated 18‑10‑1992, passed by respondents Nos.3 and, 4 and the consequential execution of the same by respondents Nos. l and 2 as arrears of land revenue may all be declared as illegal and without lawful authority.

2. Respondents Nos. l and 2 have submitted their comments. According to which the decree was received and was initially put into execution but on obtaining legal opinion from District Attorney, the process had been withdrawn and the petitioner was released. Respondents Nos.3 to 5 have not entered appearance although they were duly served.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has defended the impugned arbitration and the decree etc., by arguing that the petitioner has agreed to the arbitration and he, therefore, cannot be permitted to turn around and plead to the contrary. He has emphasised that the claim of his client against the petitioner is correct, and this Court should not intervene into the matter.

4. The only relevant provision under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 is section

24. Under this section the Government may by notification direct that all or any of the disputes other than a dispute to which all the parties are dealers, arising in notified market area, and relating to such matters connected with agricultural produce as may be prescribed, shall be referred to a Board of Arbitrators .... No efforts whatsoever have been made by respondent No.6 to show that respondents No.3 and 4 were ever members of the Board of Arbitrators or that the individual dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.6 was referable for decision to the Board of Arbitrators within the parameters of section

24. Apparently the individual dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.6 arising out of the alleged joint business cannot be decided by the Board of Arbitrators under section

24. If this be the legal position, the agreement of the petitioner, if any, is immaterial nor it debars the petitioner from raising jurisdictional question.

5. I, therefore, hold that the impugned decision of the Arbitrators, dated 16‑6-1991, the decree passed by them in the sum of Rs.44,474 against the petitioner and the consequential steps of execution of the decree as arrears 8 of land revenue are acts without jurisdiction and will have no legal effect in law.

6. This petition is allowed with costs to be borne by respondent No.6. H.B.T./K‑26/L Petition allowed.