Ujagar Singh etc. vs State of Punjab and others

Surinder Singh, J.—The facts giving rise to this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Ujagar Singh and another, are briefly noticed.

The petitioners who are related to each other, are land owners having a common holding in village Pandiana Tehsil and District Jullundur. The Consolidation of Holdings took place in the village and during these proceedings Khasra No. 1587 belonging to the petitioners was allotted to Bakhshish Singh, respondent No. 3 alongwith some other area as per resolution No. 109 dated 14th July, 1949. It is stated that a few days after the passing of the said resolution, respondent No. 3 approached the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, that the area allotted to him was not acceptable In consequence of this representation, the allotment of field No. 1587 in favour of respondent No. 3 was cancelled and he was allotted land in another block. The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondent accepted this allotment. Inspite of the aforesaid change, at the time of the attestation of the joint holding of the petitioners, field No 1587 was again shown in the allotted area of respondent No. 3. The mistake was, however, brought to the notice of the authorities by the petitioners and it is claimed that the necessary correction was made in their favour.

In the wake of the above developments, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that for a final decision on the dispute regarding the possession of field No 1587, the petitioners requested for arbitration in the matter. On their application, Pandit Shiv Ram, retired Inspector of the Co operative Societies, was appointed as an Arbitrator who delivered his sward on September 11, 1954 (Annexure C'') to the effect that the possession of field No. 1587 should be delivered to the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 should also pay lis. 115/- as compensation to the petitioners for retaining possession of the said field for some time. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the said award of the Arbitrator which was heard and decided by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Jullundur, having the powers of Registrar, Co operative Societies, by means of order dated October 11, (sic). The Assistant Director accepted the appeal of respondent No. 3 and directed that Khasra Nos. 829 & 2830 should be given to the petitioners as these numbers were situated adjacent to their other area. He also directed that Khasra No. 1587, for the same reason, should go to respondent No. 3 whose claim for the area for Abadi land was still unsatisfied. The Assistant Director, therefore, ordered the necessary change by means of the aforesaid order.

The petitioners, with a view to reach the end of the trial of strength, approached the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, by means of a Revision Petition which was duly considered by the said officer, but was dismissed on 7th of April, 1966 by means of a detailed order (Annexure-I). After a lapse of more than one year from the passing of the said order, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner with a view to impugn the orders against them passed by the Authorities below.

At the time of hearing of arguments in this case, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the award issued by the Arbitrator could not be impugned by way of appeal u/s 21(4) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act as there was no such provision in the said Act. The parties obtained an adjournment to look into the position of law in regard to this preliminary objection After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the preliminary objection is misconceived inasmuch at the appeal against the award of the Arbitrator is being wrongly considered by the learned counsel, as one u/s 21(4) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which in fact is not so. The relevant statutory provision for the purpose of the present case is the Co operative Societies Act II of 1912, under which rules bad been framed by the local Government by virtue of Section 43(2)(1) of the said Act. Rule 18 (Supra) postulates that any dispute concerning the business of a Co-operative Society may either be decided by the Registrar himself or he may appoint an Arbitrator in connection with the said dispute At the relevant time when the dispute between the parties was required to be considered the Consolidation of Holdings Act was not in force and all such disputes had to be dealt with under the Co-operative Societies Act. It was under the provisions of Rule 18 that the Registrar appointed an Arbitrator who filed his award on 11th September. 1934. As per Rule 8(i) any party aggrieved by an award of an arbitrator could file an appeal to the Registrar within one month of the date of the award and it was this appeal which was considered by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings by virtue of his powers as Registrar of Co operative Societies, illegality in the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on that score. Mr. Wasu, learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to contend that the Arbitrator was appointed by the Registrar himself and be could not sit in judgment over the award of the Arbitrator. The argument is fallacious indeed if the dispute between the parties was adjudicated upon by the Registrar himself, his power of appeal would have been ousted, but this is not the case here as the award was issued by an Arbitrator and not by the Registrar himself. In the wake of a statutory provision as contained in Rule 18(i), the Registrar could certainly hear an appeal against the award of the Arbitrator It is material to note that no objection in regard to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Director to hear the appeal, was ever taken at the time when he heard the appeal. Further more, the petitioners themselves approached the Director. Consolidation of Holdings, in revision in their final bid to impugn the order passed by the Director. The order passed by the Director (Annexure 1) also clearly indicates that he passed the same in exercise of his powers of Deputy Secretary, Co-operative Societies, Punjab. The Revision Petition is shown to have been filed and considered u/s 69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act of 1961. The applicability of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is, therefore, not attracted at all.

In regard to the merits of the ease. I find that all the authorities below who had jurisdiction to deal with the matter, have given their due consideration to all aspects of the same and have based their findings on the material before them. I do not rind any justification for interference under the writ jurisdiction to disturb these findings, in the absence of any illegality or lack of jurisdiction. The latches on the part of the petitioners to approach this Court cannot also be ignored. The explanation given that one of the petitioners had received some injury on the fingers and was having treatment for the same, is not acceptable.

The writ petition is without merit and is consequently dismissed but with no order as to costs.