HABIB SHAH AND Others vs RAFFAT PASHA AHD Other
This matter arises from consolidation proceedings where the parties referred the question of consolidation of their holdings to arbitration, resulting in an award and a subsequent partition of joint property by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioners challenged the partition alleging fraud regarding thumb impressions on blank papers and failure to implement the award, but their appeals and revisions were successively dismissed by the Collector, Additional Commissioner, and the Member, Board of Revenue. The core legal question addressed is whether consolidation matters of this nature can be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and whether the alleged award holds any legal validity. The Supreme Court held that such matters cannot be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940, rendering the purported award invalid, and further found no evidence supporting the allegation of fraud. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the decision of the Lahore High Court.
- Can a matter regarding the consolidation of holdings be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Is an award rendered in consolidation proceedings without legal backing under the Arbitration Act, 1940 enforceable?
- Whether concurrent findings regarding the validity of consolidation proceedings can be interfered with in the absence of record support for allegations of fraud?
- Arbitration Act, 1940
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-During the consolidation proceedings the parties to this case referred the question of consolidation of their holdings to arbitra--tion. The Arbitrator gave an award. The Assistant Consolidation Officer partitioned the joint property in accordance with the "compromise between the parties dated 6-3-1964". The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector alleging that the thumb-impression had been obtained on a blank paper on which incorrect statements were later recorded and the award was not implemented. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector on 24-6-1964 as the record did not bear out the submissions made by the petitioners. A revision petition was similarly rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Con--solidations), Multan and a further revision petition met the same fate at the bands of the Member, Board of Revenue on 1-9-1966.
2. The only point urged before us is that the Award should have bee implemented. That such a matter cannot be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940 needs no gainsaying. The sheet of paper being pressed into service as an Award is, therefore, not worth the paper on which it is written. Even otherwise it is not possible for us to believe that the Assistant Consolidation Officer committed fraud by obtaining signatures of the parties on a blank paper and then wrote down their statement according to his own notions. There is nothing on the record on which the submission of the petitioner can be sustained and we find no fault with the order of the Lahore High Court. This petition is consequently dismissed.