' IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY J.---Through the present writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Muhammad Younas Khan Lodhi, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 19-6-2006 passed by the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Cooperatives Department, Lahore, whereby, he while accepting the appeal under section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 filed by respondent No3 set aside the order dated 10-11-2004 passed by the Registrar Cooperatives.
2. Briefly the facts, relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, are that the petitioner was allotted 1/2 share of the property known as 141-E Model Town, Lahore vide allotment through PTD issued by the Settlement Department. He is also member of the Model Town Cooperative Society vide share certificate dated 18-3-1996 whereas respondent No3 is transferee of 1/4th share of Property No141-E Model Town, Lahore who applied for construction over the said 1/4 share of the aforesaid property which was sanctioned in his favour on 4-9-1982 which was in excess of his ownership including the land of the petitioner's ownership. On an application submitted to the Model Town Society the petitioner was directed to approach the Registrar Cooperative for redressal of his grievance vide letter dated 3-3-2001, in response to which, petitioner lodged his complaint through application dated 31-8-2001. The Registrar Cooperatives issued letter dated 9-1-2002 asking the Administrator Cooperative Society to redress the grievance of the petitioner, who after a detailed inquiry cancelled the approved plan of respondent No3 vide letter dated 5-7-2002. The petitioner was also informed about the said cancellation of plan through letter dated 15-8-2002. In spite of cancellation of the approved site plan the Model Town Society did not take any measures for the demolition of unauthorized construction/demarcation of land and restoration of possession to the petitioner. Constrained with the situation the petitioner moved an application to the Registrar on 5- 11-2002 with copy to the President Model Town Society who in turn replied through letter dated 16-1- 2003 directed the petitioner to approach the forum of the Government. Thereafter the petitioner moved a petition under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act to the Registrar Cooperative Societies on 22-1-2003 for the redressal of his grievance who vide his order dated 21-10-2003 accepted the same. Feeling aggrieved by the said order respondent No3 filed an appeal before the Secretary Cooperative who vide order dated 29-6-2004 set aside the order dated 21-3-2003 with the direction to the Registrar Cooperative Societies to decide the matter afresh. The Registrar after remand decided the matter vide order dated 11-1-2004 with direction to the Society to proceed in accordance with its report dated 20-8-2003, against which, respondent No3 filed an appeal before the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Cooperative Department who vide his order dated 19-6-2006 accepted the same and set aside the order dated-11-1-2004. Hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by respondent No1 is against law and facts of the case; that the matter in issue relates to the provisions of section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 which comes within the ambit of a matter which touches the business of the society whereas respondent No1 has wrongly held that the dispute does not relate to the matter which fall within the purview of section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, as such, the impugned order is not sustainable in law in view of the law laid down in Syed Sultan Ali v.
Sahibzada Frogh Najam Najmi and 2 others (2003 YLR 2216); that the findings of respondent No1 are not in accordance with law as he had badly failed to appreciate that respondent No3 had challenged the validity of the order passed by the Cooperative Department in a civil suit before the civil court but the same stood dismissed with the observation that the matter touches the business of the society, as such, the same falls within the exclusive domain of the hierarchy under the Cooperative Societies Act; that a bare reading of section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 clearly shows that the dispute regarding the approval of site plan or its cancellation is a matter which is to be decided by the Cooperative Society; that it was the duty of the society to demolish the construction raised by respondent No3 after cancellation of the sanctioned plan, as such, the matter pertains to the business of the society and respondent No1 has illegally passed the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Society while supporting the impugned order contends that since the questions of law and fact are involved in the matter in issue which cannot be determined by the Registrar Cooperative Societies as the same need recording of evidence, therefore, the respondent No1 has rightly passed the impugned order and it will be better for the parties to go to the Civil Court for their dispute; that the property in question is not in any manner relatable to the respondent-society and that the matter is between the private parties.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No3 also while supporting the impugned order contends that the Cooperative Society has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties in view of the involvement of complicated questions of law and facts; that the matter regarding encroachment of the property cannot be agitated before the Registrar Cooperative Societies under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and relies upon M. Wahidullah Ansari through Legal Heirs v. Zuheda Sharif and another (PLD 2002 Karachi 414) and Mrs.Zaibunnissa v.
Muhammad Sajid and 2 others (PLD 2009 Karachi 133).
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. The question raised in this petition whether in view of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No3 is of such a nature which could be determined either by the authorities in the hierarchy of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 or by a civil court. Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 provides a remedy to an aggrieved person in the event of any dispute touching the business of a society which is reproduced below:-- "54. Arbitration.--If any dispute touching the business of a society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid servant of the society) arises:--
(a) between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past member, or
(b) between members or past members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society, or
(c) between the society or its committee, and any past or present member of the society, or
(d) between the society or its committee, and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society, or a surety of such officer, agent or servant, whether such surety is or is not a member of the society, or
(e) between a financing bank authorized under subsection (1) of Section 34 and a person who is not a member of a Society, it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee, or if either of the parties so desires, to arbitration of three arbitrators who shall be the Registrar or his nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concerned.
' A dispute shall include the question whether a person is or was a member of a society and also claims by a society for debts or demands due to it from a member, past member or non-member or the heirs or assets of a past member or nonmember whether such debts or demands be admitted or not; ' Provided that if the question at issue between 'a society and a claimant, or between different claims, is one involving complicated questions of law and fact, the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in the matter until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted within six months of the Registrar's order suspending proceedings the Registrar shall take action as laid down in paragraph I of this section."
' The bare reading of section 54 of the Act ibid clearly shows that the disputes touching the business of the society can be brought before the authorities under the Act by invoking the provisions of section 54 of the Act and not the disputes between two parties having no business of the society. Here in this case the dispute is between the two parties and the respondent-Society has no concern with their dispute, as such, in view of the clear cut language of section 54 the dispute between the parties is not touching the business of the society and in such circumstances the remedy available to the petitioner for the resolution of his dispute lay before the civil court and not before the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. Proviso to the aforesaid section 54 A of the Act clearly lays down that even in the event of involvement of complicated questions of law and facts between a society and a claimant the matter could be referred to the civil court. From the aforesaid clear proposition of law the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 is that of encroachment which is a complicated question of law and facts and the same can only be resolved through the evidence of the parties. In such circumstances, respondent No. 1 has rightly passed the impugned orders and has committed no illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction and the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the dispute involved in that case was touching the business of the cooperative society but here in this case the dispute is between the two parties and is not at all touching the business of the society.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that I find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.