MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioners have impugned order dated 25-2-2012 passed by the respondent Cane Commissioner Punjab, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioners are agriculturists who supplied sugarcane to Pasrur Sugar Mills Ltd. In the year ,1998-1999. Despite the. Fact that sugarcane was supplied valuing over Rs,55,35,000 no payment was made to the petitioners. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No,27387 of 2011 wherein the matter was referred to the respondent to pass necessary orders after hearing all the parties. The respondent failed to redress the grievance of the petitioner on the ground that he was not the competent authority to decide the matter and the case should be filed before the Civil Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent is the competent authority to entertain the claim of the petitioners and that he should discharge his duties in accordance with the law.
4. Report/para wise comments have been filed by the respondent.
' An application under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. Was filed by G.B (Pvt.) Ltd. But no one has appeared on their behalf. It is the respondent's case that the matter was decided on 25-2-2012 wherein he has found that he is not in a position to establish the claim of the petitioners as it relates to the crushing season of 1998-1999 and the original owners are not available and that this matter should be taken up by the competent Civil Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Law Officer and have examined the record available on the file.
6. In terms of the record, the petitioners supplied sugarcane to Pasrur Sugar Mills Ltd. CPRs were duly issued. Thereafter the assets and liabilities of Pasrur Sugar Mills Ltd. Were taken over by United Sugar Mills and then by G.B. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vide agreement dated 25-2-2002. The agreement clearly provides that liabilities provided in Clause 1(b) shall be paid by the buyer. It also states that the record has been handed over to the new buyer. Therefore, there is no issue here with respect to the transfer of assets or liabilities upon which the Cane Commissioner is required to deliberate. The only issue is the claim of the petitioners.
7. On the contention of the respondent that the Cane Commissioner does not have the requisite power to adjudicate on the petitioners' claim, I have reviewed the Punjab Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1950. Rule 17 provides for the dispute resolution mechanism, which is reproduced hereunder:- "Any dispute touching an agreement referred to in these rules shall be referred to the Cane Commissioner for decision or if he so directs to arbitration. No suit shall lie in a civil or revenue court in respect of any such dispute."
' Rule 17(8) reads as under:- "On application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the decision or award, the decision of 'the Cane Commissioner, or the award of the arbitrator or arbitrators or the Provincial Government's order in appeal against an award, shall be enforced by all court as if such decision, award, or orders in appeal were a decree of that court."
In terms of the Punjab Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1950, the Cane Commissioner is the competent person to decide the claim of the petitioners as not only can he adjudicate on the petitioners' claim but he can also refer the dispute to arbitration under Rule 17(2). In such a case if the parties to the dispute are unable to nominate a sole arbitrator, the Cane Commissioner can refer the dispute to a board of arbitrators consisting of two arbitrators and umpire. The decision of the Cane Commissioner or the arbitrator is appealable under Rule 17(6) before the Provincial Government. The decision of the Cane Commissioner or the arbitrator or arbitrators or the Provincial Government's orders in appeal can be enforced by all the Courts as of such decision or award or orders in appeal were a decree of that Court under Rule 17(8) of the Rules (ibid).
Furthermore, section 6(1) of the Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 provides as under:-
(1) "The Provincial Government may by notification, appoint any officer, not below the status of a Collector, to be the Cane Commissioner to exercise and perform. In addition to 'the powers and duties conferred and imposed on him by this Act such powers and duties, as may be prescribed from time to time."
(2) The Cane Commissioner shall be deemed to have powers of a (Collector/DCO) under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (or any other enactment relating to Land Revenue and Tenancy in force in any part of the Province.
8. A review of section 80 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 shows that the Collector has sufficient powers for recovery of arrears of land revenue in the modes prescribed. The same powers are available to the B Cane Commissioner. He can recover amounts due through the modes prescribed in section 80 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the Cane Commissioner has the powers to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners should file their statement of claims with supporting documents before the Cane Commissioner.
The sugar mills can file their reply to the statement of claim. Thereafter the Cane Commissioner can adjudicate upon the matter. The decision of the Cane Commissioner can be enforced by a Civil Court as if his decision was decreed by that Court. The Cane Commissioner also enjoys the powers under section 80 of the. Land Revenue Act. 1967 to recover amounts which are due and payable.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and order dated 25-2-2012 is set aside. The respondent Cane Commissioner is directed to adjudicate upon the claim of the -petitioners and decide the same after .Hearing all the necessary parties. In this regard, the respondent should also summon the G.B. (Pvt:) Ltd. As they are a necessary party to the proceedings.