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.