KOUREJO, J.-The facts leading up to this petition briefly stated are, that the petitioner was bona fide Member of Jabalpur Muhajir Society. Karachi, and by virtue thereof was allotted a plot of land bearing No. 8811 measuring 190 Sq. Yds. The said society allotted the adjoining plot No. 89/1 to one Maqbool Hussain another member of the society. Subsequently, Jabalpur Society was merged into Pir Ellahi Bun Co-operative Housing Society Limited, respondent No 4, with the result that the plots Nos 88/J and 89/1 also formed a part and parcel of the area of the society, respondent No. 4. The petitioner by virtue of merger became a member of the society of respondent No. 4. Before the merger the petitioner had purchased plot No. 89/1 from its allottee Maqbool Hussain in or about the year 1955. Since all the dues were paid the respondent No. 4 issued allotment certificate to the petitioner in respect of both plots. In September, 1975, petitioner came to know through respondent No. 4 that the allotment of the two plots 88/1 and 89/1 to the petitioner was cancelled and Plot No. Fib/J was allotted to respondent No. 5 and 89/J was allotted to one Pir Lal Muhammad. The petitioner filed application under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with respondent No. 2 who referred the same to respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 gave his award on 22nd May, 1976 to which the arbitrator of the petitioner agreed.
By the majority award the order of the society respondent No. 4 was set aside and the two plots were restored to the petitioner and permanent injunction was issued in his favour against the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 from interfer--ing with the enjoyment of possession of the plots by the petitioner. The respondents 4 and 5 preferred appeals against the said award before the respondent No. 2 under section 56 of the Act. The respondent No. 2 by his order dated 30th July, 1978 disposed of the appeals filed by respon--dents 4 and 5, holding that since both the appeals under section 56 of the Act were preferred against the majority award they could not be mainta-- ined under section 56 of the Act, but since there were ingredients attracting the provisions of section 54 (A) of the Act the appeals were converted in applications under section 54 (A) and disposed of in the terms that the allotment of plot No. 89/1 be restored to the petitioner and the orders of the Administrator of respondent No. 4 for cancellation of the plot No. 88/1 and subsequent allotment respondent No. 5 shall remain in operation. . The petitioner filed a revision application under section 64-A of the Act before the respondent No. 1 against the order passed by res-- pondent No. 2 upholding the cancellation of plot No. 88/1 allotted to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 1st June, 980 dismissed the revision application. The revision application filed by Pir Lal Muhammad in respect of plot No. 89/1 was dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 10th November, 1979 aggrieved by the orders dated 30th July, 1978 passed by respondent No. 2 and 1st June, 1980 passed by respondent No. 1 maintaining the order of cancellation of allot-- ment of plot No. 88/J of the petitioner, by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner has come in this petition.
2. It is mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner that since no show-cause notice was served on the petitioner and he was not given a hearing before cancellation of plot No 88/J by respondent No. 4 the order violated the principles of natural justice that the respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the majority award under section 56 of the Act that he had no jurisdiction to convert the appeal under section 56 of the Act into an application under section 54(A) of the Act ; that the revision before the respondent No. 1. In the circumstances would not lie under section 64-A of the Act and, therefore, impugned orders passed are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
3. On behalf of the respondents the contentions mainly are that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard before the order cancelling the plot No. 88/J by the respondent No. 4 was passed ; that the appeal could lie under section 56 of the Act and that the respondent No. 2 could convert the appeal under section 56 into an application under section 54 (A) of the Act ; that the revision application under section 64 (A) of the Act to respondent No. 1 would legally lie and, therefore, the petitioner's contention have no substance at all.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mustafa Lakhani and M/s. Ishaque Ahmad and Matloob Hassan Siddiqui for the respondents. There is no dispute that the award of the arbitrators was u a majority award. The respondent No. 2 in its impugned order dated 30th July, 1978 relying on the proposition that no appeal can lie against the majority decision of the arbitrators, under section 56 of the Act, has converted the appeal into an application under section 54-A of the Act. In that respect he has also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in PLD 1975 Kar. 12, wherein it was held that no appeal under section 56 of the Act would lie against such decision. What we further find that even the provision of section 54-A of the Act would not be attracted in the circumstances of the present case, and the respondent No. 2 was not justified in converting the appeal into an application under this section and dispose it of as such. The respon--dent No. 2 has in fact set aside the award by modifying it by restoring the allotment of plot No. 89/J in favour of the petitioner and maintaining the order of respondent No. 4 cancelling the allotment of plot No. 88/J earlier allotted to the petitioner and maintaining the subsequent allotment in favour of Hakim tv4uzzafar Ali Khan. This section 54-A empowers the Registrar to set aside the award in certain specified conditions and order the dispute to be referred back to the arbitration. He may, however, correct or modify the award when it appears that a part of the award is on a matter which had not been referred to arbitration and such part can be separated from that part which had been referred for arbitration and this can be done without affecting the decision on the matter referred, or where the award is imperfect in form or contains obvious error which can be corrected or amended without affecting the decision or where award contains clerical errors or error arising from an accidental slip or omission. None of these conditions exist in present case for the respondent No. 2 to have modified to award to attract the provisions of section 54-A of the' 4,ct. In the circumstances of the instant case, therefore, the respondent to 2 was not legally empowered under the provisions of this section 54 A have modified the award, muchless he had the power to convert the appeal under section 56 of the Act into an application under section 54-A1.t of the Act. In our view, therefore, the impugned order dated 30th July.' 1978 passed by respondent No. 2 was illegal and without lawful authority. In such a situation there could be no appeal or revision to the respondent No. 1 under section 64 or 54-A, as scheme of the arbitration as reflected from the various provisions in the Act provides a cover of finality to the majority award as was held in the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in PLD 1975 Kar. 12, and as such the impugned order dated 1st June, 1980, is also without lawful authority.
5. What we find that the arbitrators in their majority award dated 22nd May, 1976 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not afforded' sufficient opportunity of hearing before the respondent No. 4 passed an order against him cancelling the two plots and that the principles of natural justice were violated, and reversed the decision of the respondent No. 4 mainly on that ground. In that situation, the arbitrators should have remanded the matter to the respondent No. 4, for rehearing after due notice to the parties. In view of the finding that the impugned order dated 30th July, 1978 and 1st June, 1980, are without lawful, authority and of no legal effect, and since the arbitrators came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to be heard before the allotment of the two plots were cancelled, we would declare the impugned orders without lawful authority. However, it will be open to respondent No. 4 to re-initiate the proceeding after due notice to the affected parties and to decide after providing reasonable opportunity to the parties.
6. The petition is allowed accordingly, in the circumstances of the case with no order as to costs.