' Village Harseh Atle, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala consisting of an area of 3,999 acres and 143 right holders was taken in consolidation under the Co-operative system in 1958 and a society for that purpose was registered on 25th July, 1959. The society initially consisted of 71 members but rose to 141 in 1960. A consolidation scheme was prepared and a mutation was entered in that connection but oa account of certain complaints the matter had been examined by various authorities until on 9th November, 1966 the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Gujranwala decided to set aside the entire consolidation proceedings and cancelled the resolution of the society in that regard. The order was challenged in appeal before the Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, Co-operation Department, Lahore and the learned Secretary vide his judgment dated 23rd October, 1967 accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 9th November, 1966. It was also directed that the 15 complainants in the original suit may, if they so like, apply for arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Act within 30 days of the announcement of that order. The order dated 23rd October, 1967 passed by the Secretary, Co- operation Department, Government of West Pakistan, has been challenged in the present writ petition. This writ petition has been pending for a long time and a few of the parties to the dispute having died, their legal representatives were brought on record. On the other hand, a number of petitioners have withdrawn from the petition. Civil Misc. No 5511 of 1969 and Civil Misc. No, 3131 of 1981 have already been allowed permitting the applicants to withdraw from the writ petition. Civil Misc.
No, 145 of 1982 is, however, still pending, but there is no objection to this petition. The applicants in Civil Misc. No, 145 of 1982 are also permitted to withdraw from the writ petition. Sh. Abdul Majid Advocate appeared on behalf of Sher Muhammad petitioner No, 19 and for the remaining petitioners Mr. Abdul Qadir Advocate appeared.
2. Sh. Abdul Majid Advocate argued that the order of the Secretary should be set aside as it was devoid of lawful authority for the reason that para. 3 of the impugned order itself indicates that this was a case of further inquiry and that the Secretary should have actually remanded the case and not disposed it of. He has also argued that the appeal under section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 lies to the Government and there was no authorisation in favour of the Secretary to have taken up the appeal on behalf of the Government. Mr. Abdul Qadir Advocate, however, accepted the authority of the Secretary Co-operation Department but argued that the judgment was arbitrary and, therefore, bad in law.
3. Under the Rules of Business appeals under section 64 have specifically been allocated to the Department of Co-operation. Under the same rules the Secretary of the Department is responsible for the proper conduct of the functions allocated to a Department. The authority of the Secretary, therefore, to take up the appeal on behalf of the Government under section 64 of the Co-operative Secieties Act, 1925 cannot be questioned. As regards the observation contained in para. 3 of the impugned order it is true that the learned Secretary had first deputed a Deputy Secretary to visit the spot and subsequently constituted a fact finding committee under a senior Deputy Registrar and co-opting with him one representative of each of the parties to go into the question and try to reslove the differences between parties, but this by itself does not suggest that the learned Secretary thought that further inquiry should be conducted. In fact as stated by the Secretary himself in the same paragraph his "main concern was to save the law and order situation in the village which was seriously threatened due to aroused feelings."
4. As regards the merits of the case, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Secretary was arbitrary. The Secretary rejected the arguments of the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies in every detail. The Assistant Registrar had observed that a majority of the right-holders were opposed to the proposal. This was found contrary to the facts. He found as of fact that only 15 persons had made complaints against the proposals and out of them 10 had taken over the possession of the plots allocated to them in the consolidation scheme. He was of the view that the real dispute was confined to only five persons and that too in regard of only 19 acres of land out of their total ownership of 709 acres. The Secretary was of the view that on a complaint of 15 right-holders the Assistant Registrar was not justified to set aside the entire consolidation scheme which involved as many as 143 right-holders. As far as 15 complainants are concerned the learned Secretary left it open to them to persue their remedy in arbitration proceedings under the Co-operative Societies Act.
5. Considering these circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the order of the Secretary was devoid of lawful authority or in any case arbitrary. It cannot, therefore, be questioned in writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.