1. ' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.-The petitioner .In this case claims to be allottee of Plot No, 264 of Allama Usmani Co-Operative Housing Society vide a Resolution of Sub-Committee dated 19.11-1952 (Annexure X-1'). He also relied upon (Annexure 'X-2') a receipt of the Society, dated 7-3-1953 showing that the said plot was in his name. Another document relied upon by the petitioner (Annexure 'X-3') showing at Serial No, 260 name of Rashid Ullah Khan against Plot No, 264. This is either an allottment Register or Ledger of the Society.
2. ' The allotment or/reservation of the said plot from this petitioner was deemed to have been cancelled by a resolution of the General Body of the Society passed, on 29-4-1956 (Annexure `X-4') where it was resolved that those allottees to whom plots had been allotted between 1949 to 1954 and they had not made payments to the Society their plots should be cancelled. The name of the petitioner is one of those persons whose plot was cancelled by that Resolution at Serial No, 94 of (Annexure 5). The petitioner claims to be in possession of the plot. The said plot appears to have been allotted by the Society in 1964 to the respondent No, 3 and the Sub-Licensee was also executed in favour of respondent No, 3 and the possession of the said plot is also stated to have been given over to respondent No, 3 on 7-7-1964. The three Annexures are (X-11), (X-12) and (X-13).
3. The petitioner being a Central Government Employee was transferred from Karachi to Islamabad in 1960 and came back in 1968. He learnt that the said plot had been allotted to someone else and he had, therefore, filed Arbitration Proceedings No, 248 of 1968 which was contested by the Society.
4. The nominee of the Registrar decided the award in favour of the petitioner. The said award was upheld in appeal by Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society, Karachi by his order, dated 25.4-1969 but in Revision under section 64-A of Co-operative Societies Act, Secretary of Co-operation Department, Government of West Pakistan in his order, dated 13-2-1973 set aside the said order on the basis that respondent No, 3 who was a Sub-Licensee of the property should be made a party to the proceedings.
5. ' Consequently fresh arbitration proceedings were taken and this time the parties nominated their own arbitrators and, therefore, the matter was considered by a panel of arbitrators consisting of the nominee of the Registrar and the two nominees of the parties. The nominee of the Registrar as well as the two nominees of the parties gave separate awards. The nominee of the Registrar in his thirteen pages judgments gave decision in favour of the respondent No, 3 while the nominee of respondent No, 3 also gave the award in his favour but the nominee of the petitioner gave award in favour of the petitioner.
6. ' The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Registrar Co-operative who set aside the award panel of the arbitrators by his Judgment dated 20-3-1976 and held that the petitioner was the right and lawful allottee and claimant of Plot No, 264.
7. ' Respondent No, 3 filed revision proceedings before the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Sind who by his order, dated 25-7-1979 up set the Judgment of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Karachi.
8. ' Mr. Akhtar Mehmood has argued that the petitioner being an allottee of the plot had the right in the said plot and the plot could not be cancelled without notice to him.
9. ' Mr. Yousuf Rafi replied that the question of breach of natural justice assumed an academic position in view of fact that the matter was gone into by the arbitrators and the arbitrators had given decision after hearing the petitioner, and therefore, the breach of the principle of natural justice was cured by hearing the petitioner at the arbitration and the appellate stage. Reference was invited to PLD 1983 SC 358, where it was held that breach of principle of natural justice is cured by hearing the petitioner at the subsequent stage of the proceedings. We agree with the reply of Mr. Yousuf Rafi.
10. Counsel for the petitioner next argued that the respondent No, 1 had failed to take into consideration relevant and important material on record, and therefore, his decision was reached on account of ignoring of material documents. The learned counsel particularly referred to the last but one paragraph appearing on page 2 of the said order where the respondent No, 1 has remarked that petitioner could not produce any document to establish his claim and even the Resolution of 19-11-1952 was not produced. Counsel also referred to the first and second paras. On page 3 of the impugned order where it had been observed that the possession of the allotted plot was never made over to the petitioner and that the petitioner had merely been given a reservation of the plot on receipt of payment of Rs, 290. This submission of the learned counsel appears to be justified. The order of the respondent No, 1 makes it apparent that he has not looked into (Annexure `X-1') and (Annexure 'X-3) which have been filed by the petitioner and which were B produced in the arbitration proceedings. We do not want to express ourselves on the merits of the case as to what would be the effect of those documents but it appears that (Annexure `X-1') and (Annexure `X-3) are not only relevant but material documents to be considered (Annexure 'X-l') is the proceedings of a Sub-Committee, dated 19-11-1952 were name of petitioner and nubmer of the plot in dispute appears and this Sub-Committee is named as allotment Sub-Committee. In (Annexure `X-3) which is a copy of Register maintained by the Society the name of the petitioner against the said plot appears and in this copy a host of other names with the plot marked/assigned/allotted to them appeared. It was necessary for the respondent No, 1 to consider the effect of these documents before he could come to the conclusion that it was merely a reservation of plot made in favour of the petitioner and not an allottee.
11. ' It further appears that the respondent No, 1 has not fully considered the effect of the words used in the resolution of the General Body in 1956 where it is mentioned that the plots had been allotted to the allottee in 1949 to 1954 and the same are being cancelled on account of non-payment of dues.
12. We do not again give our opinion in respect of the interpretation of this document (Annexure 'X-4') alongwith document (Annexure 'X-5') which were before the respondent No, 1 and which appeared to be relevant and material for the purposes of consideration whether the plot had been allotted to the appellant or it was a mere reservation.
13. Mr. Yousuf Rafi had cited several rulings of the Supreme Court on the point that this High Court should not interfere in the disputed question of fact in writ proceedings. We respectfully follow that view, and therefore, we have refrained from expressing any opinion in respect of the three documents which have been referred by us above. But the non-consideration of these documents does appear to be significant and since these documents are relevant and material, therefore, the decision reached by the respondent No, 1 without considering these documents is a decision that has failed to consider the relevant material and is, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority and of no effect. The result would be that the revision of respondent No, 3 would be deemed to be pending before the respondent No, 1 and it would be decided by him.
14. ' We may note however, that Mr. Muhammad Ali Jan learned counsel for the Society bad submitted that the petitioner had failed to contact the Society or to pay the dues of the Society between 1953 and 1956, and therefore, his conduct was not such which could entitle him to file this petition. Since we are remanding the case back to the respondent No, 1, therefore, we do not want to express ourselves on this aspect of the case particularly in view of the fact that the respondent No, 1 has not exercised his mind on this aspect. It would be open to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to urge all their submissions and objections before respondent No, 1 in the revision deemed to be pending before him. This petition, is therefore, disposed of in the above terms.