Appeal No 76 of 1964
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the October 26 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No 1209 of 1957
J P Goyal for the appellants
O P Rana for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Dhavan J in Civil Revision No 1209 of 1957
The 64 learned Judge following Sarju Prasad vs Civil Judge Farrukhabad1 held that an order of the Court on an objection against an award made under section 124 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act UP Act V of 1954 hereinafter called the Act was appealable under section 39 of the X of 1940 Mr J P Goyal learned Counsel for the appellant urges that this decision of the Allahabad High Court is wrong
In order to appreciate the contentions of Mr Goyal it is necessary to give a few facts and set out the relevant statutory provisions During consolidation proceedings in village Dharaki Garhi a question of title arose
The Consolidation Officer acting under section 124 of the Act referred the question of title to the Civil Judge Aligarh who referred the same to the arbitrator Shri Vikram Singh who had been appointed under section 37 of the Act
Section 124 reads as under 124 Where the objection filed under sub section 1 involves a question of title and such question has not already been determined by a competent Court the Consolidation Officer shall refer the question for determination to the Civil Judge having jurisdiction who shall thereupon refer it to the Arbitrator
 Section 37 provides 37
Arbitration 1 Where any matter is by or under this Act directed to be referred to an Arbitrator for determination the Arbitrator will be appointed by the State Government from amongst Civil Judicial Offi cers or Assistant Collector of the I class of not less than five years  standing and in all other respects the matter shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the 
2 The appointment of an Arbitrator under sub
section 1 may be made either generally or in respect of any particular case or class of cases or in respect of any specified area or areas
 The arbitrator gave his award on May 14 1956 and submitted the same to the Civil Court for final decision
On May 19 1956 Charan Singh Dungar Singh Maharaj Singh and Lajja Ram appellants before us filed objections before the Civil Judge Aligarh
The Civil Judge on September 8 1956 modified the award dated May 14 1956
Babu Lal Mohar Singh and Ram Piyari filed an appeal before the District Judge against the order of the Civil Judge dated September 8 1956
Before the District Judge a preliminary objection was raised
that no appeal lay 1 ILR 1959 1 All
65 against the order of the Civil Judge
The District Judge overruled the objection
On the merits the District Judge held that the Civil Judge was not justified under section 15 of the  in modifying the award merely because he disagreed with the finding
He therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Civil Judge modifying the award and the award announced by Shri Vikram Singh was accepted
Charan Singh Maharaj Singh Doonger Singh and Lajja Ram filed a petition before the High Court under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code
As stated above Dhavan J dismissed the petition on the ground that an appeal lay under section 39 of the 
This Court granted special leave and now the matter is before us
Mr Goyal contends that section 37 of the Act applies the provi sions of the only as far as procedure is concerned and section 39 of the which provides for appeals does not apply to arbitrations referred to in section 37 of the Act
He relies strongly on section 126 of the Act which provides that the decision of the arbitrator under sub section
4 shall be final
We have already set out section 124
He however does not contend that the provisions of section 15 of the do not apply because the appellants had apparently applied under section 15 of the to the Court to modify the award made by Vikram Singh and they had succeeded in getting an order modifying the award in their favour
In our opinion the High Court arrived at the correct con clusion in Sarju Prasad vs Civil Judge Farrukhbad1 and Sayeed Ullah Khan vs The Temporary Civil Judge of Sultanpur2 Section 124 of the Act provides for a statutory arbitration and section 37 of the Act provides for the appointment of an arbitrator by the State Government
It seems to us that apart from the question of appointment of the arbitrator in all other respects the matter referred to ie the question of title referred to under section 124 shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the 
Section 37 of the Act does not make any distinction between provisions like section 39 and section 15 of the 
Further the effect of section 46 and section 47 of the is that all the provisions of the except sub section 1 of section 6 sections 7 12 36 and 37 apply to arbitrations under the Consolidation of Holdings Act
Section 37 of the Act cannot be held as providing anything inconsistent with this
In our opinion the effect of section 37 of the Act read with sections 46 and 47 of the  is inter alia to apply sections 15 and 39 of the to the proceedings under the Act
It is not necessary to rely 1 ILR 1959 1 All 354
2 ILR 1959 1 All
66 on ff 63 and 64 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1954 but we may mention that they proceed on the basis that sections 15 16 and 30 of the apply to the arbitration proceedings under the Act
Mr Goyal then urges that this Court in the case of Attar Singh vs The State of UP1 understood section 37 of the Act to mean that it makes the applicable to the proceedings before the arbitrator in the matter of procedure only
It is true that at p 935 of the judgment Wanchoo J observed Further section 12 provides that where there is a dispute as to title and such question has not already been determined by any competent Court the Consolidation Officer has to refer the question for determination to the Civil Judge who thereafter will refer it to the arbitrator
The arbitrator then proceeds in the manner provided by r 73 sic 63 and gives a hearing to the parties and takes evidence both oral and documentary before making his award and section 37 of the Act makes the applicable to the proceedings before the arbitrator in the matter of procedure
 We are unable to agree with Mr Goyal that this passage in any manner decides the point which is before us
This Court in Attar Singh s1 case was concerned with the validity of the Act and ground No 2 which was urged before the Court was Sections 8 9 and 10 read with section 49 of the Act provide a procedure for the correction and revision of revenue records for villages under consolidation which is vitally different from that applicable to villages not under consolidation and there is thus discrimination which offends article 14 of the Constitution In dealing with this ground Wanchoo J made the observations which have been set out above
There was no question there of considering the effect of sections 46 and 47 of the  or considering whether section 39 of the applies to arbitrations under section 124 of the Act
Mr Goyal also laid a great deal of emphasis on section 126 of the Act which provides that the decision of the arbitrator under sub section
4 shall be final
In our opinion section 126 must be read with section 37 of the Act and if it is so read it is quite clear that what is made final is the decision of the arbitrator as it emerges after appropriate proceedings if any have been taken under the provisions of the 
1 1959 Supp
I SCR 928
67 In the result we hold that the High Court is right in holding that the decision of the Civil Judge modifying the award was appealable under section 39 of the 
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs


Summary:
During consolidation proceedings in a village under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act 1954 a question of title arose and the Consolidation Officer referred the question to the Civil Judge who referred it to an arbitrator appointed under section 37 of the Act
The Arbitrator submitted his award to the Court
The appellants filed objections under section 15 of the  and the Civil Judge modified the award
On appeal by the respondents the District Court held that the appeal was maintainable and that the Civil Judge was not justified in modifying the award
A revision petition to the High Court filed by the appellants was dismissed
In appeal to this Court it was contended that section 39 of the  which provides for appeals does not apply to arbitrations under section 37 of the UP Act
HELDThe decision of the Civil Judge modifying the award was appealable under section 39 of the 
67 A
The effect of section 37 of the UP Act read with sections 46 and 47 of the is to apply sections 15 and 39 of the to the proceedings under the UP Act and under section 125 of the UP Act what is made final is the decision of the arbitrator as it emerges after appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the 
65 G H 66 H
Carju Prasad vs Civil Judge Farrukhabad ILR 1959
1 All354 and Sayed Ulla Khan vs The Temporary Civil Judge Sultanpur  approved
Attar Singh vs State of up
1959 Supp 1 SCR 928 explained