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, Farrukhabad(1) held that an order of the Court on an objection against an award made under section 12(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P. 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 12(4) 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 12(4) reads as under: "12(4) 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) I.L.R. [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 12(6) of the Act which provides that the decision of the arbitrator under sub section
(4) shall be final.
We have already set out section 12(4).
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, Farrukhbad(1) and Sayeed Ullah Khan vs The Temporary Civil Judge of Sultanpur.(2) Section 12(4) 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, i.e. the question of title referred to under section 12(4) 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) I.L.R. (1959) 1 All. 354.
(2) I.L.R. (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 U.P.(1) 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 's(1) 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 12(4) of the Act.
Mr. Goyal also laid a great deal of emphasis on section 12(6) of the Act which provides that the decision of the arbitrator under sub section
(4) shall be final.
In our opinion, section 12(6) 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 U.P. Act.
HELD:The decision of the Civil Judge modifying, the award was appealable under section 39 of the .
[67 A].
The effect of section 37 of the U.P. Act read with sections 46 and 47 of the is, to apply sections 15 and 39 of the to the proceedings under the U.P. Act; and under section 12(5) of the U.P. 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, I.L.R. [1959].
1 All354 and Sayed Ulla Khan vs The Temporary Civil Judge, Sultanpur, , approved.
Attar Singh vs State of u.p.
[1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 928, explained.