Judgment Kanhaiyaji, J. 1. The petitioner Ram Prasad Salmi has filed application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the order incorporated in Annexure 8, passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bihar Patna, dated the 6th June, 1970 be quashed by a writ of certiorari and also for writ of mandamus restraining respondent No. 5 from interfering with the right of the petitioner over tank in question and its usufructs. 2. The relevant facts stated in the application, are as follows. There is a Co-operative Society named as Fishermen Co-operative Society in Mani-gachi Block in the district of Darbhanga registered under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The affairs of the Co-operative Society are carried on according to the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act of 1935, Rules and registered Bye-Laws of the Society. The Co-operative Society on the 25th September, 1968 took settlement of Ghor-daur Pokhar (Jalkar) appertaining to khata No. 4010, having an area of 45 acres, 6 kathas and 9 dhurs Fishery-cum-Makhana of Village Raghopur, for Rs. 9000.00 in respect of 8 Annas share of the Government for the period 1st October, 1968 to the 30th September, 1971. The remaining 8 Annas share belongs to Shri Harinanda Singh Memorial Trust, Raghopur with Shri Deena Nath as its Secretary. The Cooperative Society in its turn settled the same with four of its members, namely, Ram Prasad Sahni (petitioner), Ruplal Sahni, Baidyanath Sahni and Khokhai Sahni for a sum of Rs. 10125/- only. The settlement was made in pursuance of a resolution dated the 15th January, 1969 passed by the Managing Committee of the Cooperative Society. The settlees paid Rupees 3375/- on the 15th January, 1969, Rupees 844/- on the 15th September, 1969 and Rs. 2531/- on the 25th December, 1969 and Patta was executed in favour of the settlees. A copy of the resolution is Annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner had spent money in fixing Boring over the Bhindas of the said Jalkar at the request of the Managing Committee on the assurance that the said Jalkar if settled with the Co-operative Society by the Government, the same would be re-settled with the petitioner on the terms and condition fixed by the Managing Committee. The petitioner had spent money in fixing Boring over the Bhindas of the said Jalkar at the request of the Managing Committee on the assurance that the said Jalkar if settled with the Co-operative Society by the Government, the same would be re-settled with the petitioner on the terms and condition fixed by the Managing Committee. The resolution was later confirmed in the next general meeting and the proceedings were recorded by the then Secretary Sita Ram Sahni (respondent No. 6) himself. A copy of the said resolution is Annexure 3 to the writ application. The petitioner remained in peaceful possession of the said Jalkar since it was settled with him. It is alleged that Sita Sahni (respondent No. 6), its Ex-Secretary, with the intention to create trouble in the smooth running of the Cooperative Society in collusion with the men of his group, forged false and ante-dated Patta in favour of Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5). Sukan Sahni and Sita Ram Sahni (respondent Nos. 5 and 6) on the basis of the said forged Patta started creating trouble over the Jalkar in order to harass the petitioner. The claim and counter claim of the parties gave rise to some criminal proceedings, details of which are not necessary to be stated here. 3. Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5) filed a petition under Sec. 48 of the Act before tie Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Laheriasarai against the petitioner and others claiming the settlement of half portion of the said Jalkar, On this petition, an Award Case No. 345 of 1969 was started. The petitioner also filed a petition before the said Assistant Registrar against Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5) and two others for restraining them from going over the said Jalkar during the period of the settlement and for payment of compensation for the loss caused to the petitioner. Accordingly an Award Case No. 348 of 1969 was also started. The Assistant Registrar, by his common order dated the 12th November, 1969 passed in both the award cases held that the settlement in favour of the petitioner made by the Co-operative Society, was legal and Sita Ram Sahni, Ex-Secretary had forged Patta in favour of Sukan Sahni. A copy of the order of the Assistant Registrar is Annexure 5 to the writ application. A copy of the order of the Assistant Registrar is Annexure 5 to the writ application. Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5) riled an Award appeal before the Registrar against the order of the Assistant Registrar which was heard by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (credit), Bihar, Patna. The Joint Registrar, by his order dated the 21st April, 1970 passed in Award Appeal No. 110 of 1969, disposed of the appeal affirming the order of the Assistant Registrar with a little modification. A copy of the order is Annexure 6 to the writ application. Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5) went in revision before the Registrar, Co-operative Societties, Bihar, Patna under Sec. 50 of the Act. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said revision petition categorically denying the claim of Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5) and clearly asserting his right and claim over the said Jalkar. A copy of the rejoinder petition is Annexure 7 to the writ application. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna, by his order dated the 6th June, 1970 passed in revision Case No. 16/70, allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by file lower Courts and declared that Sukan Sahni was entitled to continue in peaceful possession of the said Jalkar. A copy of the said order is Annexure 8 to the writ application. The learned Registrar, in his order dated the 6th June, 1970, has stated that "I have very carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Laheria-sarai and the Joint Registrar (Credit). The main point on which the appeal has been dismissed is that the transaction relating to the settlement of the Jalkar was not entered in the proceedings book of the Society. As against this the original Fatta executed in his favour by opposite party No. 1, by opposite party No. 4 and opposite party No. 2, the former in his capacity as Secretary of the Society and the later as Treasurer of the Society. The Patta also bears, the signature of Matuk Sahni a member of the Committee of Management. The petitioner has also produced before this Court 2 receipts dated the 15th October 1968 for a sum of Rs. 1875/- and another receipt dated the 30th October, 1968 for a um of Rs. 1500.00 granted by the Society. The Patta also bears, the signature of Matuk Sahni a member of the Committee of Management. The petitioner has also produced before this Court 2 receipts dated the 15th October 1968 for a sum of Rs. 1875/- and another receipt dated the 30th October, 1968 for a um of Rs. 1500.00 granted by the Society. The Patta bears the seal of the Society and also the signature of the Secretary and Treasurer as mentioned above. The opposite party before me has nowhere challenged that the Patta and the receipts have been fabricated by the petitioner. The only point made on behalf of the opposite party is that the transaction of the settle-ment has not been entered in the proceedings book of the Society, and, therefore, the settlement cannot be called to be bona fide. I fail to understand bow a settlee can be made responsible for the fact that the transaction of settlement was not entered in the proceedings book of the Society. 4. Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5) laving received the notice of the writ petition, has shown cause. The case made out by Sukan Sahni is that the Co-operative Society settled the said Jalkar with him on the 15th October, 1968 and he came in possession over the same. The settlement was by a Patta duly executed by Sita Ram Sahni the then Secretary of the Co-operative Society, Moti Lal Sahni who was Treasurer at that time (full brother of the petitioner) and Matuk Sahni another member of the Executive Committee. He deposited Rs. 1875/- on the 15th October, 1968 and Rs. 1500.00 on the 30th October, 1968 and obtained receipts for the same under the signature of the then Secretary Sita Ram Sahni (respondent No. 6). It is alleged in the counter-affidavit that Motilal Sahni was elected Secretary of the Cooperative society on the 6th December, 1968 and he took over charge of the So-ciety from Sita Ram Sahni (respondent No. 6). Thereafter Moti Lal Sahni, in order to benefit his own brother, the petitioner, started creating bogus document and in furtherance of that design the papers relating to the alleged settlement with the petitioner, were created. Thereafter Moti Lal Sahni, in order to benefit his own brother, the petitioner, started creating bogus document and in furtherance of that design the papers relating to the alleged settlement with the petitioner, were created. The Co-operative Society having already settled the Jalkar with Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5) for a period of the three years on the 15th October, 1968, there could be no genuine settlement with the petitioner along with his three men, namely, Ruplal Sahni, Baidyanath Sahni and Khokhai Sahni. Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5) has denied the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ application. 5. Sita Ram Sahni (respondent No. 6) has also appeared and filed counter-affidavit. He has supported the case of Sukan Sahui (respondent No. 5) and has stated that the settlement of the Jalkar with Sukan Sahni is genuine. The realisation of money from Sukan Sahni is admitted, but it is stated that Moti Lal Sahni was dealing with cash and entering accounts at the time when the receipts were granted to Sukan Sahni. He has alleged that the false papers have been created to show settlement of the said Jalkar with the petitioner. 6. Mr. T. C. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that there are errors apparent on the face of the order (Annexure 8) passed by the learned Registrar. He pointed out that the learned Registrar should have appreciated that it was not the case of Sukan Sahni in the Courts below that the settlement had been made with him by the Society. His case was that he had taken settlement from Sitaram Sahni, the then Secretary of the Society and executed Patta Kabuliyat. On the other hand it was the clear case of tie petitioner that the receipts, Patta and other documents relied upon by Sukan Sahni were forged and fabricated and created by Sita Ram Sahni, Ex-Secretary (respondent No. 6). Mr. Sinha argued that the settlement of the said Jalkar could only be made by the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society and not by the Secretary or any other member of the Society without any resolution of the Managing Committee to that effect. There is much force in the contention and it must be accepted. Mr. Sinha argued that the settlement of the said Jalkar could only be made by the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society and not by the Secretary or any other member of the Society without any resolution of the Managing Committee to that effect. There is much force in the contention and it must be accepted. The materials on the record show that the main point for consideration by the learned Registrar in the case was whether the Patta produced by Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5) was legal and he came in possession of the said Jalkar or the petitioner came in possession of the same on the basis of a valid Patta created by the Co-operative Society. 7. It appears from the order of the Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Society (Annexure 5) that on a careful consideration of the materials on record and hearing the parties he came to the conclusion that the petitioner had sunk Boring over the Bhinda of the said Jalkar at his own cost. He relied on the two relevant resolutions of the Managing Committee dated the 25th September, 1968 and 18th November, 1968, He further found that Sita Ram Sahni, ex-Secretary had forged Patta in the name of Sukan Sahni by virtue of his having fraudulently detained some of the records and papers of the Society, Sukan Sahni raised contentions regarding validity and genuineness of his Patta also before the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Society at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Joint Registrar, in his order (Annexure 6) found from the records produced before him that the settlement in favour of the petitioner and his party men was done by the Managing Committee and approved by the annual general meeting of the Co-operative Society. He further found that the counterfoil of the receipt books which were produced, proved only that the receipts were granted to Ram Prasad Sahni. There was no entry in the cash book in favour of Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5). In Kharid Bikri Bahi also there was no entry to show that Jalkar was ever settled with Sukan Sahni. He referred to the minute book of the Managing Committee showing that the Jalkar had been settled with the petitioner and his party men and it was approved in the next Annual General Meeting held on the 23rd July, 1969. In Kharid Bikri Bahi also there was no entry to show that Jalkar was ever settled with Sukan Sahni. He referred to the minute book of the Managing Committee showing that the Jalkar had been settled with the petitioner and his party men and it was approved in the next Annual General Meeting held on the 23rd July, 1969. This settlement was also entered in the cash book and Kharid Bikri Bahi of the Cooperative Society. The Joint Registrar also referred to the departmental instructions and came to the conclusions that if rules, bye-laws and departmental instructions are floated the settlement cannot be deemed to be genuine. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Registrar, Co-operative Society in Revision Case No. 16 of 1970 filed by Sukan Sahni (respondent No. 5) the petitioner specially challenged the genuineness and validity of the Patta and settlement in favour of Sukan Sahni. 8. It is provided in Sec.14 (2) of the Act that the management of a registered Society shall be vested in a Managing Committee) constituted in accordance with the rules. The bye-laws of the Co-operative Society contains provisions for (formation of the Managing Committee and describes its powers and functions. The duties and powers of the Secretary are contained in Clause 31 of the Bye-Laws. It is well settled that the ultimate control rests with the general body of the members of the Co-operative Society. The learned Registrar has not examined the points raised by the petitioner as he ought to have done, and has arrived at certain conclusions which appears to be wholly erroneous and are based on complete misapprehension of true position. He has assumed that the Patta executed by the then Secretary and the two members of the Society was valid, legal and binding on the Society. It is true that the Patta bears the seal of the Society and also the signatures of the Secretary, treasurer and one member, but still it has to be decided whether it can be said to be a Patta granted by the Co-operative Society. The learned Registrar, in my opinion, is not correct in saying that the petitioner had nowhere alleged that the Patta and receipts had been fabricated by Sukan Sahni. As I have indicated above, this was the very point which was being urged by the petitioner from the very beginning of the case. The learned Registrar, in my opinion, is not correct in saying that the petitioner had nowhere alleged that the Patta and receipts had been fabricated by Sukan Sahni. As I have indicated above, this was the very point which was being urged by the petitioner from the very beginning of the case. The order of the learned Registrar is manifestly wrong. 9. It is well settled that the writ of certiorari could be issued to correct an error of law, but it is essential and it could be something more than a mere error, it must be one which must manifest on the face of the record. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether there is any such error on the face of the record so as to enable this Court to call for the records and quash the impugned order by a writ of certiorari. 10. For the reasons stated above, the order, dated the 6th Tune, 1970 (Annexure 8) of the learned Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna, is fully covered by the test applicable for issuance of a writ of certiorari. 11. In the result, the application is accordingly allowed and the order, dated the 6th June, 1970 (Annexure 8) passed by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No. 16 of 1970 is quashed by a writ of certiorari and the case is remitted to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna, for a fresh decision in accordance with law and on the materials already on record. There will be no order for costs. S.N.P.Singh, J. 12 I agree.