Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the Shahabad Farmers Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. (hereinafter called the petitioner) seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order Annexure P-6 passed by the Recovery Officer, dated November 06, 1985. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the State of Haryana. 2. Arbitration Reference was moved by the petitioner under Sections 55/56 of the Act in the year 1974. Respondent No. 2 Balwant Singh against whom the award had been given filed an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, under Section 68 of the Act. The validity of the award was upheld with the modification that rate of interest shall be 6% instead of 12%. The modification has been made in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh and Ors., 1979 P.L.J. 334. 3. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was challenged by respondent No. 2, in Civil Writ Petition No. 45 of 1981, which was dismissed with the following order:- "A.S. Bains, J. (Oral). Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petition is to be dismissed in view of law as laid down by this Court in Mam Raj v. State of Haryana and Ors., A.I.R. 1982 Punjab and Haryana 211. It is ordered accordingly. December 21, 1982 Sd/-A.S. Bains, Judge4. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kurukshetra, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under the Act, issued a notice to respondent No. 2 under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. for the recovery of the awarded amount. On January 12, 1984, the parties entered into a compromise and the entire matter was settled. This compromise was reached between the parties on January 12, 1984. It was further provided that if respondent No. 2 commits default in payment of any installment, the petitioner will be entitled to recover the whole amount along with interest by auctioning the immovable property of respondent No. 2 and all the expenses of the same shall be borne by respondent No. 2. It was further provided that if respondent No. 2 commits default in payment of any installment, the petitioner will be entitled to recover the whole amount along with interest by auctioning the immovable property of respondent No. 2 and all the expenses of the same shall be borne by respondent No. 2. It is clearly stated that the compromise was fully accepted and it was noticed in the compromise deed as follows:- "The Compromise is accepted after reading and hearing the same and compromise has been reduced in writing in evidence thereof so that if may be used at appropriate time." 4 XXX 5. Inspite of the aforesaid, compromise, application was moved by respondent No. 2, before the Recovery Officer on the ground that he had to receive commission of fertilisers (sold by him ) from the petitioner. Not only the commission was not paid, but the same was adjusted in the interest account. Accordingly to respondent No. 2, the commission earned by him should have been credited into his principal account as the commission was due from the petitioner at the time of preparation of arbitration proceedings. On this application, the Recovery Officer advised the petitioner to re-prepare their accounts accordingly. The parties were directed to calculate the amount still recoverable as per the decision given above. It was directed that the interest is not to be added into the principal amount at any state. 6. Mr. Dalai argues that the entire matter having been settled by way of compromise, no further application could have been entertained by the Recovery Officer on the ground that there has been mis-calculation. Therefore, the order is wholly without jurisdiction. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Jagdeep Bains has submitted that even a perusal of paragraph 12 of the writ petition shows that the petitioner has admitted that commission was due to respondent No. 2. By ordering change in the account, the Recovery Officer has not committed any error of jurisdiction. Fresh calculation of the amount due would not entail any change in the original award rendered by the Arbitrator. In fact, in the original award, claim of respondent No. 2, with regard to commission had been allowed. Since the compromise is based on the award, the order passed by the Recovery Officer is in consonance with the award. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. In fact, in the original award, claim of respondent No. 2, with regard to commission had been allowed. Since the compromise is based on the award, the order passed by the Recovery Officer is in consonance with the award. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. I do not find any substance in the submissions made by Ms. Jagdeep Bains. Once the, compromise had been effected between the parties willingly, no further reference could be made to the arbitration award. The lis which culminated in the award was ultimately settled by the compromise effected between the parties on January 12, 1984. An endorsement to this effect was made in the compromise deed and it was recorded that the compromise is accepted after reading and hearing the same and compromise has been reduced in writing in evidence thereof so that it may be used at appropriate tune. The Recovery Officer had no jurisdiction to go behind the compromise and to alter terms of the same. I am of the considered view that the order Annexure P-6 passed by the Recovery Officer is without any jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure P-6 is hereby quashed. No costs.