ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in these appeals is against the common order dated 26th May, 2014 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in three separate writ petitions instituted by the respondents in the appeals. The challenge in the writ petitions was against separate but similar orders dated 15.01.2007 passed by the Arbitrator/Additional Director Co-operative Societies, Lucknow, as also the order dated 20.08.2009 passed by the U.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Lucknow, by which the respondents-writ petitioners (Ram Piyari and Urmila Agarwal) were held to be not entitled to compensation in respect of acquisition of land from the Co-operative Societies of which they were members. The aforesaid orders of the Arbitrator and the Tribunal have been reversed by the High Court by means of the order presently under challenge. 3. The facts lies in a short compass and may be enumerated herein under - The respondents Ram Piyari, her daughter Anita (died on 25.07.1994), Aparajita Singh (Daughter of Desh Raj who is the son of Ram Piyari) and Urmila Agarwal were members of the appellant-society. They had deposited different amounts which were utilised by the Society to purchase land. The bone of contention between the parties is a letter dated 24.01.2002 by which Ram Piyari and Urmila (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents-writ petitioners') had submitted their resignation to the Society on the condition that their share of the land purchased by the Society from the funds contributed by them be sold out at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per bigha. According to the Society, the said offer was accepted and the land was sold to some other willing members at the stipulated rate and the payments were made by cheques to each of the respondents. Subsequently, the aforesaid land of the Society was acquired by the Government for the use of Greater NOIDA and compensation was also paid to the Society. This was some time in the year 2003. A dispute was raised by the respondents with regard to the resignations made in the year 2002 and on the basis that the said resignations are forged and fabricated, a claim was laid to the share of the respondents in the compensation amount. The complaint appears to have been investigated by the Additional District Cooperative Officer and a Report of such inspection/investigation dated 21.06.2005 was submitted. The complaint appears to have been investigated by the Additional District Cooperative Officer and a Report of such inspection/investigation dated 21.06.2005 was submitted. The said Report recites the essential facts and a mention is made therein that the signatures of the respondents Ram Piyari and Urmila Agarwal in the resignation letters were sent to the hand-writing experts who had opined that the signatures in said resignation letters were those of the aforesaid two respondents. 4. It also appears that all the respondents under the provisions of the Act of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1965 had moved the concerned authority for an arbitration in the aforesaid disputes. The order of the Additional Director, Cooperative Societies dated 15.01.2007 would indicate that though the Inspection Report dated 21.06.2005 of the Additional District Cooperative Officer was available, a visual comparison of the signatures of the aforesaid two respondents was made and a finding was recorded that the resignation letters submitted by them were genuine. The said finding was affirmed in appeal by the Co-operative Societies Tribunal by its order dated 20.08.2007. Aggrieved, the writ petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen, were instituted before the High Court. 5. It must be clarified at this stage that the claim of Anita Agarwal (since deceased) and Aparajita stands on a different footing inasmuch as both the aforesaid persons were found entitled to compensation on the virtually admitted stand of the appellant society. Such compensation was however denied to the concerned person/their representatives on the ground that the claims made on their behalf were not by authorised persons. 6. The High Court took the view that the finding with regard to the genuineness of the signatures of the two respondents in question ought to have been arrived at on the basis of a verification of such signatures by the hand-writing experts and as the same was not done, the High Court understood the denial of resignation to be a concocted version of the appellant-society. Accordingly, the orders of the learned Arbitrator and the Tribunal were set aside and the two respondents were held to be entitled to payment of compensation. Aggrieved, the society is in appeals before us. 7. We have learned counsels for the parties. 8. Accordingly, the orders of the learned Arbitrator and the Tribunal were set aside and the two respondents were held to be entitled to payment of compensation. Aggrieved, the society is in appeals before us. 7. We have learned counsels for the parties. 8. Having perused the orders passed by the Arbitrator dated 15.01.2007 and the Appellate Tribunal dated 20.08.2009, we are of the view that the right conclusion with regard to the genuineness of the resignation of the respondents in question was arrived at by the said authorities. A reading of the order of the aforesaid two authorities indicate that the said finding was reached on a consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances as revealed by the materials on record. While it is correct that the finding of the Arbitrator in this regard was on a visual comparison of signatures of the respondents, it is also clear that the report dated 21st June 2005 of the Additional District Co-operative Officer was before the learned Arbitrator and a reference to the same has been made in the orders dated 15.01.2007. As quasi-judicial authorities acting under the Act the Arbitrator and the Appellate Tribunal were fully competent to compare the signatures of the respondents in the resignation letters with their admitted signatures and reach the necessary conclusion upon such comparison. In any case, the Inspection Report dated 21.06.2005, in which a reference has been made to the opinion of the hand-writing expert, confirms the view taken by the Arbitrator and the Tribunal inasmuch as the signatures having been sent to the experts, on examination thereof, the experts had opined that the signatures in the resignation letters were those of the two respondents. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in reversing the said finding of the fact recorded by the Arbitrator/Appellate Tribunal. The report dated 21.06.2005 clearly demonstrates that the basis of which the High Court had reversed the order of the aforesaid two authorities is wholly incorrect. 9. In the above analysis of the facts the order of the High Court dated 26.05.2014 passed in the writ petitions insofar as the two respondents i.e. Ram Piyari (represented by her son Desh Raj Singh) and Urmila Agarwal cannot be sustained. The High Court was not at all justified in directing payment of compensation on the basis of its findings as noted above. The High Court was not at all justified in directing payment of compensation on the basis of its findings as noted above. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court dated 26.05.2014 and allow the appeals so far as the aforesaid two respondents are concerned. 10. Before parting, we make it clear that the present order would not relate to the claims of the respondent- Aparajita and deceased Anita which will have to be dealt with on the basis of the facts surrounding the said claims as dealt with in the orders of the learned Arbitrator and the Appellate Tribunal and in accordance with law. 11. The appeals are disposed of in light of the above.