JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Ram Raj and Sri Sunil Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Rakesh Srivastava for respondent No.3 while Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary is present for U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. 2. By means of above writ petitions the petitioners have assailed the common order of U. P. Cooperative Tribunal dated 21st May, 2008 whereby while deciding the appeal against the petitioner the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the award dated 22.8.2005 passed under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the late husband of the petitioner was allotted a plot by Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.-respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) after becoming a member of the said society applied for and was allotted a plot having an area of 1200 square yards and deposited an amount of Rs.10,20,000/-at the rate of Rs.850/-per square yards by means of two demand drafts. The said amount was deposited by the petitioner on 14th June, 1999. He has further submitted that certain other amounts were deposited by him towards development charges etc. Subsequent to allotment of the said plot, a perpetual lease deed was entered into between the petitioner and Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. which was registered on 5th July, 1999; that in the meanwhile the Committee of Management of Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. was superseded and an Administrator was appointed for looking into the affairs of the said Samiti. The Administrator who was appointed on 3rd April, 2000 within one week of assuming the charges of Administrator annulled the resolutions of the Samiti dated 10th September, 1998 and 20th May, 1999 by which the plots in question were allotted to late Laxmi Chand-the husband of the petitioner and subsequently while declaring the registered perpetual lease deed executed on 5.7.1999 void also ordered that the said plot would become the property of the said Samiti and no person shall have any claim on the said plot. 4. The order dated 3rd April, 2000 was challenged by the petitioners by moving an application before the Registrar /Housing Commissioner under Section 70 of the U.P. Housing and Cooperative Societies Act. 4. The order dated 3rd April, 2000 was challenged by the petitioners by moving an application before the Registrar /Housing Commissioner under Section 70 of the U.P. Housing and Cooperative Societies Act. The Registrar/Housing Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh on 23rd January, 2001 passed an interim order whereby the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 3.4.2000 was stayed and the arbitration proceedings were referred to Additional Registrar/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Awas Sangh Limited, 6 Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow. Before the Arbitrator the society filed its written statement. The petitioner as well as the society were afforded full opportunity of hearing and the arbitrator was of the view that cancellation of the plots as well as cancellation of registered lease deed was not in accordance with law but during the course of hearing a fact was brought to the knowledge of the arbitrator that the plot had been allotted to the petitioner by the President of the society, who was a near relative. On coming to know of this facts an inquiry was instituted and an inquiry report was submitted to the arbitrator on 25.6.2005 wherein this fact was endorsed that the husband of petitioner No.1 was a close relative of the President of the society and, therefore, the allotment of the plot was illegal and a perusal of the operative portion of the impugned order clearly indicates that the claim of the petitioner was rejected only on this count. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 98 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act before the U.P. Cooperative Tribunal. It has been submitted that after exchange of pleadings when the matter was at the stage of final hearing, a preliminary objection was filed by one of the respondents submitting that appointment of arbitrator by the Housing Commissioner was not in accordance with law and the award suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction and, therefore, was liable to be set aside and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was liable to be rejected. The Tribunal taking into account various notifications issued by the State of U. P. under Section 3(2) of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act and after considering the same came to the conclusion that the valuation of the claim preferred by the petitioner was more than Rs.1 lakhs and, therefore, the application made to the Housing Commissioner was erroneous as he did not have the jurisdiction in this regard and consequently the nomination of arbitrator was illegal, therefore, the award passed by opposite party No.2 was declared to be a nullity. The Tribunal only considered the preliminary objection of the respondents and the upholding the said preliminary objection rejected the appeal of the petitioner. 6. Assailing the order passed by the Tribunal learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Housing Commissioner was fully competent to entertain the application under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and there was no error nominating the arbitrator. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Act which provides as under:- "(2) The State Government may, for the purposes of this Act, also appoint other persons to assist the Registrar and by general or special order confer on any such person all or any of the powers of the Registrar." 7. Section 71 of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 provides reference of a dispute to arbitration which is quoted as under:- "71. Reference of dispute to arbitration.-(1) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 70, the Registrar may, subject to the provisions of the rules, if any- (a) decide the dispute himself, or (b) refer it for decision to an arbitrator appointed by him, or (c) refer it, if the parties so request in writing, for decision to a board of arbitrators consisting of the three persons to be appointed in the prescribed manner. (2) The Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded, withdraw any reference made under clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) and refer it to another arbitrator or board of arbitrators or decide it himself. (3) The Registrar, the arbitrator or the board of arbitrators, to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this section may, pending the decision of the dispute make such interlocutory orders including attachment of property as he or they may deem necessary in the interest of justice. (3) The Registrar, the arbitrator or the board of arbitrators, to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this section may, pending the decision of the dispute make such interlocutory orders including attachment of property as he or they may deem necessary in the interest of justice. (4) The decision given by the Registrar, the arbitrator or the board of arbitrators under this section shall hereinafter be termed as award. (5) The procedure to be followed by the Registrar, the arbitrator or the board of arbitrators in deciding a dispute and making an award under this section shall be as may be prescribed." 8. The State Government in exercise of the power under Section 3 of the Act conferred the power upon the Housing Commissioner, U.P. by notification dated 15.6.1976 was which is quoted as under:- "In exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (U.P. Act XI of 1966) and in suppression of the Government Notification No.1538/XIJ-C-1-12 (AS)-74, dated May 17, 1976, the Governor, for the purpose of the said Act, is pleased to appoint the Housing Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh ex-officio to assist the Registrar and to confer on him all the powers of the Registrar in respect of Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Avas Sangh Limited and of all Urban Co-operative Housing Societies in Uttar Pradesh." 9. It has also been submitted that subsequently vide notification dated 10.8.1989 the State Government has conferred the jurisdiction and power of the Registrar to the Deputy Housing Commissioner and Deputy Registrar and Assistant Housing Commissioner, Assistant Registrar (Co-operative). It has been said that in case the value of the property of the amount of claim involved exceeds rupees one lakh, then under sub-rule (1) of Rule 229 the matter may be sent to the Additional Registrar. Vide another notification dated 31.10.1998 several amendments were carried out under Cooperative Societies Rules including Rule 229 and 229 (1) (c) which is as under:- "(c) in case the value of the property or the amount of claim involved in the dispute exceeds rupees fifty thousand but does not exceed rupees three lakh, be made to the Additional Registrar having jurisdiction over the region concerned." 10. The affidavit filed by the housing Commissioner also states that by notification dated 08/09/17 the pecuniary amount regarding a petition has been changed by the State Government and the Additional Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar Cooperative was conferred the jurisdiction in respect of disputes involving a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs to 10 lakhs. In the present case the valuation of the case would be 10 lakhs and therefore in light of the notification dated 08/09/17 which though has been passed subsequently but empowers the Additional Housing Commissioner to act as arbitrator. The Tribunal rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the Housing Commissioner did not have to entertain any complaint and consequently did not have any power to appoint the arbitrator, and the appeal was therefore rejected because the Additional Registrar does not have jurisdiction to enter upon reference. 11. In the present case the dispute was referred to the Housing Commissioner and Registrar by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 22.12.2000 passed in writ petition No. 32744 of 2000 and the then Housing Commissioner, referred the dispute for arbitration to Additional Registrar (Co-operative) who was posted as Managing Director, Housing Federation. 12. The U.P. Cooperative Tribunal while appreciating the facts of the case it seems has totally ignored the fact that the dispute in the present case was referred to the Housing Commissioner by the High Court in its order passed on 22/12/00 in writ petition number 32744/2000. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the present dispute was not cognizable by the housing Commissioner and the housing Commissioner had no authority to firstly entertain the said dispute and subsequently to refer the same for arbitration. The Tribunal has allowed the preliminary objection preferred by the respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, and the matter was remanded for arbitration before the competent authority for a fresh adjudication. By means of interim order dated 20/06/08 this court had stayed the operation of the judgment and order of the tribunal. 13. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, in order to resolve the controversy this court and directed the standing counsel to seek instructions the matter regarding the position of the Housing Commissioner to discharge the duties of Registrar in respect to Section 70 and 71 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. 13. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, in order to resolve the controversy this court and directed the standing counsel to seek instructions the matter regarding the position of the Housing Commissioner to discharge the duties of Registrar in respect to Section 70 and 71 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. In pursuance to the said directions of this court dated 20/08/2019 an affidavit of the Housing Commissioner was filed. In the said affidavit it has been stated that the power of the Registrar was conferred upon the Housing Commissioner, U.P in respect of inter alia all urban cooperative of the societies in U.P by the State Government by notification dated 15/06/76. Subsequently by notification dated 10/08/89 the State Government has conferred the jurisdictional power of the Registrar and Deputy Housing Commissioner/Deputy Registrar and Assistant Housing Commissioner/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies posted under the Housing Commissioner. As per rule of 4(c) it has been submitted that in case the amount involved, 1 lakhs that as per rule 229 (1) the matter may be sent to additional registrar. 14. With regard to the facts relating to the present case it is been submitted that the same was referred to the Housing Commissioner/Registrar by the order of the High Court dated 22/12/00 passed in Writ Petition No.32744/2010 and even otherwise the Housing Commissioner had been conferred the power of Registrar as per notification dated 15/06/76 and subsequently the dispute was referred to the then Additional Registrar Cooperative Housing. It has been stated that as per rule 229 (1) (c) the Additional Registrar Cooperative was empowered to deal with the matter of arbitration and therefore he had rightly decided the said arbitration. 15. Sri Rakesh Srivastava, counsel for opposite party No.3 submitted that in view of the statutory provisions contained in U.P Cooperative Societies Act as well is the rules framed thereunder, it is only the Registrar of the U.P. Cooperative Society could have referred the dispute for arbitration, while in the present case the Housing Commissioner having entertained the dispute and therefore the reference of the dispute for arbitration, was totally without jurisdiction and a nullity and therefore has supported the order of the Tribunal. 16. The learned Counsel the petitioner has submitted that before the arbitrator, the grounds of maintainability of the reference of the dispute for arbitration was never raised. 16. The learned Counsel the petitioner has submitted that before the arbitrator, the grounds of maintainability of the reference of the dispute for arbitration was never raised. The respondents appeared and contested the matter before the arbitrator and therefore they were precluded from challenging the award on the ground of jurisdiction, having acquiesced to his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, the reference was made in pursuance to the orders passed by the High Court dated 22/12/2000 in writ petition No.32744 of 2000 and therefore the proceedings were conducted in pursuance and in compliance with the said directions and the same cannot be set aside on the ground of Jurisdiction by the Tribunal. 17. It is also admitted that the order of the High court dated 22/1/2000 attained finality as it was not further challenged and was passed in the presence of the respondents. 18. Considering the arguments raised by both the parties with regard to the jurisdiction of the Housing Commissioner to refer the dispute for arbitration it is noticed that admittedly this High Court at Allahabad by means of order dated 20/02/00 was pleased to direct the petitioner to file the arbitration case before the Housing Commissioner/Registrar and directions were issued to the Housing Commissioner/Registrar that in case of filing of arbitration case then the matter may be decided expeditiously. In furtherance of the aforesaid order the petitioner had approached the Housing Commissioner, and this fact was duly disclosed to the tribunal by the petitioner who had filed additional objection to the preliminary objection, and the Tribunal did not take cognizance of the said fact and proceed to record a finding to the effect that the Housing Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and refer the same for arbitration. The findings recorded by the Tribunal is, on the face of it, contrary to the order of the High Court and therefore illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. 19. The tribunal in the present case has held that the Housing Commissioner has no authority of jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, despite the fact that it was the High Court which had directed him to entertain the said dispute. The Tribunals do not have any power or authority to sit in appeal over the orders passed by the High Court. The tribunal in the present case has held that the Housing Commissioner has no authority of jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, despite the fact that it was the High Court which had directed him to entertain the said dispute. The Tribunals do not have any power or authority to sit in appeal over the orders passed by the High Court. Despite this fact having been pointed out by the petitioner in the pleadings before the Tribunal, they choose to blatantly ignore this fact, and proceeded to strike down the order passed by the Housing Commissioner. In this view of the matter also, the order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 20. The second ground of challenge to the order of Tribunal is that as no objection regarding jurisdiction was raised by the respondent before the arbitrator, he would have been deemed to have acquiesced to the award and the same cannot be challenged on this ground subsequently. In the case of M/s Neelakantan & Bros. vs Superintending Engineer, National Highways Salem and others (1988) 4 SCC 462 it has been held “If the parties to the reference either agree beforehand to the method of appointment, or afterwards acquiescence in the appointment made with full knowledge of all the circumstances, they will be precluded from objection to such appointment as invalidating subsequent proceedings. Attending and taking part in the proceedings with full knowledge of the relevant fact will amount to such acquiescence,” 21. The aforesaid judgment has been referred with approval by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Construction India vs Secretary, Works Department Government of Orissa and others (1998) 2 SCC 89 . 22. In the case of M.K.Shah Engineers & Contractors vs State of M.P (1999) 2 SCC 594 the honourable apex court has held:- "18. The subsequent conduct of the respondents involuntarily agreed to the appointment of arbitrators in both the cases and not pursuing their objection under section 33 of the arbitration act, shall be valid on their part on the plea of non-compliance with the earlier part of clause 3.3 .29, if only there was such non-compliance. The respondent State of MP has acquiesced in the appointment of arbitrators and the proceedings for settlement of disputes by arbitration. The respondent cannot be permitted to turn around and plead invalidity or non-maintainability of arbitration proceedings by reference to clause 3.3. 29." 23. The respondent State of MP has acquiesced in the appointment of arbitrators and the proceedings for settlement of disputes by arbitration. The respondent cannot be permitted to turn around and plead invalidity or non-maintainability of arbitration proceedings by reference to clause 3.3. 29." 23. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgments to the facts of the present case, it can safely be concluded that the respondent having appeared before the arbitrator and having actively participated in the proceedings, they would have been deemed to be participating with knowledge of full facts of the case and did not raise any objections regarding the jurisdiction and competence of the arbitrator or legality of the reference, had, therefore, acquiesced to his jurisdiction. The award was passed against the petitioner. He preferred an appeal to the Cooperative Tribunal, where the respondent raised for the 1st time a preliminary objection with regard to the competence of the Housing Commissioner to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the objections raised by the respondents on merits, without taking into account the order of the High Court dated 22/12/2000 whereby the petitioner was directed to approach the housing Commissioner/registrar. 24. The Tribunal had clearly misdirected itself, while instead of rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the respondents at the very outset, proceeded to consider the merits of the same. The very fact that the Housing Commissioner exercised powers under the UP cooperatives Societies Act on the directions of the High Court, and the exercise of the said power, even otherwise, could not have been be held by the Tribunal to be illegal and arbitrary, coupled with the fact that the respondent who willingly participated before the arbitrator, never raised any objections with regard to the either the reference or the competence of the arbitrator was clearly precluded from raising the same by means of the preliminary objection before the Tribunal. This Court no hesitation in holding that the order of the Tribunal is clearly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled legal principles. This Court no hesitation in holding that the order of the Tribunal is clearly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled legal principles. We are not proceeding to adjudicate upon the powers of the housing Commissioner/registrar in entertaining the dispute and to further referring the same to the competent authority in exercise powers under section 3 (2) of the U.P Cooperative Societies Act inasmuch as the same was done under the orders of the court and not on his own motion. 25. Petitioner has also challenged the award passed by the Additional Registrar dated 22.8.2005. The Additional Registrar after considering the entire conspectus of facts as well as material was of the considered view that the cancellation of the allotment of the plot as well as subsequent cancellation of lease deed is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside but he proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that an inquiry report has been received which indicates that the petitioner is near relative of the President of the society and, therefore, the allottment of the plot was illegal. It has been submitted that the arbitrator has not considered the rules or definition as given in Section 2 (u) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 and, therefore, the judgment is without any application of mind and being contrary to the statutory provisions and, therefore, liable to be set aside. 26. Section 2(u) of which defines near relation of a person is as follows:- (u) "Near relation of a person" refers to his following relations: - (i) wife, (ii) husband, (iii) son, (iv) daughter, (v) father-in-law, (vi) mother-in-law. (vii) wife's sister, (viii) wife's brother, (ix) husband's sister, (x) husband's brother (xi) father, (xii) mother, (xiii) grand-son or grand-daughter, (xiv) father's sister, (xv) brother, (xvi) brother's son, (xvii) sister, (xviii) sister's son, (xix) father's brother, (xx) mother's brother, (xxi) son-in-law, (xxii) daughter-in-law, (xxiii) sister's husband;" 27. It has been submitted that son of the petitioner was ^lk<+w** of the President of the society and this relationship does not fall under definition of "near relative" as per Rule 2 (u) of the Rules of 1968 and, therefore, the allottment of the plot in question is not hit by aforesaid rules and the finding given by the arbitrator in this regard is contrary to the provisions as quoted hereinabove. 28. 28. Challenge was also been made to the cancellation of the lease deed by the administrator which after due consideration returned a finding that same was not in accordance with the rules. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is only a competent civil court which can cancel a set aside such of registration after examining oral documentary evidence adduced by the parties as held by a full bench of this court in the case of Smt Kusum Lata vs State of U.P and others (2018) 4 UBLBEC 3048. This issue does not deserve any further consideration in this petition in as much as the same has been decided in favour of the petitioner by the arbitrator. 29. It is clear from the Rules that the relationship of the petitioner with the President of the society is not hit by Rule 2(u) and even the arbitrator has nowhere adequately considered this fact and only on the basis of inquiry report submitted at the fag end of proceedings given this finding. The findings also indicates non application of mind as the arbitrator should have recorded specific finding with regard to the exact relationship of the husband of the petitioner with the President of the society and also the fact that the said relation is covered by the definition of the relations as provided under Rule 2 (u) of the Rules of 1968. No such finding has been recorded by the arbitrator. The findings of the arbitrator in this regard are liable to be set aside. 30. As discussed above, the order of Cooperative Tribunal dated 21.5.2008 as well as award dated 22.8.2008 are hereby set aside. 31. As a result of the above discussion, the matter is remanded to the arbitrator, who shall be appointed by the Registrar on an application made by the petitioner. The petitioner is given liberty to make an application to the Registrar along with the certified copy of this judgment, and on receipt of the application the Registrar shall refer the matter for arbitration in accordance with law. The arbitrator is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner within six months from the claim made by the petitioner. The arbitrator shall only consider and decide the issue relating to rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground of his being the relative of the President. The arbitrator is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner within six months from the claim made by the petitioner. The arbitrator shall only consider and decide the issue relating to rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground of his being the relative of the President. The respondents having not challenged the findings of the arbitrator with regard to cancellation of plot and of lease deed in favour of petitioner, the same have become final. 32. It has further been submitted that interest of the petitioner has been protected by various interim orders passed during the proceedings and he is continuing in possession till date. It is, therefore, provided that till the decision of the arbitrator status quo with regard to the plot in question shall be maintained. 33. With aforesaid direction the petition stands disposed of.