JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.02.2013 whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased a plot from erstwhile owner of plot-Smt. Kavita Rani Jain bearing Plot No.14, ad-measuring 355.55 sq yards allotted by Mutual Housing Cooperative Society Limited. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the Society had sent a list to the Jaipur Development Authority, whereby, name of the petitioner was reflected against Plot No.14. 4. Learned counsel submitted that certain changes in map etc. were made by the Registrar and as such, the petitioner had approached the Arbitrator under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereafter 'the Act of 2001') for resolving the dispute. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the Arbitrator passed an award on 24.09.2008 declaring the petitioner as owner of Plot No.14 and he further found that enteries, which were made or changes in the map, were also required to be declared bad and as such, the JDA Authorities were also directed to make necessary correction in their allotment process by declaring the petitioner as owner of Plot No.14 in Green Avenue Scheme No.19. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the award dated 24.09.2008 was a decree as per Section 100 of the Act of 2001 and for obtaining the necessary certificate under Section 101 (a), the petitioner had applied before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and on an application being made by the petitioner, certificate dated 09.01.2009 was issued. 7. Learned counsel submitted that after issuance of certificate, the petitioner had approached the Civil Court for executing the Arbitrator's award and further made a request that possession of the plot was required to be given to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel submitted that in the execution application, specific prayer was made to give direction to the judgment debtor-Society to actually hand over the possession to the petitioner of Plot No.14 in Scheme 19 in Green Avenue. 9. Learned counsel submitted that by impugned order dated 20.02.2013, the Executing Court has dismissed the execution application by holding that there was no direction to give possession of the land in the main award itself and as such, the Executing Court could not go behind the decree. 10. 9. Learned counsel submitted that by impugned order dated 20.02.2013, the Executing Court has dismissed the execution application by holding that there was no direction to give possession of the land in the main award itself and as such, the Executing Court could not go behind the decree. 10. Learned counsel submitted that reasoning of the Executing Court is absolutely contrary to law and once the petitioner has award in his favour and certificate has also been issued, such an award is required to be given effect, as a decree of Court. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that the execution application had specifically mentioned in its prayer that the petitioner had already declared owner of the plot in question and he was required to be given possession, as well. 12. Learned counsel submitted that the very purpose of passing an order under Section 60 of the Act of 2001 or certificate issued under Section 101(a) of the Act of 2001, will be defeated if the award of the Arbitrator will not be given full effect. 13. Learned counsel submitted that in the dispute filed before the Arbitrator, petitioner had specifically pleaded that erstwhile owner Smt. Kavita Rani Jain was given allotment by the Society and she was also given actual possession. Learned counsel submitted that all these facts were narrated before the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator accordingly considered the issue of allotment as well as the reflection of name of the petitioner in the list sent to the JDA Authorities. Learned counsel submitted that direction of the Arbitrator was required to be carried out by the Executing Court. 14. Learned counsel submitted that if analogy of Executing Court is accepted, than the award of the Arbitrator will be only on papers and as such, the petitioner would not be getting any title and possession of the plot in question. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that award passed by the Arbitrator under Section 60 was never challenged by any of the party and as such, the petitioner was only the owner of the plot in question and he was required to get the benefit of award. 16. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.S.S. Raghav appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that this Court may consider the appropriate provision of law and may pass the appropriate order, after considering the entire pleadings which have been placed before this Court. 17. 16. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.S.S. Raghav appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that this Court may consider the appropriate provision of law and may pass the appropriate order, after considering the entire pleadings which have been placed before this Court. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court finds that in the execution application filed by the petitioner, he had specifically made an averment that the judgment of the Arbitrator dated 24.09.2008 and award dated 09.01.2009, had given right to the petitioner-decree holder to get the actual physical possession of Plot No.14 in Scheme No.19 of Green Avenue. 18. This Court further finds that once an award has been passed under Section 60 of the Act of 2001 and further for execution of the award, the provision as provided under the law i.e. under Section 101(a) is for issuance of certificate then same is required to be treated as a decree of a Civil Court and is required to be executed in the same manner as a decree of Civil Court. 19. This Court on bare reading of provision of Sections 60 & 101 (a), finds that the award of Arbitrator is required to be given full effect. 20. This Court further finds that reasoning assigned by the Court below is not correct. 21. This Court finds that if the petitioner has been declared owner of Plot in question, he is bound to get the fruits of the same order, like a decree passed by the Civil Court. 22. This Court accordingly finds that the order dated 20.02.2013 has not correctly been passed and the same is set aside. 23. This Court accordingly remands the matter back to the Executing Court and the Execution Application filed by the petitioner may be decided fresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.