Judgment : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.08.2006 passed by the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby award dated 22.10.2005 passed by the Registrar Co-operative Societies has been quashed and set aside. 2. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner purchased a plot bearing No.81 from Sayaunkta Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited in its scheme namely Officers Campus Extension Scheme, Sirsi Road, Jhotwara vide allotment letter dated 21.07.1992. Pursuant to the said letter, physical possession of the plot was taken by the petitioner and boundary wall as well as one small room was erected of the said plot, where he also got electric connection. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that name of the petitioner was also shown in the list of schemes of respondent-society published by Jaipur Development Authority, where his name finds place at serial No.81. In the list of members sent by the society to the administrator of the society, name of the petitioner was also mentioned and he also deposited the necessary expenses for issuance of lease deed in the office of Jaipur Development Authority on 31.03.2005. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that he received one notice on 04.04.2005 issued by the Jaipur Development Authority revealing therein that one other person Anand Singh (respondent No.2) has also submitted certain documents claiming title over the same plot of land, which was owned and possessed by the petitioner. Therefore, in order to enquire into the facts, the petitioner was directed to return the lease deed dated 31.03.2005. The petitioner thereupon filed appeal before the Jaipur Development Authority, Appellate Tribunal, where interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner. As it was a dispute between the members of the society, the petitioner also referred the dispute regarding title of the plot before the Registrar Co- operative Societies. The Registrar Co-operative Societies-cum- Arbitrator decided the matter vide award dated 22.10.2005 observing therein that the petitioner was having physical possession over the plot in question, whereas the respondent No.2 has failed to prove his possession. The list prepared by Jaipur Development Authority and other documents were also relied upon by the Registrar-cum-Arbitrator and ultimately vide award/order dated 22.10.2005, the Jaipur Development Authority was directed to execute lease deed in favour of the petitioner and to get the same registered. The list prepared by Jaipur Development Authority and other documents were also relied upon by the Registrar-cum-Arbitrator and ultimately vide award/order dated 22.10.2005, the Jaipur Development Authority was directed to execute lease deed in favour of the petitioner and to get the same registered. The respondent No.2-Anand Singh Chouhan was also restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. 5. However, feeling aggrieved by award/order dated 22.10.2005, the respondent No.2 filed an appeal under Section 105 of the Act of 2001, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.08.2006 and the award/order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the Registrar-cum-Arbitrator has been quashed. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction in not correctly appreciating the scope and extent of provisions of Section 58 of the Act of 2001, where the dispute between two members of the society as well as transaction of the society can be decided in her reference under Section 58 of the Act. It is submitted that even title of the plot can be decided by the Tribunal and there is a specific bar for filing a civil suit in relation to the dispute which is covered by the Act of 2001, still ignoring the scheme of the Act, perverse and irrational findings questioning the jurisdiction of Arbitrator-cum-Registrar has been given by learned Tribunal, which is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Hanuman Meena Vs. Chandra Singh reported in AIR 2007 Raj. 76 in support of her contention. 7. The petition was opposed by the respondents and it is submitted that the Tribunal has submitted no error either of fact or law in passing the impugned order dated 25.08.2006 as the award/order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the Registrar-cum- Arbitrator was suffering from lack of inherent jurisdiction, therefore, it has rightly been quashed by the Tribunal. It was further submitted that under Section 58 , the Registrar has got no jurisdiction whatsoever to give any finding with regard to title of plot of land which can only be given by the Civil Court in appropriate proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Harsh Vardhan Kejriwal Vs. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Harsh Vardhan Kejriwal Vs. Madhav Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2007 (2) WLC (Raj.) 730. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. As the controversy in the instant case revolves under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, provisions of the same are being reproduced as under:- “ 58. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society arises - (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs of legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, or (d) between the society and any other co-operative society, or (e) between the society and the surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had transaction under section 52, whether such a surety is or is not a member of a society; such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute: Provided that such disputes between the society and its employees, for which a remedy is available under the provisions of the service laws applicable on the employees, shall not be entertained under this section. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following disputes shall also be deemed to be the disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely- (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; and (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor, where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; and (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society: Provided that no dispute under this clause shall be entertained during the period commencing from the announcement of election programme and ending on the declaration of the results. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. 10. Bare perusal of the provisions of Section 58 would reveal that the jurisdiction under the aforesaid provisions is limited and confined only to adjudicating the dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of co-operative society. 11. Act of the 2001 has repealed the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, wherein there was pari materia provision under Section 75 of the Act of 1965 qua Section 58 of the Act of 2001. 12. The term “disputes” touching the constitution, management or the business of co-operative society has been explained in the manner, to be either a claim of the society for any debt or demand due to it for a member or a claim by a surety against the principal debtor or any other dispute arising in connection with election of any officer of the society. 13. Thus, by perusing the aforesaid provisions, it cannot be said that the Registrar/Arbitrator while exercising its power under Section 58 of the Act of 2001 can also examine the question with regard to title of a plot and can determine the disputes relating to civil rights like title, possession etc. 13. Thus, by perusing the aforesaid provisions, it cannot be said that the Registrar/Arbitrator while exercising its power under Section 58 of the Act of 2001 can also examine the question with regard to title of a plot and can determine the disputes relating to civil rights like title, possession etc. with regard to the plot of land. 14. It is also relevant to observe that wherever the dispute with regard to title of a plot is to be adjudicated, civil court has been vested with proper jurisdiction and powers, which is not vested with the Registrar/Arbitrator under the Act of 2001. Such dispute touching the title or possession over the plot of land can be adjudicated by the Civil Court after taking evidence, oral and documentary both. 15. The judgment of Hanuman Meena (Supra) has relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner does not deal with the aforesaid question in clear manner and does not throw any light over the question as to whether the Registrar/Arbitrator has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of title over a plot of land or not. 16. Whereas in the case of Harsh Vardhan Kejriwal (Supra) , this Court meticulously examined provisions of Section 75 of the Act of 1965, having pari materia provisions qua Section 58 of the Act of 2001 as well as the provision with regard to bar of jurisdiction of civil court. Thereafter, this Court has held as under:- “ 11. The Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 has been enacted to consolidated and amend the law relating to cooperative societies in the State of Rajasthan. Thereafter, this Court has held as under:- “ 11. The Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 has been enacted to consolidated and amend the law relating to cooperative societies in the State of Rajasthan. The run through the index and Chapter headings of the Act of 1965 would indicate that it was to regulate the working of the co-operative societies by making provisions for Registration in Chapter II, management and privileges of co- operative societies, in Chapter III, IV and V, Chapter VI providing for State Aid to Co-operative Societies, Chapter VII providing for properties and funds of Co- operative societies, Chapter VIII dealt with audit, inquiry, inspection and surcharge, Chapter IX containing Section 75 to 77 dealt with settlement of disputes, Chapter X containing winding up and dissolution of Co-operative Societies, Chapter XI relating to Land Development Banks, Chapter XII enumerates provisions relating to execution of awards, decree, orders and decisions, Chapter XIII deals with appeals, revision and review, Chapter XV contains miscellaneous application upto Section 153 of the Act. 12. Of course, one of the objectives by providing for bar of jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts in Section 137 was to avoid delays in litigation relating to co- operative societies and confer such powers on the Registrar/Arbitration Tribunal under the Act with powers of civil courts conferred upon them by Section 135 of the Act, yet it is very clear that for determination of disputes relating to civil rights like title, possession dispute as to agreement of sale etc., the jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts was neither envisaged to be curtailed nor in fact has so been curtailed or barred. The wholesome reading of Section 75 would indicate that it is the dispute between the members inter se or members and the society or between two or ore societies relating to their working as co-operative society alone in accordance with law including its bye laws and not in an illegal or unlawful manner like encroachments or other illegal possession etc., which is sought to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue courts and not where intricate question of fact and law relating to title, possession, and contractual obligations are called in question for which civil courts alone have the jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 9 of the CPC along with other relevant provisions providing for trying such civil suits by the civil courts in CPC. If the land in question in agricultural in nature it is the revenue courts which will have the jurisdiction. The words “dispute touching the business of a co-operative society’ cannot expand the jurisdiction of Registrar or Tribunal under this Act beyond parameters of the Act itself and a Registrar of the Co-operative Society does not have full fledged powers of a civil court to take and weigh relevant evidences on different sides and make a judicial pronouncement upon them. The Act, in the opinion of this Court, only meant that if dispute arises about the working of the co-operative societies relating to their constitution, management and business as a co-operative society arises even between two or more co-operative society arises even between two or more co-operative societies inter se or between society on one hand and members on the other side or inter-se members, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies may deal with such disputes and approaching of civil Court or revenue courts in such matters is avoided to make this Act a self contained code for dealing with the co- operative society registered under the Act. The judgment cited above of M.P. High Court, Gujarat and Delhi High Court fully support the case of appellants and are applicable in the present case. 13. The judgment cited above of M.P. High Court, Gujarat and Delhi High Court fully support the case of appellants and are applicable in the present case. 13. While there is no dispute that there are two co- operative societies involved in the case and they happen to be in the array of defendants in the suit filed but their rival claims over the land in question is not of a nature which is covered within the ambit and scope of Section 75 of the Act. Here plaintiffs have come with a case that the defendant co-operative society or some other third party has encroached upon the land illegally and are sitting over with sheer use of force, though illegally, and they are required to file the civil suit for seeking appropriate relief from the Court, therefore, it cannot be said that dispute raised by such plaintiffs is of a nature which should be decided by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1965.” 17. This Court is in complete agreement by the finding and observations given in the case of Harsh Vardhan Kejriwal (Supra) and, accordingly, holds that the Registrar/Arbitrator under Section 58 of the Act of 2001 has got no jurisdiction to decide title of the plot of land. Such jurisdiction can only be exercised by the Civil Court. 18. In the light of above discussions, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed and order dated 25.08.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal is confirmed. 19. However, both the parties shall be at liberty to get the question of title decided by way of filing civil suit before the Civil Court. Observations, if any, made in the instant judgment shall not come in the way of deciding the civil suit, if so filed by any of the parties.