JUDGMENT

S.C. AGRAWAL. J.:—This appeal by special leave raises the question whether it was competent for the Board of Revenue to refer for arbitration the dispute relating to declaration of bhumidari rights in agricultural land in a second appeal arising out of a suit instituted u/ S. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Zamindari Abolition Act).

2. Badlu, father of Hakim Ali (appellan No . 1), instituted a suit u/ S. 229-B of the Zamindari Abolition Act against respondent No. 2, Lekhi Ram, wherein he sought a declaration that he is Bhumidar in respect of certain lands situate within the urban area of Municipal Board, Baraut. During the pendency of the said suit before the trial court Badlu died and the appellants were brought on 974 record as the plaintiffs. The said suit was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Baghpat. But on appeal it was decreed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Respondent No. 2 filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of the said appeal, on the joint request of the parties, the Board of Revenue referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed Shri Anup Singh, respondent No. 5 as the arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his award against which objections were filed by the appellants. One of the objections raised by the appellants was that the reference to arbitration was bad in law inasmuch as the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute for arbitration and the award given by the arbitrator is void and without jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue, by order dated March 9, 1973, rejected.the said objection of the appellants and held that the dispute had been validly referred to arbitration. The appellants filed a writ petition wherein they challenged the said decision of the Board of Revenue. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court (H. N. Seth, J.) by judgment dated November 17, 1976. The High Court held that the expression "court" in S. 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not include a Revenue Court. But in view of S. 203 of the U.P. L and Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Land Revenue Act) the High Court held that the provisions of the Arbitration Act are applicable to cases coming up for hearing before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue had ample jurisdiction to refer a dispute involved in second appeal under the Zamindari Abolition Act to arbitration. Since the High Court was of the view that there was no infirmity in the order of the Board of Revenue referring the dispute pending before it to arbitration, it did not consider it necessary to deal with the objection raised by respondent No. 2 that since the dispute had been referred to arbitration by the Board of Revenue with the consent of the appellants, they should not be permitted to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction, of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constituition and to challenge the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to refer the disppte to arbitration. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the High Court the appellants have filed this appeal.

3. Before we deal with the submission of Shri Satish Chandra, the learned counsel for the appellants, in support of the appeal, we would set out the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the Zamindari Abolion Act.

4. S. 203 of the Land Revenue Act confers the power to refer disputes to arbitration and it provides as under:-

"203 Power to refer disputes to arbitration.-

The Board, a Commissioner, an Additional Commissioner, a Collector, Additional Collector, an Assistant Collector of the first class, a Record Officer or an Assistant Record Officer, a Settlement Officer or an Assistent Settlement Officer may, with the consent of the parties, by order refer any dispute before it to arbitration."

In S. 204, provision is made with regard to procedure in cases referred to arbitration and it is prescribed that in all cases of re