2009 (9) TMI 914 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appeals preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh through Collector under Section 13 of the Act 1960 aggrieved by the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority are maintainable or not?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of appeals under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
2. Applicability of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 to the land held by the appellants.
3. Nature of the order dated December 17, 2003, passed by the Prescribed Authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Appeals under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960:

The primary issue was whether the appeals preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 13 of the Act, 1960, against the orders of the Prescribed Authority, were maintainable. The Supreme Court noted that the right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right but a statutory right. Section 13 provides a right of appeal only against orders under sub-Section (2) of Section 11 or Section 12. The Court observed, "Any order passed by the Prescribed Authority other than the order under Section 11(2) or Section 12 is not appealable." The Court concluded that the order dated December 17, 2003, was neither an order under Section 11(2) nor under Section 12, and thus, the appeals were not maintainable.

2. Applicability of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 to the Land Held by the Appellants:

The appellants contended that the land held by them was recorded as 'abadi' or 'industrial' land under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and thus was not covered by the Act, 1960. The Prescribed Authority had accepted this contention and canceled the notice issued under Section 9(2). The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating, "The land held by them was not covered by the Act, 1960." The Court emphasized that the notice issued under Section 9(2) was not akin to a notice under Section 10, and thus, the proceedings under Section 10 were not applicable.

3. Nature of the Order Dated December 17, 2003, Passed by the Prescribed Authority:

The Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the order dated December 17, 2003, passed by the Prescribed Authority. The Court noted that the order was the culmination of proceedings pursuant to the notice issued to the appellants under Section 9(2) of the Act, 1960. The Court observed, "The order dated December 17, 2003, cannot be said to be an order under Section 11(1)." The Court further clarified that the order was not under Section 12 either, as the exercise contemplated under Section 10(1) and (2) had not been done by the Prescribed Authority. The Court concluded that the order was simply an order canceling the notice issued under Section 9(2) after objections were filed by the appellants.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the Additional Commissioner. The Court clarified that it would be open to the respondent to challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in appropriate proceedings. The period from the date of filing the appeals until the date of the Supreme Court judgment would not come in the way of pursuing such a remedy. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.