- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High court dated 31/3/1993 whereunder the word 'may' in Section 13 (3 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act, 1960 (the Act) has been interpreted to mean 'shall'. Section 13 of the Act reads as under: "13.(1 Any party aggrieved by an order under Ss. (2 of Section 11 or Section 12 may, within thirty days of the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner within whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situate. (2 The Commissioner shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive and be not questioned in any court of law. (3 Where an appeal is preferred under this section, the Commissioner may stay enforcement of the order appealed against for such time and such conditions as may be considered just and proper: Provided that the enforcement of the order appealed against shall not be stayed in respect of that part of the land the surplus character of which was either not disputed in an objection under Ss. (2 of Section 10 or under Ss. (2 of Section 11 or is not disputed in the appeal and any 751 stay order passed under this Ss. before twenty-eighth day of September, 1970, shall, on an application being made in that behalf to the appellate court by the State government, be modified by that court accordingly. Explanation. For the purposes of this proviso any dispute respecting regularity, validity or legality of a notice under Section 9 or Section 10 or of the proceedings before the prescribed authority shall not, by itself, be deemed to be a dispute respecting the surplus character of land. "the High court has interpreted the expression "the Commissioner may stay the enforcement of the order" under Section 13 (3 in the following manner: "The purpose of granting of stay order in such cases where the question relates to the nature of land as surplus land, it appears to be the intention of the legislature that when the appeal has been filed, the appellate courts should in ordinary course of things and except for any substantial circumstances, order for stay of enforcement of the order under appeal during the pendency of the appeal. The reasons behind the same appears to be that in case the appeal is allowed, the person may not suffer because of the ground that order has already been implemented. If the order declaring the land as surplus land passed by the prescribed authority is implemented during the pendency of the appeal then either the person has to suffer in the sense, by the act of immediate implementation of the order during the appeal that the State authorities may render the right and remedy provided to a party by the Act by nugatory and useless or it may give rise to multiplicity of legal proceeding and likely to cause undue delay in implementation of the scheme under the social legislature i. e. U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act and thereby it may frustrate the implementation and enforcement of the social and socio-economic purpose of the State, as such, it can be taken that except for the circumstances indicated in the proviso under the scheme of the Act to Ss. 3 of Section 13, the intention of legislature is that in ordinary course while admitting the appeal, the appellate authority should grant interim order of stay. It may be subject to certain proper conditions which the authority deems fit and proper. We cannot take the expression 'may' as discretionary, pure and simple keeping in view the whole scheme of the social-economic legislation. It appears just and proper to read the expression as 'shall' or at least not as discretionary instead the authority has to pass a stay order with the object that the remedy of appeal may not be rendered infructuous as well as to avoid complication being created as the multiplicity of the proceedings which are liable to be caused and as well as to avoid serious delay in implementation. Considering the matter in this light and failure of the Additional Commissioner to pass suitable reasoned orders disposing of the application of stay by or before 30/4/1993, till then the status quo as it exists today shall be maintained. "the least we can say is that the High court fell into patent error. A plain reading of Section 13 (3 makes it clear that the Commissioner before whom the appeal is filed has been given discretion in the matter of grant of stay in the pending appeals. It is no doubt correct that he has to exercise the discretion judiciallykeeping in view the facts of each case but the provisions of Section 13 (3 cannot be interpreted to mean that he is bound to grant stay in every case.
(3.) We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondents. The Commissioner shall hear the parties and decide the matter afresh as to whether the stay is to be granted in this case or not. No costs.;