- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. These five special appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27-4-2001 of a learned single Judge in Civil M/s. Writ Petition No. 16451 of 1999 - M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The appeals have been preferred by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, and also by the auction- purchasers.
(2.) M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. filed the writ petition for quashing the sale proclamation dated 28-3- 1992, the order dated 30-5-1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerut, confirming the auction sale of the properties of the petitioner and the order dated 5-4-1999 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 285-I of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (in short, the Rules ). The Secretary, Chini Mill Mazdor Hitkari Samiti, Meerut, moved an application before the Collector. Meerut for recovery of certain amount from M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. The Collector, Meerut, initiated proceedings for recovery of Rs. 75,99,445/- towards salary, wages and gratuity of the workmen as arrears of land revenue. A sale proclamation fixing 28-3-1992 for auction of the properties was issued and hereafter, auction was held. The petitioner then filed an application before the Commissioner, Meerut under Rule 285-I of the Rules for setting aside the auction-sale, which was rejected on 5-4-1999. During this period several writ petitions were filed and proceedings before the Board of Revenue also took place, details of which have been given by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. However, they are not very relevant for deciding the special appeals. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the sale proclamation dated 28-3-1992, the order dated 30-5-1992 by which auction sale was confirmed and the order dated 5-4-1999 passed by the Commissioner under Rule 285-I of the Rules. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior Counsel for the respondent, M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. Learned Counsel has submitted that the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition before the learned single Judge was an order passed by the Commissioner under Rule 285-I of the Rules, and as he was acting as a Court, while deciding the said application, the special appeals filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules are not maintainable.
(3.) THE provision for special appeal is contained in Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (for short High Court Rules) and in view of the language of the Rule, no special appeal is maintainable against the judgment of a single Judge rendered in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 277 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment or order of a Tribunal or Court made or purported to be made in exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. In terms of the language of the Rule, the present special appeal will not be maintainable if the judgment and order assailed in the writ petition was given by a Court or Tribunal. This view has been consistently taken by this Court (See Jai Prakash Agarwal v. Prescribed Authority, 1999 (1) UPLBEC 697, Rajni Kant Sahai v. State, 1998 AWC 1256, Ram Kripal Singh v. U. P. S. R. T. C. , 1999 (2) UPLBEC 1617 ). THErefore, the question which requires consideration is what is the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Commissioner under Rule 285-I of the Rules and whether he functions as a Court or Tribunal. The question whether the Commissioner functions as a Court while deciding the application under Rule 285-I of the Rules was examined by a Full Bench in Ram Swaroop v. Board of Revenue, 1990 Revenue Decisions 291, and it was held as under: "rule 285-I as extracted above indicates that the Commissioner is to adjudicate certain rights and interest of the parties in respect of immovable property. The order so passed by he Commissioner has been made final. Obviously the proceedings so taken by the Commissioner are judicial in nature. Though it could be said that the Commissioner is not sitting as a Court to decide the same, and there is no specific provision in this behalf the Commissioner will be deemed to be sitting in the Court and the order passed by the Commissioner will be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act which is analogous to Section 219 of U. P. Land Revenue Act. The Commissioner while deciding the objection under Rule 285-I of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules will be a 'court' as such and the proceedings taken before him will be deemed judicial proceedings as such and the Commissioner who otherwise is a Court under U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act will be deemed to be a Court. ";