- (1.) UPON a difference of opinion between Satish Chandra, J. and N. D. Ojha, J., the following question has been referred to me: "Whether this appeal is maintainable ?"
(2.) THE question has arisen in the fol lowing circumstances:- The appellants filed a suit in the revenue Court under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for a dec laration of their title to certain plots of land and for possession thereof. The suit was dis missed by the trial Court. The judgment and the decree of the trial Court were up held in appeal and in second appeal. The appellants then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court. This was done in 1970. The writ petition was substantially dismissed by a learned Single Judge on January 17, 1973. This special ap peal was filed on March 2, 1973.
(3.) WHILE the writ petition was pend ing the U. P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Ordi nance, 1972 (U. P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1972) was promulgated by the Governor and came into force on June 30, 1972. The Ordi nance was replaced by the U. P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Amend ment) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 33 of 1972). The Act came into force on August 18, 1972. Section 2 of this Act introduced a new Sec tion 4 in the U. P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962. Sec tion 4 so introduced, -reads thus:- "4 (1) No appeal, arising from a suit or proceeding instituted or commenced, whether prior or subsequent to the commencement of the section, shall lie to the High Court from a judgment or order of one Judge of the High Court, made in the exercise of juris diction conferred by Article 226 or Arti cle 227 of the Constitution, in respect of a judgment, decree or order made or purported to be made by the Board of Revenue under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, or the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, or the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, or the Jaunsar-Bawar Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, or the Kumaun and Uttarkhand Zamin dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960, or by the Director of Consolidation (includ ing any other officer purporting to exercise the powers and to perform the duties of Director of Consolidation), under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, any thing to the contrary contained in clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Her Majesty, dated March 17, 1866, read with Clauses 7 and 17 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, or in any other law notwith standing. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), all appeals pending be fore the High Court on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of this section shall be heard and disposed of as if this section had not been enacted." Under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with the provisions of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order 1948, appeals (for merly called Letters Patent Appeals and now called Special Appeals) lay from the judg ments of the Single Judge in the exercise of Civil Appellate and Original Jurisdiction to Division Benches. The U. P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962, by Section 3 abolished Special Appeals against the judgments of Single Judges made in the exercise of Civil Appellate Jurisdic tion. Section 4 which has now been intro duced seeks to do the same in respect of judgments of the Single Judges in writ peti tions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Con stitution of India in certain classes of cases. A Full Bench of this Court has held the 1972 Ordinance and the 1972 Act to be constitutionally valid. ;