JUDGEMENT
A. Banerji, J. -
(1.) THIS petition is directed against an order of the District Judge, Dehradun, dated 31st August, 1981 allowing an appeal under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Baba Kali Kamliwala Panchayati Kshetra Rishikesh, Dehradun had sent a notice purporting to be under section 26 of the Act to the Competent Authority under the Act at Dehradun intimating that a particular plot of land situate in Dehradun city belonging to respondent no. 2 was proposed to be sold and transferred. It appears that instead of proceeding under section 26 of the Act, the Competent Authority passed an order directing the Sub-Registrar, Dehradun not to register the sale deed executed by respondent no. 2 transferring the said land. Representations were made by respondent no. 2 to the Competent Authority, but it seems they were of no avail. Ultimately by an order dated 11-12-1980 respondent no. 2 was informed that the earlier orders had also been passed and it was open to respondent no. 2 to take such action as it desired. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent no. 2 filed an appeal under section 33 of the Act before the District Judge, Dehradun. Learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Competent Authority containing the aforementioned directions. The learned District Judge held that the appeal was maintainable. RESPONDENT no. 2 was registered as a society under Societies Registration Act and it was exempt from the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. Consequently the Competent Authority was not right in declaring that the notices were illegal or that respondent no. 2 was incompetent to execute the sale deeds.
The State of U. P. and the Competent Authority have filed this petition against the aforesaid order. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel Mr. K. C. Dhuliya, on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sudhir Chandra on behalf of the respondent no. 2.
Mr. Dhuliya contended that no appealable order had been passed in the present case and consequently no appeal lay and, in any event, the appeal was filed beyond time and therefore was liable to be rejected. Learned counsel further contended that the provisions of section 19 of the Act had no application in the present case and the land was not exempt from the provisions of the Act. He further contended that in any event the provision of section 19 (1) was subject to the provision of section 19 (2) of the Act and as such the provisions of section 19 (1) (iv) or (vii) would not be attracted. Lastly, he contended that the District Judge has observed that respondent no. 2 was one of the biggest charitable trusts of Northern India although this fact was not borne out from the record.
(3.) AS regards the maintainability of the appeal two contentions have been raised. Firstly, that the order dated 11th December, 1980 as passed by the Competent Authority was not an appealable order and secondly that the appeal, in any event, was filed beyond time provided under section 33 of the Act.
The provisions of an appeal against an order made by the Competent Authority is provided under section 33 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 33 makes it clear that no appeal would lie against an order passed under section 11 or sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. This case does not involve any order under either Section 11 or sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Section 33 further provides that the appeal has to be filed within thirty days of the date on which the order is communicated to the person aggrieved. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33 gives power to the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days provided sufficient cause is made out for filing the appeal belatedly. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 lays down that the Appellate Authority shall pass orders as soon as possible after an opportunity for hearing has been given to the appellant. Sub-section (3) makes it clear that the order of this Appellate Authority is final.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.