- (1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioner, State of U. P. through this writ application, filed on 19-1-1989, pays to quash the Appellate order dated 15-9-1988 passed by respondent No. 7 (the District Judge, Dehradun), dismissing the appeal preferred by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, registered as appeal No. 137 of 1986, with an observation that the land declared surplus will be subject to the result of their applications preferred under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in regard to which no decision by the State Government was said to be taken.
(2.) SHRI S. C. Mangain, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) has passed its order without considering the cross objection preferred by the petitioner (copy appended as Annexure-V to the petition ). Shri K. K. Arora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, contended to the following effect : (i) No provision (either under Section 33 of the Act or under Rule 15-A of the Rules framed under the Act) has been made for preference of any cross-objection in Ap peal nor does the cross-objection refers any provision under which it was filed or referred to by learned Standing Counsel, and accordingly, the cross objection in question was not maintainable besides it was neither admitted nor was it pressed during the hearing and accordingly no interference is required by this Court, (ii) The instant proceeding was initiated on the ground that subsequent to the earlier decision of the competent authority hold ing that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 do not possess any surplus land under the Act, a master plan was published, which was wholly in view of the legal position that the proceedings have to be adjudicated with reference to the appointed day and not on the basis of subsequent publication the master plan. In this context, reliance was placed on a division Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Atiya Mohammadi Begum v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1993 SC 2465. I put repeated questions to the learned standing counsel for the petition that under what provision the Gross-ob jection in question was preferred by the petitioner but he failed to tell me any such provision. Learned Standing Counsel also failed to tell me as to whether the alleged cross-objection was admitted for its adjudication by the Appellant authority and if so by which order. He could not show that the provisions of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable for disposal, of the appeals under the Act. It is a settled law that appeal and revision are creature of Statue and no one has any inherent right to prefer them. Similarly, unless provided by the Legislature no cross-objection / cross-appeal can be preferred.
(3.) IN the aforementioned view of the matter, this writ application is dismissed but in the peculiar facts and circumstances without any order as to cost. Petition dismissed. .;