K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) A notice u/Sec. 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, was issued to the petitioner. He filed a detailed objection. In support of his objection, he produced oral and documentary evidence. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31st March, 1976, rejected the petitioner's objection and declared 6.084 acres of land as surplus. The petitioner filed an appeal u/Sec. 13 of the Act before the District Judge against the order of the Prescribed Authority. The District Judge dismissed the appeal summarily under Order 41, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the District Judge dismissed the petitioner's appeal summarily without considering the evidence. I find considerable force in the contention. The District Judge dismissed the appeal summarily in the following words : "Heard the learned counsel of the appellant on the point of admission and went through the record and the judgment of the court below. The judgment is detailed one and there appears nothing wrong in the judgment. The document relied upon appears to be fictitious. The appeal is not at all fit for admission for being heard on merit. It is therefore rejected under Order 41 rule 11 (a) of the CPC." Order 41, rule 11-A of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that every appeal shall be heard under rule 11 as expeditiously as possible and every endeavour shall be made to conclude the appeal within sixty days of the date when the memorandum of appeal is filed. This provision does not confer any jurisdiction on the District Judge to reject the petitioner's appeal summarily. It appears that the learned District Judge purported to dismiss the petitioner's appeal summarily under Order 41, rule 11. Under clause (1) of rule 11 of Order 41, an appellate court has power to dispose of the appeal without sending for the record, but in a case where appeal lies as of right, it is the duty of the appellate court to dispose of the appeal by a speaking order. Admittedly, u/Sec. 13 an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority lies as of right before the District Judge. Sections 37 and 38 of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act confer all the powers and privileges of Civil Court on the District Judge in hearing and deciding appeals filed u/Sec. 13 of the Act and he is required to follow the same procedure as prescribed for the hearing and disposal of appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge had jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal summarily under Order 41 rule 11 but the order of dismissal must contain reasons. Whenever appeal is maintainable as of right it is not open to the first appellate court to reject the appeal summarily in exercise of the powers under Order 41 rule 11 without giving reasons. The judgment must contain reasons for rejecting the appellant's contention. In the absence of reasons, the order of summary rejection of the appeal by the first appellate court could be arbitrary. This view appears to have been accepted by the Parliament and for that reason clause (4) has been added by the Parliament to rule 11 of Order 41 by Central Act No. 104 of 1976. Clause (4) as added to rule 11 lays down that when an appellate court not being the High Court dismisses an appeal under sub-rule (1) it shall deliver a judgment recording in brief its grounds for doing so and a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment. The legislature has, therefore, enjoined a legal duty on the appellate court other than the High Court to record reasons and grounds for rejecting an appeal summarily in exercise of power under clause (1) of Order 41 rule 11. If the appellate court fails to comply with the requirements of clause (4) the order would be rendered illegal, and liable to be quashed.
(3.) IN the instant case the learned District Judge has not set out any reasons for repelling the petitioner's contention raised in the memorandum of appeal. The only reason mentioned in the order is that the order of the Prescribed Authority was a detailed judgment and there was nothing wrong in the judgment. This is a curious reasoning, in fact this is no reason at all. The learned District Judge further observed that the document relied on appears to be fictitious. On what basis this observation was made is not clear. While exercising the powers under Order 41, rule 11 the District Judge failed to appreciate that he was dealing with the fundamental right of property of a citizen. He was depriving the petitioner of his property by dismissing his apeal summarily in a cryptic manner. The courts dealing with the property rights of citizens are expected to exercise their jurisdiction with care. The District Judge in the instant case dismissed the petitioner's appeal in a cavalier manner without applying his mind to the questions raised in the appeal. I, therefore, allow the petition and quash the order of the District Judge dated 22nd July, 1976, and direct him to hear and dispose of the petitioner's appeal in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.;