- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2/. 9. 1996 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority, by order dated 19. 2. 1976 declared the disputed plot as surplus land treating it to be the holding of Indira Dev. THE petitioner filed appeal against the said order on 28. 9. 1995 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It appears that the petitioner filed photostat copies of certain documents. THE Government counsel objected to the filing of the photostat copies. Respondents No. 1 dismissed the appeal on the ground that photostat copies were inadmissible in evidence. It was further observed that the counsel for the petitioner had not submitted written or oral arguments in spite of repeatedly time being granted to him. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that photostat copies of the documents were admissible in evidence. The provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were not applicable while adjudicating the dispute by the ceiling authorities under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short the Act ). Section 37 of the Act provides the procedures to be followed by the ceiling authorities. It reads as under:- "any officer or authority holding an enquiry or hearing an objection under this Act, shall, in so far as it may be applicable, have all the powers and privileges of a civil court, and follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the trial and disposal of suits relating to immovable property. " Section 38 describes the powers of the appellate Court: - " (1) In hearing and deciding an appeal under this Act, the appellate court shall have all the powers and the privileges of a civil court and follow the procedure for the hearing and disposal of appeals laid down in the C. P. C. , 1908. (2) Where, under the provisions of this Act, an appeal has to be heard by the District Judge, he may either hear the appeal himself or transfer it for hearing to (any Addl. D. J. , Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge) subordinate to him. From reading of these two provisions it is clear that while adjudicating any dispute the Prescribed Authority or the appellate court exercises the powers of a court. It has to decide the dispute judicially. Section 1 of the Evidence Act provides that the Act shall apply to all judicial proceedings in or before any court.
(3.) IN Smt. Jamila Khatoon and others v. D. D. C. and others, 1971 ALJ 843, it was held that the provisions of Evidence Act are applicable in the proceedings before consolidation authorities. They are to be treated as court while adjudicating the dispute between the parties. The court relied upon S. 38 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which provides that the consolidation authorities shall have all such powers and rights and privileges as are vested in a civil court on the occasion of any action, in respect of (a) the enforcing of the attendance of the witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise and the issue of a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad; (b) compelling anyone of the production of any document; (c) punishing of persons guilty of contempt. Section 37 of the Act gives power of the Civil Court in respect of procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Code of Civil Procedure confers the power on a court to summon the witnesses and take evidence. If a person raises an objection and wants to establish its title, rights or privileges, he has to adduce evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. He has not only to produce the document but also to prove it in accordance with law. The photostat copies filed by the petitioner were not admissible in evidence. The view taken by the respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any manifest error of law. It will be, however, open to the petitioner to move an application to recall the order if it satisfies by giving reasons as to why the original documents could not be filed by the counsel.;