S.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the legality of an order dated 5-8-1955 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Class, Bulandshahr and cancelling the bhumidari sanad previously granted to the petitioners by the aforesaid Assistant Collector. The petitioners alleged that they were the tenants of Sir in certain lands and obtained the bhumidhari rights after depositing ten times the amount of rent. The respondent Thamman Lal, and the father of respondents 3 and 4 applied to the Assistant Collector under S. 12 of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, for the cancellation of sanads on the grounds that the land was a grove and that the sanads had been fraudulently obtained by stating that it was agricultural land. The Assistant Collector appointed a Commissioner to inspect the land and, after considering his report, held that the land was not a grove and that there was no reason to cancel the sanads. He dismissed the application by his order dated 20th December, 1951. The respondent Thamman Lal and the deceased's father respondent 3 and 4 filed an appeal under Sec. 13 of the aforesaid Act before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut. He held that the land was a grove and that the sanads had been wrongly granted to the petitioners. Accordingly he allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector and cancelled the Bhumidari sanads granted to the Petitioners. A revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner was filed by the petitioner's before the Board of Revenue but was summarily rejected. The petitioners have now filed this petition and prayed for an order quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G. P. Tandon, has pressed only one ground before me. He contends that no appeal lies against an order passed by the Assistant Collector under Sec. 12 refusing to cancel the sanad. Therefore the appeal was incompetent and the Additional commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
(3.) I am afraid this contention is not correct. Sec. 13 (1) of the Act runs thus: "13 (1):- An appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Collector under sub-Sec. 6 of Sec. 6 or Sec. 12 shall lie to the Commissioner and the order passed in appeal by the Commissioner shall be final." The language of the Section shows that any order passed by the Assistant Collector under Sec. 12 is appealable. According to Mr. Tandon, only an order refusing to cancel a sanad is appealable. This is not borne out by the language of the sub-section. If it was intended to make only orders cancelling a sanad appealable the wording of the Section would have been, "an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Collector under Sec. 12 cancelling or modifying a declaration granted under Section 6 shall lie." But there is no such limitation placed on the right to appeal.;