M.B. Farooqi, J. - (1.) Proceedings for determination of surplus land were taken against the opposite party No. 4 in respect of lands owned and possessed by him. In due course, the Prescribed Authority passed an order declaring certain land in his holding to be the surplus land. The Petitioner claims to be a tenure holder of a portion of the land declared surplus. He filed an objection petition under Section 14(3) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. During the pendency of the objection-petition, the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amending) Ordinance was promulgated. Inconsequence of the amending ordinance, the objection-petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an appeal against the original order of the Prescribed Authority along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. By his order dated 23-12-1976, the II Additional District Judge, Nanital, has dismissed the appeal as incompetent on the ground that the Petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. Hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) Section 13(1) of the Ceiling Act reads: "13(1) Any party aggrieved by an order under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 or Section 12, may within thirty days of the date of the order prefer an appeal to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situate." This section in terms lays down that only a party aggrieved by a decision of the Prescribed Authority under Section 11(2) or Section 12 can prefer an appeal. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that even a person, who is not a party to the proceedings, can file an appeal if he is affected by the order. 1 am unable to agree. There is no inherent right of appeal. The right of appeal is a creature of the statute. It is true that the settled practice of the courts in our country now seems to be that a person who is not a party to a suit or proceeding can prefer an appeal with the leave of the court of appeal, if he is adversely affected by any decree or order. But that is so where there is no express mention of persons who can appeal, say, for example, Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, even that analogy cannot hold good under the present Act.
(3.) In the present case, the admitted position is that the Prescribed Authority had passed the order under appeal under Section 12 of the Act. The Petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. Accordingly, he could not maintain the appeal, although the order may have affected his interest. His remedy lay under Section 11(2), as held by a Bench of this Court in Dilbagh Singh v. State of U.P., 1978 AWC 393 : 1978 All LJ 717 . In that case it was held that, "Sec. 11(2) embraces persons who claim to be tenure holders and who having come to know of the declaration of their land as surplus land of some other person wish to challenge the declaration or notification thereof in the Gazette under Section 14. They are all entitled to file an objection under Section 11(2) and get an adjudication thereof as required by Section 12." In this view, the learned II Additional District Judge was justified in holding that the appeal filed by the Petitioner was incompetent.;