M.M. Qazi, J. - (1.) AS these petitions involve common questions of law, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE present petitions have to be allowed on the short ground that the Resident Deputy Collector, Akola, who passed the impugned order, had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeals. According to Clause 21 of the Central Provinces and Bear Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, 'Rent Control Order'), an appeal against the order of the Controller has to be presented to the Collector of the district. However, according to clause 21 -A of the Rent Control Order, the State Government is empowered to issue a notification investing any officer with the powers of the Collector under clause 21. In pursuance of this power, the State Government had issued a notification dated 13th June, 1966, investing various Resident Deputy Collectors with the powers of the Collector. The notification reads thus : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -clause (1) of clause 21 -A of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, and in supersession of all previous notifications issued in this behalf, the Government of Maharashtra hereby invests the officers mentioned in column (1) of the Schedule appended hereto, with the powers of the Collector under clause 21 of the said Order within the areas mentioned against them in column (2) of the said schedule : - 1. Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur. Within the limits of Nagpur district 2. Resident Deputy Collectors of Nagpur, Akola, Amravati, Bhandara, Buldana, Chanda, Wardha and Yeotmal. Within the limits of their respective districts." There is no dispute that once such a notification is issued investing the Resident Deputy Collector with the powers of the Collector, the Collector may choose to transfer any appeal to such officer for disposal. The Resident Deputy Collector, Akola, who passed the impugned orders, was also invested with such power which is evident from the notification quoted above. In these cases, the Rent Controller, who passed the orders, was one K. G. Bijwal, who subsequently came to be promoted as Resident Deputy Collector, Akola. Consequently; he became the appellate authority under the Rent Control Order by virtue of the above notification. However, since he could not hear the appeals arising out of his own orders, a notification dated 7th May 1984 (Annexure E) came to be issued by the State Government, which is reproduced below - - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -clause (1) of Clause 21 -A of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, the Government of Maharashtra hereby invests the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Akola, with the powers of a Collector under clause 21 of the said order for hearing appeals made under the said clause 21 against orders passed by Shri K.G. Bijwal, Deputy Collector, Akola. (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) HOWEVER , after the above notification was issued, K. G. Bijwal came to be transferred from Akola and in his place one S. G. Paraskar was appointed as Resident Deputy Collector. Naturally thus S. G. Paraskar became the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Order under the General Notification of the year 1966, referred supra. The Collector, Akola, if wanted to transfer these appeals to S. G. Paraskar, then he should have moved the State Government for withdrawal of the notification of the year 1984, which had invested the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Akola, with the power of the Appellate Court to hear the appeals arising out of the orders of K. G. Bijwal, and the State Government would have normally withdrawn it since the situation had changed. However, the Collector, Akola, instead of adopting proper course, as stated above, chose to transfer these appeals to S. G. Paraskar. When the appeals came up before S. G. Paraskar, the petitioners raised the ground of jurisdiction, in view of the fact that the notification of the year 1984 was still in force. However, S. G. Paraskar took the view that he could hear the appeals notwithstanding the existence of the notification of the year 1984.;