M/S. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 17-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 627 
M/S. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED 
A 
}· 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3058 of 2008 etc.) 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 
B 
[T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings 
Act, 1960 - s. 13 - Appeal under - Maintainability of - Held: 
Appeal uls. 13 is maintainable only against order u/ss. 11 (2) c 
and 12 - In the instant case, order appealed against was u/s. 
9(2), hence appeal not maintainable. 
Appeal - Right of appeal - Held: Such right is not a 
natural or inherent right - Remedy of appeal to be traceable D 
to statutory provisions - Mere omission in quoting the 
"f 
provision, not to affect maintainability of appeal, if the 
impugned order, otherwise is amenable to appeal. 
Prescribed authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling 
on Land Holdings Act, 1960, issued a notice u/s. 9(2) of E 
the Act, calling upon the appellants to file details of land 
held by them in Ceiling Land Holding Form No. 2. 
• 
Appyllants objected to the notice. Prescribed authority 
cancelled the notice holding that it was not applicable to 
--4 
the land in question, as the same was not agricultural F 
,... 
land. State Government filed appeals u/s. 13 of the Act. 
Appellants raised objection to the maintainability of the 
appeals, which was overruled by the appellate authority 
and held the appeal as maintainable. In writ petition, High 
... 
Court upheld the view of the appellate authority. Hence G 
the present appeals. 
"J 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
627 
.H 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. Right of appeal is not a natural or inherent 
right. It cannot be assumed to exist unless expressly 
provided for, by statute. Being a creature of statute, 
remedy of appeal must be legitimately traceable to the 
statutory provisions. It is true that mere omission or error 
B in quoting the provisions would not affect the 
maintainability of appeal, if otherwise, the order impugned 
is amenable to appeal. [Para 25] [641-A-B] 
D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal 1988 (3) SCC 26; V.C. Shukla 
c v. State through C.B.I. 1980 suppl sec 92, relied on. 
2.1. Section 13 of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling 
on Land Holdings Act, 1960, provides a right of appeal 
to a party aggrieved by an order under sub-Section (2) 
of Section 11 or Section 12 and no other. Any order 
D passed by the Prescribed Authority other than the order 
under-Section (2) of Section 11 or Section 12 is not 
y 
appealable. From any reckoning, the order of prescribed 
authority is neither an order under sub-Section (2) of 
Section 11 nor an order under Section 12. The Act does 
E not make the order of tile Prescribed authority canceling 
the notice issued under Section 9(2) amenable to appeal. 
Such order doe• not fall within the ambit of Section 13. 
The position is no different for the orders passed by the 
• 
prescribed authority in other nine matters. [Para 31) [643-
)--
F D-F] 
... 
2.2. The -High Court held that appeals were 
maintainable because notice u/s. 9(2) is akin to a notice 
u/s. 10 and if the matter is disputed by either party and 
G 
the Prescribed authority adjudicates the dispute either in 
favour of State or tenure-holder, the order falls under 
Section 11 (2) and, therefore, appealable uls. 13. The 
·-
reasoning of the High Court is fallacious for more than 
-I 
one reason. In the first place, it is not correct to say that 
notice uls. 9(2) is akin to a notice u/s. 10 of the Act. In the 
H 
.. 
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. 
629 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
next place, Section 10 applies where pursuant to the 
A 
> 
notice under Section 9, the tenure-holder fails to submit 
a statement or submits any incomplete or incorrect 
statement and the prescribed authority causes a 
statement Prepared in the prescribed form (C.L.H. Form-
3) and then issues a notice upon such tenure-holder B 
together with a copy of statement so prepared in C.L.H. 
Form-3 to show cause why that statement be not taken 
as correct. In the present case, the exercise required 
under Section 10(1) and (2) has not at all been done by 
the prescribed authority. In the circumstances, the orders c 
passed by the Prescribed authority neither fall u/s. 11 (2) 
nor Section 12 of the Act. [Para 32] [643-F-H; 644-A-C] 
Case Law Reference: 
1988 (3) sec 26 
1980 suppl sec 92 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Para 24 o 
Para 24 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No . 
3058 of 2008. 
E 
F

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.