RAMAKANT BINDAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec tion 381 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') praying for special leave to appeal against the order of the Tribunal. Certain land acquisition proceedings had taken place and the matter was referred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal under the proviso to Section 392 (372?) of the Adhini yam demanded security for costs from the claimant. The applicant (sic). The applicant objected to the demand on the ground that the proviso was not applicable as the noti fication for acquisition had been issued prior to the commencement of the Adhiniyam. He also prayed for referring the matter to this Court under Section 113, C. P. C. The Tribunal has held that as the claim is being decided by the Tribunal hi praesenti and it could award costs, the provision for demand of security for costs under the proviso will be applicable to the facts of the present case. It has also been held that there is no point which may be referred to the High Court under Section 113, C. P. C. The application filed by the applicant for leave to appeal to the High Court has been rejected by the Chairman of the Tribunal.

(2.) SECTION 113, C. P. C. does not apply to the present case firstly because the Tribunal is not a Court and secondly be cause the Tribunal did not find any diffi culty in the decision of the matter before it If the Tribunal did not find any difficulty it cannot be said that the Tribunal acted illegally in refusing to refer the matter to this Court. The order is not even such a de cision which could be subject to appeal under Section 381 of the Adhiniyam.

(3.) SUB -section (3) of Section 381 of the Adhiniyam provides that no appeal shall lie unless the appellant has deposited the money which he is liable to pay under the order of the Tribunal from which the ap peal is preferred. In the present case, there fore, the applicant will have to deposit the entire money before his appeal will be heard while under the proviso to Section 372 also the same thing is to be done. The matter is thus only academic and on this ground also it is not a case in which spe cial leave to appeal should be granted. It is not denied that the claimant may be liable to pay costs awarded by the Tribunal