HAZI YASIN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the certain proceedings and the statements recorded/made under Sections 8 and 9 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 filed an appeal under Section 33 before the Appellate Authority. It was contended before the authority that the proceedings drawn by the Ceiling Authority/competent Authority were contrary to law. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority holding that the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) WHEN this Court wanted to say that present is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as he has written in the petition that it is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court must exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In the opinion of this Court, the present cannot be taken to be a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings recorded by Tribunal constituted under the Ceiling Act and further by the other order passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under the said Act. When the orders of the Tribunals are challenged before the High Court, the High Court in exercise of its powers of superintendence can correct the wrongs or the errors which are floating on the surface of the records. When the orders of the Tribunals are challenged the High Court does not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but in fact, exercises the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner only on the ground that the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 33 of the Ceiling Act. According to Sub-section 1 of Section 33 of the Act, an appeal is required to be filed within 30 days of the date on which the order is communicated to the aggrieved party. Undisputedly, the appeal was not filed within 30 days from the date when the order was communicated to the present petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as the proceedings drawn and the final orders passed by the competent authority under the Ceiling Act, are exercised without jurisdiction the said orders could be challenged at any point of time because the said orders would have no force or effect in the eyes of law. In the opinion of this Court, if the argument is accepted it would lead to a judicial chaos. Every person would start filing an appeal after the period of limitation is over, inter alia pleading that the order passed by the subordinate Tribunal, authority or Court was without jurisdiction therefore, the appellate Court should exercise its powers and set aside the order. When an order is challenged before the appellate authority under the appellate provisions, Section 33 in this case, then the party aggrieved is required to show to the authority that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. If the statutory remedies are to be availed, the same are required to be availed within the period of limitation prescribed by the statute.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that the question of limitation was not raised by the either side, therefore, the appellate authority was unjustified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation. Unfortunately, neither the party nor the counsel who argued the matter before the appellate authority ever filed any application or affidavit before the appellate authority that the appeal was disposed of on a question which was never raised before it. In absence of such a challenge to the judgment of the authority, by way of an application or affidavit before the same authority the petitioner cannot be allowed to say in the subsequent proceedings that the order passed by the authority was not in accordance with law or runs contrary to the arguments of the parties.