JUDGMENT

MISRA, J.:—These eight appeals by special leave raise a common question of law regarding the scope of O. 41, R. 22 and O. 41, R. 33 of the Civil P. C. We, therefore, propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. Since these appeals raise similar questions, we will refer to the facts of civil appeal No. 2084 of 1977 only.

2. The appellant in this appeal is a land holder in terms of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A notice under S. 8 (1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit return with all the particulars of the lands held by him. The petitioner in response to the said notice filed his return. On the basis of the verification report the Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to five units and accordingly ordered for the publication of the draft statement under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner was again served with a notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act. In response thereto he filed an objection laying inter alia a claim for fifteen units for reasons enumerated therein. The Collector considered the objections filed by the petitioner and by his order dated 23rd of February, 1975 ordered allotment of twelve units to the petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved went up in appeal before the Commissioner of the Division. The State of Bihar submitted to the order and did not go up in appeal. Notices were issued to the respondents who, however, failed to appear on the date fixed. The appeal was heard on 27th of April, 1976 and a final order was passed by the Commissioner on 14th of May, 1976. He allowed the appeal and set aside, the order of the Collector and remanded the case to him for disposal according to law.

3. It may be pointed out that the appellant had challenged the order of the Collector on various grounds. He, however, did not challenge the finding recorded by the Collector regarding the units allotted to him. The Commissioner, however, set aside the finding of the Collector even regarding the units allotted to the appellant in spite of the fact that no appeal has been filled by the State of Bihar before the Commissioner. The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constn. to challenge the order of the Commissioner but the High Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the order of the Commissioner on the basis of the provisions of O. 41, R. 22.

4. The sole contention raised on behalf of the appellants in the various appeals is that in the absence of any appeal or cross-objection filed by the State of Bihar the Commissioner was not justified in reversing the finding in favour of the appellants, namely, the finding on the question of allotment of units or regarding the classification of land. This contention, as observed earlier, was raised before the High Court in the writ petition as well. The High Court, however, repelled the contention by applying the provisions of O. 41, R. 22. Reliance has also been placed by the State of Bihar on the provisions of O. 41, R. 33, C. P. C. in support of the order of the Commissioner. The High Court, however, did not rely upon O. 41, R. 33 and rest content by relying on provisions of O. 41. R. 22.

5. By R. 49 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963, O. 41; C. P. C. has been made applicable in disposing of the appeals under the Act.

6. We will first refer to the provisions of O. 41, R. 22. Insofar as it is material for the purposes of this case, it reads :

"22.(1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree on any of the grounds decided against him in the Court below, but take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided he has filed such objection in the Appellate Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of