IMPORTANT POINTS
Right to appeal should be determined on interpretation of the provision of the statute and not on the ground of propriety or any other consideration.
Any order passed by the Prescribed Authority other than the order under section 11(2) or section 12 is not appealable u/s 13.

Judgment :-

R.M. Lodha, J.

This batch of ten appeals by special leave raises identical issues and emanates from a common order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Meerut Division, Meerut and, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of each appeal as narration of facts in Civil Appeal No. 3058 of 2008 would suffice for deciding the controversy raised in this group of appeals.

3. On January 24, 2002, the Additional Collector (Finance/Revenue) (for short, `Prescribed Authority), Gautambudh Nagar issued a notice under Section 9(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, `Act, 1960) calling upon the appellants to file details of the land held by them in Ceiling Land Holding Form No. 2 (for short, `CLH Form-2) along with enclosures within a period of thirty days from the date of notice.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice under Section 9(2), the appellants submitted its reply on February 21, 2002 raising diverse objections, inter alia; (1) that notice under Section 9(2) could only be issued to a tenure-holder who holds agricultural land and not to one who does not hold agricultural land; (ii) that in the form annexed with the notice, the land of the objectors has been wrongly shown as irrigated. As a matter of fact, the subject land was purchased by the appellants through separate sale deeds dated March 3, 1987; March 10, 1987 and April 20, 1987; which was already recorded as `abadi land at the time of purchase; (iii) that the residential quarters for the labour as well as industries exist over the land, and; (iv) that the land held by them is not covered by any of the provisions of the Act, 1960. In the statement submitted by the appellant in C.L.H. Form2, it was stated under every column `not applicable.

5. On May 23, 2002, the Prescribed Authority called upon the appellants to submit the details of each khata holders separately along with the chart.

6. On June 4, 2002, the appellants, pursuant to the order dated May 23, 2002, submitted the details of the holding in the chart form indicating the nature of land as `industrial and `abadi.

7. The Prescribed Authority vide his order dated December 17, 2003 cancelled the notice holding that the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act, 1960 are applicable only in respect of the khatedars who hold agricultural land in use more than the prescribed area whereas the objectors land is entered as industrial/abadi. He ordered that necessary endorsement to the said effect be made in the revenue record.

8. Not satisfied with the order dated December 17, 2003 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the State of Uttar Pradesh through Collector, Gautambudh Nagar preferred appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960 before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. Nine other appeals also came to be filed against the identical orders of the Prescribed Authority.

9. The appellants raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeals as, according to them, the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority were not appealable.

10. The Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division (Appellate Authority) took up all the ten appeals together and, after hearing the parties, by his order dated October 29, 2004 overruled the preliminary objection raised by the present appellants regarding the maintainability of appeals and held that the appeals lay from the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority.

11. The appellants challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by filing writ petitions before the High Court.

12. The Single Judge heard the parties and vide judgment and order dated May 24, 2007 held that the view of the Appellate Authority in holding the appeals maintainable warranted no interference. Hence, these appeals by special leave.

13. The question as to whether the appeals preferred by the State of Uttar Pra