The right of appeal is not a vested right and the legislature can regulate, impair or hedge it down with onerous conditions.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. In this set of five hundred and thirty four connected civil writ petitions ably argued by a galaxy of learned counsel the focal point that falls for determination is indeed a single one - whether the provisions of S.18(7), (8) and (9) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, as amended by the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1978 suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality ?

2. As is manifest, the issue herein is pristinely legal and indeed the learned counsel for the petitioners did not even refer at all to the facts of either one of the cases. Therefore a passing reference to the main Civil Writ Petition No. 3365 of 1977 amply suffices the purpose. The three petitioners therein claim to be owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 41 Kanals 14 Marlas and are primarily aggrieved by the declaration of the said area as surplus and the vesting of the same in the State under S.12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioners consequently filed an application under S.8 of the Act before respondent No. 3, the Collector (Prescribed Authority) under the Act seeking a relief of declaration that the land in dispute did not vest in the State and, therefore, it could not be utilised under the Act. This application was rejected by respondent No. 3 on the 16th of May, 1977. Aggrieved the petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2, the Commissioner Ambala Division who by virtue of S.18(2) is the appellate authority against the order of the Collector. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the provisions of S.18(7) requiring them at the time of the filing of the appeal to deposit a sum equal to thirty times of the land holding tax payable in respect of the disputed surplus area before their appeal is to be entertained. It is averred that calculated on that basis the petitioners are required to pay in all a sum of nearly Rs. 1,200/-. In substance this alleged fetter on the right of appeal and revision conferred by S.18 of the Act is sought to be challenged as a violation of the right to hold property under Article 19(1)(f) and on a variety of other grounds, to which reference inevitably would follow.

3. The facts are not in dispute and indeed at the stage of the Motion hearing on 25th of July, 1978, the learned Advocate General, Haryana states that the issue being purely legal, no return on behalf of the respondent-State was necessary and the same was consequently not filed. However, as regards the legal issue a reference to the legislative history of the provisions under challenge is both necessary and inevitable and may, therefore, be made at the very outset. The predecessor Land Ceiling legislation in the State of Haryana was primarily contained in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 as applicable to the said State. The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to ceiling on land holdings in the State of Haryana and after receiving the assent of the President of India it came into force on the 23rd December, 1972. Section 7 thereof imposing a ceiling on land holdings laid down that no person shall be entitled to hold in any capacity land within the State of Haryana exceeding the permissible area on or after the appointed day. Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Act laid down the procedure for the determination and the declaration of the surplus area by the prescribed authority whilst S.12 declared in unequivocal terms that the surplus area of a land-owner shall vest in the State Government from the date on which it is so declared free from any encumbrances.

4. The material provisions of S.18 vide Sub-Secs. (1) and (2) provided for an appeal, review and revision of the orders of the prescribed authority and as originally enacted no fetter was placed on the appellate and the revisional remedy by the