The main legal point established is that the Commissioner, while exercising jurisdiction under Rule 285-1, functions as a Tribunal, and the special appeals against the judgment of the single Judge were not maintainable.

( 1 ) THESE five special appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27. 4. 2001 of a learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16451 of 1999, Jaswant sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The appeals have been preferred by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, and also by the auction-purchasers.

( 2 ) M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. filed the writ petition for quashing the sale proclamation dated 28. 3. 1992, the order dated 30. 5. 1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerut, confirming the auction sale of the properties of the petitioner and the order dated 5. 4. 1999 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 285-1 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (in short, the Rules ).

( 3 ) THE Secretary, Chini Mill Mazdor Hitkari Samiti, Meerut, moved an application before the collector, Meerut, for recovery of certain amount from M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. The collector, Meerut, initiated proceedings for recovery of Rs. 75,99,445 towards salary, wages and gratuity of the workmen as arrears of land revenue. A sale proclamation fixing 28. 3. 1992 for auction of the properties was issued and thereafter auction was held. The petitioner then filed an application before the Commissioner, Meerut under Rule 285-1 of the Rules forsetting aside the auction-sale, which was rejected on 5. 4. 1999. During this period several writ petitions were filed and proceedings before the Board of Revenue also took place, details of which have been given by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. However, they are not very relevant for deciding the special appeals. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the sale proclamation dated 28. 3. 1992, the order dated 30. 5. 1992, by which auction sale was confirmed and the order dated 5. 4. 1999 passed by the Commissioner under Rule 285-1 of the rules.

( 4 ) SRI Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel for the respondent, M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mill Ltd. has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. Learned counsel has submitted that the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition before the learned single judge was an order passed by the Commissioner under Rule 285-1 of the Rules, and as he was acting as a Court, while deciding the said application, the special appeals filed under Chapter viii. Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules are not maintainable.

( 5 ) THE provision for special appeal is contained in Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High court Rules, 1952 (for short High Court Rules) and in view of the language of the Rule, no special appeal is maintainable against the judgment of a single Judge rendered in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment or order of a Tribunal or Court made or purported to be made in exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the constitution. In terms of the language of the Rule, the present special appeal will not be maintainable if the judgment and order assailed in the writ petition was given by a Court or tribunal. This view has been consistently taken by this Court (See Jai Prakash Agarwal v. Prescribed Authority, 1998 (4) AWC 10 : 1999 (1) UPLBEC 697 ; Rajni Kant Sahai v. State, 1998 (2) AWC 1295 and Ram. Kripal Singh v. U. P. S. R. T. C. , 1999 (2) AWC 1147 : 1999 (2)UPLBEC 1617 ). Therefore, the question which requires consideration is what is the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Commissioner under Rule 285-1 of the Rules and whether he functions as a Court or Tribunal.

( 6 ) THE question whether the Commissioner functions as a Court while deciding the application under Rule 285-1 of the Rul