RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J.

Mr. T. S. Doabia, Senior Counsel with Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.

Sri J. P Joshi, Chief Standing Coun sel for the respondents.

They are heard on admission.

2. Mr. J. P. Joshi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Special Ap peal on the ground that the present Special Appeal is not maintainable on account of the specific bar contained in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.

3. Appellant Hira Kalyan Das has filed this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the impugned judgment dated 25-09-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 840 of 2001 (M/s ).

4. Appellant Hira Kalyan Das had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs :

" (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 15-3-1990 (annexure III) and judgment and order dated 31-/-1984 (annexure II passed by the respondent no. 2);

(b) Issue such other further suitable writ, order or direction deemed proper in the circumstances of the case;

(c) Award costs to the petitioner. "

5. Thus, it is apparent from the above-quoted reliefs sought in the writ petition that the petitioner was seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 31-0/-1984 (Annexure No. II) passed by respondent No. 2 Prescribed Authority / Sub-Divisional Officer (under U. P Act No. 1 of 1961), Dehradun and the judgment and order dated 15-03-1990 (Annexure No. III) passed by Additional Commis sioner (Administration), Garhwal Region, Pauri, Dehradun (Appellate Authority un der the U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 ).

6. Mr. T. S. Doabia, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the present Special Appeal is very much maintainable as :

(i) the learned Single Judge ought not to have heard and decided the writ petition, as the consti tutional validity of the Act, it self, was challenged in the writ petition; and (ii) the U. P Act, under the provisions whereof the impugned judg ments and orders were passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, falls in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitu tion of India and, as such, is not covered by the exclusion clause in Rule 5.

7. Mr. J. P. Joshi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Rule 5 (b) of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules specifically excludes filing of a Special Appeal against a judgment or order passed by the Government or any officer or authority made or pur ported to be made in exercise or pur ported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The learned Chief Standing Counsel, placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sudershan Singh Bedi Vs. Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control and Eviction Officer), Varanasi and others reported in 1993 (1) ARC 121 further submitted that as the impugned judgments and orders, passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Sub-Divi sional Officer and the Appellate Author ity, were in exercise of their judicial pow ers, these Authorities are to be deemed as Tribunal for the purposes of Rule 5 of the High Court Rules and, as such also, the Special Appeal is not maintain able in view of Rule 5 (a ).

8. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, as appli cable to the High Court of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), providing for Special Appeals, reads as follows :

"5. Special appeal.- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judg ment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdic tion in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the su perintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the ex ercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdic tion or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document