An order directing the ejectment of persons in possession of land without giving them an opportunity to present their case is beyond the jurisdiction of the authority issuing the order.

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.:- One hundred and fifty persons filed a petition under Art.228 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a suitable direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, namely the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Collector of District Rampur, the S.D.O. of Suar, district Rampur, and Tehsildar of Tehsil Suar, district Rampur, to withdraw the orders, dated the 2nd and 8th of February, 1954, and to refrain from dispossessing the petitioners, except through Court of law. The petition alleged how they came to occupy certain land in the district of Rampur with the consent and the authority of the State Government and their representative, the then Collector of Rampur. It is not necessary to enter into those allegations.

The order, dated 2-2-1954, was by the District Magistrate of Rampur to the Sub-Divisional Officer Suar, directing him to eject refugees living in certain villages from all the lands by 1-3-1954, as the said lands were to be allotted to the retired servants of the old Rampur State. In view of this order, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Suar, issued an order to the Tehsildar of Tahsil Suar on 8-2-1954, to eject those persons from the lands in dispute occupied by them and in case of objection to dispossess them from the lands through the help of the police.

2. The learned single Judge entertaining the petition dismissed it on the ground that whether the applicants had acquired the rights of Adhivasis or licensees of the land in question, that was a private right for possession of land and that for any infringement of such a right by the order of the District Magistrate, Rampur, they could file a suit in an appropriate court for such relief as they be advised, including the recovery of damages to which they might be found entitled and that in this application it would not be possible to assess the correct damages on mere affidavits. The petitioners, therefore, filed this special appeal against the dismissal of their petition.

3. At the hearing of the appeal the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the appeal was not competent as the order of the learned Single Judge did not amount to a judgment within the meaning of R.5, Chapter 8, Rules of Court, as by the order under appeal the Court had not determined any rights of the parties. It is conceded that if this order had been passed after issuing notice to the opposite parties and hearing the parties the order would have amounted to a judgment which could have been appealable as a special appeal. We do not agree with the contention. It is not necessary for a certain order to amount to a judgment that it must be passed after the issue of notice to parties. It is the nature of the order and its effect on the proceeding which would determine whether it amounts to a judgment or not. The order under appeal did decide the right of the petitioners to file a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution and to get a decision thereon. It terminated the proceedings started on the petition. No further action can be taken in this Court on that petition. It should, therefore, amount to a judgment in view of the case reported in - Asrumati Debi v. Rupendra Deb, AIR 1953 SC 198 (A).

The Supreme Court did not finally decide what should amount to a judgment, but it is clear from this case that any order which terminates the proceedings before the Court - proceedings which cannot be said to be steps towards obtaining a final adjudication in the suit - would be a judgment. The order under appeal can be compared to an order for the rejection of a plaint which has been considered to be a judgment within the meaning of that expression in the Clauses of the Letters Patent of the various High Courts. There is nothing in the case reported in - Vishnu Pratap v. Sm. Revati Devi, AIR 1953 All 647 (B), referred to by the learned Standing Counsel which would go against this view. It was observed at p.652:

"This interpretation, i