JUDGMENT

G.C. Mathur, J. - The following two common questions have been referred in these three special appeals for decision to this Bench at the instance of a Division Bench:

1. Whether for purposes of fixing, u/s 4 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (U.P. Act I of 1961), the ceiling area in regard to land falling in areas described in Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 337 of the UP ZA and LR Act (Act No. 1 of 1951), the same should be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 337 of the UP ZA and LR Act?

2. In case the answer to the above question be in the affirmative, whether the computation in the three appeals before us should be two acres for one acre as provided originally in Section 337 of the UP ZA and LR Act or it should be on the basis of one and a half acres for one acre as provided by the amendment of Section 337 by the U.P. Land (Amendment) Act (U.P. No. 4 of 1969)?

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel that these questions do not arise in any of the special appeals in which the references have been made and that we should decline to answer the questions. The principal contention raised by the Appellants is that, since the land in each one of these cases lies in Bundelkhand, each tenure-holder was entitled to retain 80 acres of Fair Quality Land as his ceiling area and not merely 40 acres as in other parts of the State. The learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that, in none of these cases, was this point raised either before the Prescribed authority or before the appellate authority, nor was this point raised before the learned Single Judges who heard the three writ petitions out of which the special appeals arise. Throughout the cases have proceeded on the footing that the ceiling area for the tenure-holders was 40 acres of Fair Quality Land. The question now is whether it is open to us and proper to say that the two questions referred do not arise in the special appeals and to decline to decide them on that ground.

3. Rule 6 of Ch. V of the Rules of Court provides:

The Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question of law formulated by a Bench hearing a case. In the latter event, the decision of such Bench on the question so formulated shall be returned to the Bench hearing the case and that Bench shall follow that decision on such question and dispose of the case after deciding the remaining questions, if any, arising therein.

On the strength of this rule, it was urged by Sri V.K.S. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the Appellants, that this Bench cannot go behind the order of reference and is bound to answer the questions referred. He has also relied upon the following observations of Desai, C.J. in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Firm Deo Dutt Lakhan Lal, AIR 1966 All 73 :

Sri S.N. Kaoker, appearing in Sp. As. Nos. 918 and 931, contended that there is conflict between the two Full Bench decisions and that, in any case, referring the special appeals to a larger Bench was not correct or justified. The special appeals have been referred to this Bench by an administrative order of the Chief Justice and it has no jurisdiction to consider its merits. It derives its jurisdiction over the special appeals from the order of the Chief Justice passed under Rules of Court and it has not been alleged that it is against any provision of Rules of Court. The Chief Justice passed the order on a Judicial order passed by a Bench that to resolve the conflict between the two Full Bench decisions, they may be referred to a larger Bench, e.g., a Bench of at least five Judges. It is not open to any member of this Bench to question that order of the Division Bench and I can only express surprise at the suggestion made by counsel that he can do so and that this Bench can hold that the order passed by the Chief Justice referring the special appeals to a Bench of five Judges was not proper or legal.

Jagdish Sahai, Broo