# Jagdish Singh and others v. The Additional District Magistrate and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 895
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-10-01
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 516 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.P. Srivastava, K.N. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdish-singh-and-others-v-the-additional-district-magistrate-and-another-40032
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Rules
1952-
Chapter VIII rule-5- Special Appeal-
Maintainability-
appeal
against
the
judgment of single Judge - arises out
from the order passed by revisional court
under Consolidation of Holdings Act
1953- statutory born emposed by section
4 of the U.P. High Court ( Abolition of
letters Patent Appeal) Act 1962- held-
Special Appeal not maintainable.

Held- Para 8 and 14
Case law discussed.
2001 (2) JLJ page I
In view of the statutory prohibition
envisaged under section 4 of the Act, no
appeal arising from a suit or proceedings
instituted or commenced whether prior
or subsequent to the commencement of
that Section was to lie to the High Court
from a judgment or order of one Judge of
the High Court made in the exercise of
jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or
Article 227 of the Constitution, in respect
of a judgment, decree or order made or
purported to be made by the Board of
Revenue under the United Provisions
Land Revenue Act, 1901, or the U.P.
Tenancy Act, 1939, or the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 or the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Area
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1956 or the Jaunsar-Bawar
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,
1956,
or
the
Kumaun
and
Uttarkhand Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1960, or by the Director of
Consolidation
(including
any
other
officer purporting to exercise the powers
and to perform the duties of the Director
of
Consolidation)
under
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

As has already been noticed herein
above, the judgment/order impugned in
the writ petition giving rise to this
Special Appeal had been passed in the
proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 as amended and
the said order had been passed by the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
exercising the revisional powers vesting
in the Director of Consolidation. The
order of the learned single Judge under
Appeal has only maintained the order
passed
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation by dismissing the writ
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
petition. Such an order passed by a
learned Single Judge is clearly not
appealable.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Jagdish Singh and others V. The A.D.M. and another 895
filed for compensation the question as to
whether the said application is barred by
time or not, has to be considered with
regard to date on which the said
application has been filed and the law
governing the limitation on the said date.

9. In view of what has been said
above, the facts of the present case are
fully covered by the apex court judgment
in Dhannalal vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya and
others (supra). The application filed by
respondent no. 2 was not barred by time
and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
has rightly decided issue no. 4. None of
the submissions raised by the counsel for
the petitioner has any merit.

The writ petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 1.10.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Special Appeal No. 516 of 2002

Jagdish Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
The Additional District Magistrate and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.P. Tewari
Sri S.S. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.N. Sharma, S.C.

Allahabad
High
Court
Rules
1952-
Chapter VIII rule-5- Special Appeal-
Maintainability-
appeal
against
the
judgment of single Judge - arises out
from the order passed by revisional court
under Consolidation of Holdings Act
1953- statutory born emposed by section
4 of the U.P. High Court ( Abolition of
letters Patent Appeal) Act 1962- held-
Special Appeal not maintainable.

Held- Para 8 and 14
Case law discussed.
2001 (2) JLJ page I
In view of the statutory prohibition
envisaged under section 4 of the Act, no
appeal arising from a suit or proceedings
instituted or commenced whether prior
or subsequent to the commencement of
that Section was to lie to the High Court
from a judgment or order of one Judge of
the High Court made in the exercise of
jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or
Article 227 of the Constitution, in respect
of a judgment, decree or order made or
purported to be made by the Board of
Revenue under the United Provisions
Land Revenue Act, 1901, or the U.P.
Tenancy Act, 1939, or the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 or the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Area
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1956 or the Jaunsar-Bawar
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,
1956,
or
the
Kumaun
and
Uttarkhand Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1960, or by the Director of
Consolidation
(including
any
other
officer purporting to exercise the powers
and to perform the duties of the Director
of
Consolidation)
under
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

As has already been noticed herein
above, the judgment/order impugned in
the writ petition giving rise to this
Special Appeal had been passed in the
proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 as amended and
the said order had been passed by the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
exercising the revisional powers vesting
in the Director of Consolidation. The
order of the learned single Judge under
Appeal has only maintained the order
passed
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation by dismissing the writ
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
petition. Such an order passed by a
learned Single Judge is clearly not
appealable.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard counsel.

Perused the record.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
representing the respondent no. 1 has
raised a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of this Special Appeal and
has urged that since the order impugned
in this Special Appeal is an order passed
by the learned Single Judge finally
disposing of a writ petition directed
against an order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation exercising the
revisional jurisdiction envisaged under the
provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 as amended. This
Special
Appeal
is
not
maintainable/entertainable in view of the
statutory prohibition envisaged under the
Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of
Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 and
deserves to be dismissed on this ground
alone.

2.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner- appellant has, however, urged
that the Special Appeal is maintainable
and has challenged the report of the
Stamp Reporter indicating that the Special
Appeal is not maintainable in view of
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952.

3. The present Special Appeal has
been filed under the provisions contained
in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the
Court, which is to the following effect:

"An appeal shall lie to the Court
from a judgment (not being a judgment
passed in the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or
order made by a Court subject to the
superintendence of the Court and not
being an order made in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of
its power of superintendence or in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction [or in the
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or
statutory arbitrator made or purported to
be made in the exercise or purported
exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar
Pradesh Act or under any Central Act,
with respect to any of the matter
enumerated in the State List or the
Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution, or (b) of the
Government or any Officer or authority,
made or purported to be made in the
exercise or purported exercise of appellate
or revisional jurisdiction under any such
Act of one Judge."

4. It may be noticed that Allahabad
High Court Rules (Rules of the Court,
1952) were framed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in exercise of the
powers conferred by Article 225 of the
Constitution of India and all other powers
enabling it on that behalf. The High Court
of
Judicature
at
Allahabad
was
established under the Letters Patent of His
Majesty published in Government Gazette
North
Western
Provinces
dated
27.6.1866. Clause 10 of the Letters Patent
contained a provision regulating the
appeal to the High Court from the Judges
of the said Court. It was stipulated in
clause 10 of the Letters Patent that except
certain specified categories of cases an
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Jagdish Singh and others V. The A.D.M. and another 897
appeal shall lie to the said High Court of
Judicature
at
Allahabad
from
the
judgment of one Judge.

5. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that in view of
clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the present
Special Appeal is clearly maintainable
specially when the order which had been
challenged in the writ petition giving rise
to this appeal had been passed in the
proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act by an authority which
could not be deemed to fall within the
ambit of tribunal court or statutory
arbitrator as indicated in Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.

We
have
given
our
anxious
consideration to the rival submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
parties.

6. In the year 1962 an Act with the
nomenclature "The Uttar Pradesh High
Court
(Abolition
of
Letters
Patent
Appeals) Act, 1962" (U.P. Act No. XIV
of 1962) was brought into force providing
for abolition of Letters Patent Appeals in
the
High
Court
of
Judicature
at
Allahabad. The provisions contained in
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the aforesaid Act
imposed a statutory bar against the
entertainability/maintainability of Special
Appeals from the judgment or order of
one Judge of the High Court in the same
Court that is intra court appeals in respect
of different specified categories of cases.
The provisions contained in Section 3 of
the Act provided that no appeal, arising
from a suit or proceeding instituted or
commenced, whether prior or subsequent
to the enforcement of the said Act, shall
lie to the High Court from a judgment and
order of one Judge of the High Court,
made in the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order
made
by
a
Court
subject
to
the
superintendence of the High Court.

7. The provisions contained in
Section 4 of the aforesaid Act provided
for the abolition of appeals from the
judgment and order of one Judge of the
High Court, made in the exercise of writ
jurisdiction in certain other cases.

8. In view of the statutory
prohibition envisaged under section 4 of
the Act, no appeal arising from a suit or
proceedings instituted or commenced
whether prior or subsequent to the
commencement of that Section was to lie
to the High Court from a judgment or
order of one Judge of the High Court
made in the exercise of jurisdiction
conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of
the Constitution, in respect of a judgment,
decree or order made or purported to be
made by the Board of Revenue under the
United Provinces Land Revenue Act,
1901, or the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, or
the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or the Uttar
Pradesh Urban Area Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1956 or the
Jaunsar-Bawar Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1956, or the Kumaun
and Uttarkhand Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1960, or by the
Director of Consolidation (including any
other officer purporting to exercise the
powers and to perform the duties of the
Director of Consolidation) under the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

9. The provisions contained in
Section 5 of the aforesaid Act provided
for the abolition of Appeals from the
judgment or order of one Judge of the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
High Court made in the exercise of writ
jurisdiction in certain other cases.

10. In the present case, we are not,
however, concerned with the effect of the
provisions contained in Section 5 of the
Act.

11. From what has been noticed
hereinabove, it is apparent that in view of
the statutory prohibition imposed with the
enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh High
Court
(Abolition
of
Letters
Patent
Appeals) Act, 1962 the appeal arising
from a proceeding under the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
directed against an order or judgment
passed by the Director of Consolidation or
any other Officer purporting to exercise
the powers and to perform the duties of
Director of Consolidation under the
provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings
Act,
1953
ceased
to
be
entertainable/maintainable.

12. At this stage it may be noticed
that the Hon'ble Apex Court in its
decision in the case of Vijay Laxmi Sadho
(Dr.) Vs. Jagdish reported in 2001 (2) JLJ
page 1 had clarified that rules framed by
the High Court in exercise of powers
under Article 225 of the Constitution of
India are only rules of procedure and do
not constitute substantive law.

13. We are of the considered opinion
that in such a situation the substantive
provisions contained in the U.P. High
Court
(Abolition
of
Letters
Patent
Appeal) Act, 1962 had to prevail over the
procedural law and an appeal which might
have
been
entertainable/maintainable
either under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent or under the Chapter VIII Rule 5 of
the Rules of the Court could not by any
stretch of imagination be taken to lie in
the teeth of the statutory prohibition/bar
imposed
on
the
entertainability/maintainability of such an
appeal with the enforcement of the
aforesaid Act abolishing certain specified
categories of Letters Patent Appeals.

14. As has already been noticed
herein
above,
the
judgment/order
impugned in the writ petition giving rise
to this Special Appeal had been passed in
the
proceedings
under
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as
amended and the said order had been
passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation exercising the revisional
powers vesting in the Director of
Consolidation. The order of the learned
single Judge under Appeal has only
maintained the order passed by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation by
dismissing the writ petition. Such an order
passed by a learned Single Judge is
clearly not appealable.

15. The preliminary objection in the
circumstances noticed hereinabove, is
liable to be accepted and is hereby upheld.

16. The Special Appeal in view of
what has been indicated hereinabove
deserves to be and is dismissed as not
maintainable.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Sher Singh V. Union of India and others 899
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 122 of 2001

Sher Singh

...Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ajay Bhanot

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Srivastava
Sri Narendra Prasad Shukla
S.C.

Army Act 1950 Section 56- Dismissal
from service- False accusations against
elegant
employee-
neither
from
summary court martial proceeding nor
the sentence awarded-pointed out any
finding regarding false accusation made
was knowing by- punishment can not be
awarded.

Held Para 15

The condition precedent for making out
of an offence section 56 (a) is that
person making false accusation knows or
has reason to believe such accusation to
be false, it does provide that every false
accusation which is made unknowingly
or under some mistake to be an offence
unless it is proved that the false
accusation has been made knowingly or
having reason to believe such accusation
to be false, the offence cannot be said to
have
been
committed.
From
the
proceedings
of
the
summary
Court
martial and the sentence awarded, it
does not appear that any finding has
been recorded by the Summary Court
Martial that the appellant writ petitioner
was making false accusation knowingly
or having reason to believe it to be false.
Thus the punishment could not have
been awarded at all.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1987 SC-2386
AIR 1992 SC-417
1988 UPLBEC-783
AIR 1997 SC-2386
AIR 1982 SC-1413
J.T. 1997 (4) SC-8
AIR 1988 SC-705
J.T. 1993 (5) SC-154

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. The present Special Appeal has
been filed against the judgment and order
dated 10.01.2001 passed by the learned
Single Judge in C.M. Writ Petition No.
35346 of 1997 whereby the writ petition
has been dismissed.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to
the present special appeal are as follows:

2. According to the appellant writ
petitioner he was enrolled in the Indian
Army on 25.2.1984. He was shifted to
Holding Battery Depot Regiment Nasik
Road Camp on 12.6.1996 and thereafter
to R.P. Section Depot on 3.7.1996 on
medical
grounds.
According
to
the
appellant
writ
petitioner
he
was
admonished by one Shri Sulkhan Singh,
R.P. Hawaldar on 4.7.1996 and was asked
to work under him. It is alleged that he
was required to give a Bottle of Rum
(wine) as bribe otherwise he was to face
dire consequences. The appellant writ
petitioner did not oblige and instead
reported the matter to the Commanding
Officer
vide
representation
dated
16.7.1996. An inquiry was initiated but
the appellant writ petitioner was not
associated and he was not afforded any
opportunity to examine or cross examine
the witnesses and summary Court Martial