the appellant filed a petition under article 226 of the companystitution to challenge the order of the companymissioner but the high companyrt dismissed the petition and companyfirmed the order of the companymissioner on the basis of the provisions of order 41 rule 22.
the sole companytention raised on behalf of the appellants in the various appeals is that in the absence of any appeal or cross objection filed by the state of bihar the commissioner was number justified in reversing the finding in favour of the appellants namely the finding on the question of allotment of units or regarding the classification of land.
reliance has also been placed by the state of bihar on the provisions of order 41 rule 33 c.p.c.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 24th september 1976 of the patna high companyrt in w.j.c.
423 of 1979 2084 to 2090 of 1977.
number.
this companytention as observed earlier was raised before the high companyrt in the writ petition as well.
number 1631 1614 1618 1617 1594 1616 1615 1593 of 1976 respectively.
the petitioner was again served with a numberice under section 10 2 of the act.
he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the companylector and remanded the case to him for disposal according to law.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the petitioner in response to the said numberice filed his return.
2086/77.
2085 of 1977.
the appeal was heard on 27th of april 1976 and a final order was passed by the companymissioner on 14th of may.
it may be pointed out that the appellant had challenged the order of the companylector on various grounds.
a numberice under section 8 1 of the act was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit return with all the particulars of the lands held by him.
c. bhandare and r. p. singh for the appellant in ca.
on the basis of the verification report the additional collector came to the companyclusion that the petitioner was entitled to five units and accordingly ordered for the publication of the draft statement under section 10 of the act.
numberices were issued to the respondents who however failed to appear on the date fixed.
the suit was decreed against them.
poddar for the respondent.
the appellant in this appeal is a land holder in terms of the bihar land reforms fixation of ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the act .
2089 2090/77.
in response there to he filed all objection laying inter alia a claim for fifteen units for reasons enumerated therein.
the state of bihar submitted to the order and did number go up in appeal.
he however did number challenge the finding recorded by the companylector regarding the units allowed to him.
the companylector companysidered the objections filed by the petitioner and by his order dated 23rd of february 1975 ordered allotment of twelve units to the petitioner.
p. singh r. k jain and r. p. singh for the appellant in ca.
423/79.
the petitioner feeling aggrieved went up in appeal before the companymissioner of the division.
soli j. sorabjee r. p. singh and r.k.
the high 1 companyrt however repelled the contention by applying the provisions of order 41 rule 22.
the companymissioner however set aside the finding of the companylector even regarding the units allotted to the appellant in spite of the fact that numberappeal had been filed by the state of bihar before the companymissioner.
jain for the appellant in ca.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by misra j. these eight appeals by special leave raise a common question of law regarding the scope of order 41 rule 22 and order 41 rule 33 of the companye of civil procedure.
goburdhan and r. lv.
r. mridul r. k jain b. p. singh and pankaj kalra for the appellant in ca.
