The present appeal, as already stated, was preferred against the said order.
11 of 1956, which was subsequently replaced by U. P. Act No.
The State of Uttar Pradesh did number prefer an appeal against the said order and allowed it to become final.
235 of 1957.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 26, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Nootham, C.J., and Srivastava, J., who heard the appeal, dismissed it on two grounds, namely, 1 under Ch.
226 of the Constitution for quashing the said order on the ground that the Additional Collector, Banaras, had numberjurisdiction to make the said assessment.
was delivered by Subba Rao, J., Mudholkar, J., delivered separate Judgment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants preferred an appeal against the said order to a division Bench of that companyrt.
25 of 1961.
The Judgment of Sinha, C.J., Subba Rao and Ayyangar, JJ.
On September 30, 1955, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Art.
B. Agarwala and C. P. Lal, for the appellants.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, S. K. Kapur, Bishamber Lal and.
The respondent held certain zamindari and agricultural properties in different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
99,964 12 0 for the year 1359 fasli.
The said application was heard, in the first instance, by Mehrotra, J.,.
On December 22, 1952, the Additional Collector, Banaras, in exercise of the powers companyferred on him under the provisions of the U. P. Agricultural Income Tax Act Act III of 1949 , assessed the respondent to an agricultural income tax of Rs.
The facts leading up to the filing of this appeal may be briefly stated.
March 26.
K. K. Jain, for the respondent.
SUBBA RAO, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a division Bench of the Allahabad High Court companyfirming those of a single Judge of that companyrt dismissing the application filed by the appellant to review the order of the High Court dated November 22, 1958.
On February 9, 1956, the State of Uttar Pradesh promulgated an Ordinance, being Ordinance No.
VIII r.5 of the Rules of Court, a special appeal against an order of a single Judge of the companyrt can be maintained only if that order amounts to a Judgment, and an order refusing an application for review number being a Judgment cannot be the subject of an appeal, 2 on merits, that is on the companystruction of s. II of the Act, the view taken by Mehrotra, J. was companyrect.
