Statutory appealability under ceiling law requires an express appealable order; cancellation of a Section 9(2) notice is not enough.

A statutory appeal lies only against orders expressly made appealable by the enabling provision. Under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, an order merely cancelling a notice issued under Section 9(2), without issuance of a Section 10(2) notice or any determination under Section 11(2) or Section 12, cannot be treated as an appealable order under Section 13. The right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be implied beyond the express words of the provision. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was not appealable under Section 13 and set aside the decisions upholding maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 lay against an canceling a notice issued under Section 9(2), when no notice under Section 10(2) had been issued and no determination had been made under Section 11(2) or Section 12.

Analysis: The statutory scheme draws a clear distinction between a general or specific notice under Section 9, the preparation of a statement and show-cause notice under Section 10, the determination of surplus land under Section 11, and adjudication after objections under Section 12. An appeal under Section 13 is expressly confined to orders under Section 11(2) or Section 12. The order in question arose only from objections to a Section 9(2) notice and merely canceled that notice; it was not preceded by the procedure contemplated by Section 10 and therefore could not be treated as an order under Section 11(2) or Section 12. Since the right of appeal is a creature of statute, no appeal could be implied beyond the express language of Section 13.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not appealable under Section 13 and the appeals were maintainable before the High Court only if the statutory conditions for appeal existed, which they did not; the contention of maintainability failed in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the decisions upholding maintainability were set aside, while leaving the respondent free to pursue any other appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appeal lies only against orders expressly made appealable by the enabling provision, and an order merely canceling a notice issued under Section 9(2) cannot be treated as an order under Section 11(2) or Section 12 unless the procedure prescribed by Section 10 has been followed.

---