JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C. J. 1. (FOR self and FOR C. S. P. Singh, J.) .-- This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing a writ petition filed by the State of U. P. and another. The writ petition was filed against the judgment of the District Judge, Meerut. The District Judge, Meerut by his judgment disposed of an appeal filed by L. J. Jhonson, respondent No. 1 against the decision of the Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. This Act was enacted by Parliament. 2. THE first submission made on behalf of the appellant was that the writ petition was not cognizable by a Single Judge of this Court. Only a Division Bench had jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. In support, reliance has been placed on Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1975, U.P. Act No. 31 of 1975. This Act inserted Sec. 5 in the U. P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962. The newly inserted section runs as follows : "5. Abolition of appeals from the judgment of order of one Judge of the High Court made in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in certain other cases : (1) No appeal, arising from an application or proceeding instituted or commenced, whether prior or subsequent to the commencement of this section, shall 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 or order made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisory jurisdiction by a District Judge, Additional District Judge, Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge under any Uttar Pradesh Act (including any Central Act as amended by an Uttar Pradesh Act) anything to the contrary contained in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Her Majesty, dated March 17, 1866, read with Clauses 7 and 17 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, or in any other law notwithstanding. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), all appeals pending before the High Court on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of this section shall be heard and disposed of as if this section had not been enacted." It will be seen that with effect from 19th Aug., 1975 when the U. P. Act 31 of 1975 came into force, special appeals against the judgments rendered by Single Judge were abolished ; but only such judgments of the District Judges as were rendered under any U. P. Act were covered by Section 5. Further "under any U. P. Act" included any Central Act as amended by any U. P. Act. 3. IN other words if a judgment is rendered by a District Judge under a Central Act which had not been amended by any U. P. Act, then in such a case special appeals have not been abolished by Section 5 added by U. P. Act 31, 1975. 4. THE judgment impugned in the writ petition was rendered under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which is a Central Act and which has not been amended by any U. P. Act. Consequently such a judgment was liable to be challenged in a writ petition and in respect of such a writ petition a special appeal was not abolished. In other words the judgment of a learned Single Judge rendered in deciding such a writ petition was liable to be appealed against. Chapter V Rule 8 of the Rules of the Court, 1952 provided : "Save as otherwise provided by these Rules or other law or by any general or special order of the Chief Justice, every other case shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges." With effect from 27th August, 1975, this Court amended Rule 8 of Chapter V as follows : "Save as otherwise provided by these Rules or other law or by any general or special order of the Chief Justice, every other case shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges including writ petition in which special appeals are not barred." 5. AFTER the amendment the position is that in cases where special appeals are barred, a writ petition was cognizable by a Bench of two Judges unless there was some other rule or law or general or special order of the Chief Justice. AFTER the amendment the position is that in cases where special appeals are barred, a writ petition was cognizable by a Bench of two Judges unless there was some other rule or law or general or special order of the Chief Justice. In the present case there ?is no dispute that there was no other rule or law applicable on the question whether the writ petition should be heard by a Single Judge or two Judges, and there was no general or special order of the Chief Justice in that behalf. 6. CONSEQUENTLY the writ petition under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was liable to be heard by a Bench of two Judges, and in the premises it was not cognizable by a Single Judge. This objection was not taken during the hearing of the writ petition by learned Single Judge, but as it goes to the root of the matter, it is permissible to be taken in this appeal. 7. IN the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. It is directed that, subject to any general or special order of the Chief Justice, the writ petition shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.