JUDGMENT K. Kishore, Member - In this case Devi Das and others applied on March 5, 1975 for mutation on the basis of a sale deed. This was opposed by Smt. Chameli and others, but the mutation application was allowed by Naib Tahsildar, Nawabganj, by his order dated December 23, 1975. In the revision filed against this order, the Addl. Collector, Bareilly, referred the case to the Board on July 5, 1977 with the recommendation that the Naib Tahsildar's order should be set aside as he did not have jurisdiction to pass orders in the case. On this reference the then learned Member Sri Ashwini Kumar, on February 7, 1973, referred the following question to this Full Bench:- "Whether or not Section 35 as amended by the U.P. Lands Laws (Amendment) Ordinance No. 20 of 1975 published in the Gazette through Notification No. 2258(2)/XVII-V-I-92-75, dated July 16, 1975, would apply to mutation proceedings which were already pending on the date of the amendment." 2. Strictly speaking, this question requires to be reframed as the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Ordinance No. 20 of 1975 has been repealed by the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. 30 of 1975. It is, therefore, reframed as follows:- "Whether or not Section 35 of U.P. Land Revenue Act as amended first by U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Ordinance No. 20 of 1975, published in the Gazette dated July 16, 1975, and subsequently by U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. 30 of 1975, would apply to mutation proceedings which were pending already on the date of the initial amendment." 3. We have heard arguments by the counsel of both the parties. 4. Section 35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act prior to this amendment read as follows:- "Procedure on Report. - (1) On receiving a report of succession under Section 34, or no facts otherwise coming to his knowledge, the Tahsildar shall make such inquiry as appears necessary and if, in an undisputed case succession appears to have taken place, direct the annual registers to be amended accordingly. If the succession is disputed he shall dispose it to after deciding the dispute in accordance with the provisions of Section 40. If the succession is disputed he shall dispose it to after deciding the dispute in accordance with the provisions of Section 40. (2) On receiving a report of transfer under Section 34, or no facts otherwise coming to his knowledge, the Tahsildar shall make such inquiry as appears necessary and then refer the case to the Collector who shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, dispose it of." 5. As a consequence of the amendment introduced initially by the Ordinance and validated by the Act which replaced the Ordinance, this section now reads as follows :- "Procedure on report :-Or receiving a report of succession or transfer under Section 34, or upon facts otherwise coming to his knowledge the Tahsildar shall make such inquiry as appears necessary, and if the succession or transfer appears to have taken place he shall direct the annual registers to be amended accordingly." 6. It will be clear that the earlier version did not empower the Tahsildar to pass final orders in the mutation cases based on transfer as distinguished from those based on succession. As a consequence of the amendment, the Tahsildar is now empowered to pass orders on all mutation cases arising out of succession or transfer. 7. It is generally accepted, in the absence of a clear indication in the legislation to the contrary, that amendment of procedural law is generally to be interpreted as restrospective in effect, unless this interpretation has the effect of depriving the parties of any substantive right which accrued to them under the earlier procedural law. It is also generally accepted that no party to litigation has any right as regards the court which will decide his case, but the courts in India have consistently held that the availability of an opportunity to appeal is a right which cannot be taken away except by specific legislation. In this connection, we would refer to the views expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Nasiruddin and others v. Chowdhary Ram Swarup and others 1978 R.D. 298:- "It cannot be doubted that as no one has a vested right in any procedural rule, any change made in a procedural law has a retrospective effect in the sense that such a change governs pending judicial proceedings as well. It is also settled that any change made in a procedural provision should not, unless the statute either specifically or by necessary implication lays it down, be so interpreted as to affect, either the substantive rights already acquired by a party to a proceeding or the validity or operation of any order validly passed or an act validly done by a judicial Tribunal under the procedural law for the time being in force, In such cases one has to look to the stage to which a particular case has reached. If a suit is in its initial stage and is pending before a trial court and at that time there is a change in the procedure the changed procedure should be followed. For it would not affect the right of any person at this stage. But if a party has already obtained a certain right under a decree it would be very unfair to disturb that right and direct the suitor to start afresh from the trial court for no fault of his." 8. In the case under consideration it is clear that although it was instituted prior to the amendment made by the Notification of July 16, 1975, the proceedings were still pending before the Naib Tahsildar on that date. Consequently, the Naib Tahsildar became competent to pass the final order himself, unless it could be shown that any one of the parties lost a substantial right by virtue of this amendment. In this case, it is not so. Actually, the law prior to the amendment of July 16, 1975, provided for no appeal in mutation proceedings, while the amended law provides such an opportunity. It cannot, therefore, be argued that the parties to the proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar lost any valuable or substantial right as a consequence of the procedural amendment. 9. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in reiterating the settled legal view that Section 35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, will as amended by the Ordinance and the replacing Act, will apply to the mutation proceedings which were pending trial on the date of the amendment. 10. The question is, therefore, answered accordingly and the file may now be returned for disposal of the reference.