STATE OF U P Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition arising out of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2000 by which delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and the order dated 22.10.2002 by which the appeal itself has been allowed.

(3.) A perusal of the order shows that the District Government Counsel (Civil) appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the appellate Court had himself contended that there was no objection to the delay condonation and therefore, the appellate Court was fully justified in condoning the delay. Further, from the pleading of the writ petition, there is no material to show that the admission recorded by the Court below was not correct. Even otherwise, a perusal of the order shows that the respondent No., 2 was never personally served the notice issued by the competent authority inviting objections to the proposal sent for declaring surplus land. It appears that the notice was allegedly affixed at the premises of the land holder but neither before the lower appellate Court nor before this Court the report of the process server has been annexed to show when and before whom the alleged notice was affixed at the premises of the land holder. Thus, examining the issue from any angle, it cannot be said that there was any error in condoning the delay by the Courts below.