OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order, dated 22-3- 1986 (Annexure IV) dismissing the appeal under section 33 of the U. P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short the Act). THE reasons for the dismissal are that the petitioner did not file the appeal within thirty days as provided under section 20 (1) of the Act.

(2.) MR. K. B. L. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the appeal under section 33 of the Act could have been filed within thirty days from the date, the order of the competent authority, passed under section 20 of the Act, was communicated. In the present case, the said order was not communicated and there was no evidence to that effect, rather just by the fact that the petitioner has filed a statement, it has been inferred that the petitioner could have knowledge about the order passed under section 20. The relevant portion of the finding of the learned District Judge is set out as follows :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties agreed that counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and the petition may be decided on merits.