JAYASHREE TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS petition arising out of proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling 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. It appears that upon enforcement of the Act, notice under section 8 of the Act was issued to the respondent no. 2 proposing to declare 5955.37 sq. meters of land as surplus in the Urban Angloration Area of Allahabad in Peepal Gaon. It appears that an exparte order dated 22.2.1985 was passed holding 5955.37 sq. meters of land as surplus. Thereafter, proceedings under section 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the Act were also initiated and after vesting of the land, a notice under section 10 (5) of the Act was issued on 26.12.1996 calling upon the respondent no. 1 to hand over possession of the surplus land and the Collector, Allahabd was also asked to take possession of the said land in accordance to law. However, the Act was repealed vide Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 with effect from 18.3.1999 and it was provided that where possession of the vacant land has not been taken over by the Government, all proceedings will abate. It appears that the respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal on 20.12.2000 against the order dated 22.2.1985 along with a delay condonation application with the allegation that he had no notice whatsoever of the proceedings and the order declaring surplus was factually incorrect and therefore, sought quashing of the said order. The delay condonation application was allowed when the counsel for the petitioner lodged no objection vide order dated 20.12.2000 and thereafter the appeal itself has been allowed on the ground that the possession of the vacant land was not taken over by the State and therefore, in view of the provisions of the Repealing Act 1999, entire proceedings abate.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the appellate court had illegally allowed the delay condonation application without any opportunity to the petitioner to file their objections.;