M.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are these: The petitioner Sri Ricchhpal Singh was issued a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 30th September, 1978, a true copy whereof is Annexure I to the petition. Thereafter, a time-barred appeal was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and the appeal was, therefore, dismissed as barred by time by the appellate courts judgment dated 4th February, 1978, a true copy whereof is Annexure VII to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on record.
(3.) Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof. I have heard Sri R. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. I may state that an application has been made by Gayase and others seeking impleadment in this case. They claim to be landless persons in whose favour allotment is said to have been made. The said application shall stand rejected inasmuch as I am dismissing this petition itself. It should be seen that the appeal was admittedly time barred and the petitioner was seeking the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The determination of the sufficiency of cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a matter which rests in the domain of the authorities below. A finding recorded about such sufficiency or insufficiency does not raise any question of jurisdiction, therefore, no interference is called for within the limited jurisdiction of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution vide Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerji (AIR 1964 SC 1336) .;