S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order 29 -11 -1990, whereby the learned District Judge held the appeal, preferred by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 against the order dated 27 -2 -1981 passed by the competent Authority, under Section 8(4) of the Act, as competent and rejected the objection raised on behalf of the State with regard to maintainability of the appeal.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sankatha Rai for the respondents No. 3 to 6, who are appellants id appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. Sri Sankatha Rai raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition at the behest of the petitioner who has no locus standi in the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to refute the submission aforesaid on the plea that the present writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation and urged that the writ petition was maintainable even though the petitioner was not a party to the proceeding either before the Competent Authority or Appellate Authority.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order, as no public interest at the moment is involved which the petitioner may be seeking to protect by means of the present writ petition. The petition is liable to fail on this ground alone. Even on merits the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the appeal being not maintainable, cannot be countenanced. Section 33 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Competent authority not being an order under Section 11 of an order under subsection (1) of Section 30 may, within thirty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to such authority as may be prescribed. The order appealed against in the instant case was a combined order passed under Section 8(4) and Section 9 of the Act. In order to file an appeal against such an order it was necessary for the aggrieved party to wait till publication of the notification of vacant land under Section 10 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since the order dated passed by the Competent Authority holding that the respondents 3 to 6 are in possession of 4638 Sq. mtrs. of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit has not attained finality due to non -publication of the notification under Section 10 of the Act, the appeal against the said order was not maintainable. The argument is1 that it is only after the final statement of vacant land is published and the order communicated to the concerned persons that the question of filing an appeal against such order arises. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petition is devoid of any merits being misconceived. The expression, "with in thirty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him" occurring in Section 33 of the Act is relevant only for the purposes of the commencement of the period of limitation. It cannot be urged on the strength of the aforesaid expression that the appeal was not maintainable so long as the order was not communicated to the concerned persons by means of a notification published in the official gazette as provided by Section 10(1) of the Act. A party having the knowledge of the order may obtain a certified copy thereof and file appeal against it without waning for publication of the statement of vacant land under Section 10 of the Act.;