Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THE petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The facts, in brief, are these: - - (1) Smt. Ram Piyari Devi, respondent No. 4, was treated as the tenure -holder and the notice under section 10(2) of the Act was issued to her. The petitioners sought to intervene in the said proceedings claiming title to the land in dispute. The claim, however, was not entertained by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority declared some land as the surplus land of the said Smt. Ram Piyari Devi. (2) The petitioners filed appeals against various order of the Prescribed Authority before the appellate court but the same were dismissed by the said court. (3) The petitioners thereafter filed three writ petitions in this court, which were numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 269 of 1976, 5029 of 1976 and 6672 of 1978. The said petitions were allowed by a common judgment dated 1 -1 -1979 by a learned judge of this court. The case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that the petitioner's objection should be dealt with in the same manner as if they had been filed by a recorded tenure -holder. True copy of the said judgment dated 1 -1 -1979 is annexure 1 to the writ petition. (4) Thereafter the proceedings re -started before the Prescribed Authority and paragraphs Nos. 7 to 12 of the Writ Petition are reproduced below to disclose what transpired in the proceedings after the remand. (7) That after the remand by this Hon'ble Court when the petitioner received notice from the Prescribed Authority they filed there objection on 30 -6 -1980 claiming co -ownership in the land in dispute. (8) That the notice of the proceedings, however, should not be served on one of the brothers, Sri Ram Bhadra Upadhya, and therefore, the Prescribed Authority directed that the notice for Ram Bhadra Upadhya be published in the official Gazette. (9) That on 12 -7 -1982 the court ordered in presence of the parties that since the Gazette has not been received, therefore, 20 -7 -1982 be fixed for the receipt of the Gazette. Similar order was passed on 20 -7 -1982 and 18 -9 -1982 was fixed in the case. (10) That on 18 -9 -1982 the parties were not present but the Gazette had also not been received, therefore, 20 -10 -1982 was fixed in the case. (11) That it appears that on 20 -10 -1982 the Gazette was received and since the parties were absent therefore, the Prescribed Authority directed the ex parte proceedings be taken against the petitioners. A true copy of the order sheet from 12 -7 -1982 to 20 -10 -1982 is attached as Annexure '2' to this petition. (12) (1) That it appears that the Prescribed Authority proceeded to pass final order on 21 -10 -1982 in absence of the petitioner whereby he rejected the objection of the petitioners and again held that 27.89 acres of land were surplus. A true copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority is attached as Annexure '3' to this petition.
(2.) (5) Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application on 5 -11 -1982 for getting rid of the order dated 20 -10 -1982 whereby the Prescribed Authority had directed the case to proceed ex parte against the petitioners. The petitioners came to know of the aforesaid final ex parte order dated 21 -10 -1982 (referred to in para 12 of the writ petition quoted above) for the first time on 25 -11 -1982. Accordance to the petitioners, the said order was ante -dated.
(3.) (7) The petitioners field on appeal on 1 -12 -1982, against the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority dated 21 -10 -1982. They also moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.;