- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. Rejoinder-affidavit filed be kept on record.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. In this writ petition the prayer is for quashing the orders dated 26-3-1982 and 18-12-1982 (Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition) passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur. The brief facts are that the Com petent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act determined the surplus land from the holding of the petitioner rejecting his objection that his sons had also share in the land in question. An appeal under Section 33 of the Act was filed which was dismissed in default by the Appellate Authority on 26-3-1982 vide Annexure-2. An application for restoration of the aforesaid appeal was filed which too was dismissed on 18-12-1982 through order contained in Annexure-3. These two orders are in challenge. The main challenge is to the order dated 18-12-1982. The contention is that once an ap peal was admitted and was dismissed in default, the view of the Appellate Authority that the appeal so dismissed in default cannot be restored and provisions of Order LXI, Rule 19, C. P. C. are not at tracted, is not correct and in accordance with law. Learned Standing Counsel Uas supported the view taken by the Appellate Authority.
(3.) SECTION 31 of the Act deals with the powers of Competent Authority. It provides that not all the provisions but certain provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to the proceedings before the Competent Authority. The provision for appeal is contained in Sec tion 33 of the Act. The proviso to SECTION 33 provides for entertaining appeal which is filed beyond thirty days of the com munication of the order passed by the Competent Authority. Sub-section (2) of SECTION 33 of the Act provides that on receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the appellate authority shall, after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it deems fit as expeditiously as possible. The words 'after giving the appel lant an opportunity of being heard' are meaningful as the Legislature intended that the appellant should be afforded an opportunity of hearing and then only the appeal should be decided.;