JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is one of the major sons of the declarant by name Narayana. He contends that on becoming aware of the orders passed by the Special Officer & Competent Authority, an extent of 1670 sq. mts. was found in excess. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. 33 of 1976) for short “the Act”, the petitioner made an appeal to the appellate authority under Section 32 of the Act. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal is not maintainable and that no notice as required under Rule 5(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Rules, for short the Rules” has been issued. Therefore, the order is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record.

2. The first question is whether the petitioner is a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 33(1) of the Act. Section 33(1) provides thus:

“A person aggrieved by an order made by the competent authority under this Act not being an order under Section 11 or an order under sub-section (1) of Section 30, may, within thirty days of the date on which the order is commuuicated to him, prefer an appeal to such authority as