Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.—Heard learned learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition arising out of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2000 by which delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and the order dated 22.10.2002 by which the appeal itself has been allowed.

3. It appears that upon enforcement of the Act, notice under section 8 of the Act was issued to the respondent No. 2 proposing to declare 7588.75 sq. meters of land as surplus in the Urban Angloration Area of Allahabad in Peepal Gaon. It appears that an ex parte order dated 11.4.1985 was passed holding 7588.75 sq. meters of land as surplus. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the Act were also initiated and after vesting of the land, a notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued on 29.11.1997 calling upon the respondent No. 1 to hand over possession of the surplus land and the Collector, Allahabd was also asked to take possession of the said land in accordance to law. However, the Act was repealed vide Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) (Repeal) Act, 1999 with effect from 18.3.1999 and it was provided that where possession of the vacant land has not been taken over by the Government, all proceedings will abate. It appears that the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal on 20.12.2000 against the order dated 11.4.1985 alongwith a delay condonation application with the allegation that he had no notice whatsoever of the proceedings and the order declaring surplus was factually incorrect and therefore, sought quashing of the said order. The delay condonation application was allowed when the counsel for the petitioner lodged no objection vide order dated 20.12.2000 and thereafter the appeal itself has been allowed on the ground that the possession of the vacant land was not taken over by the State and therefore, in view of the provisions of the Repealing Act 1999, entire proceedings abate.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the appellate Court had illegally allowed the delay condonation application without any opportunity to the petitioner to file their objections.

5. A perusal of the order shows that the District Government Counsel (Civil) appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the appellate Court had himself contended that there was no objection to the delay condonation and therefore, the appellate Court was fully justified in condoning the delay. Further, from the pleading of the writ petition, there is no material to show that the admission recorded by the Court below was not correct. Even otherwise, a perusal of the order shows that the respondent No. , 2 was never personally served the notice issued by the competent authority inviting objections to the proposal sent for declaring surplus land. It appears that the notice was allegedly affixed at the premises of the land holder but neither before the lower appellate Court nor before this Court the report of the process server has been annexed to show when and before whom the alleged notice was affixed at the premises of the land holder. Thus, examining the issue from any angle, it cannot be said that there was any error in condoning the delay by the Courts below.

6. It is then urged that since the possession of the disputed land had already been taken over by the State on 29.11.1997, thus, the proceedings under the Act could not have been abated in view of Repeal Act.

7. A perusal of the alleged possession memo dated 29.11.1997, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, shows that it is only a notice to the land holder to handover possession of the vacant land to the Collector with a note to the Collector to take possession of the said land. This is, in fact, not a possession memo but only a notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act and there is no material on record to show that in pursuance thereof, either the land h