( 1 ) IN this matter elaborate and strenuous arguments have been advanced arduously before us by petitioner's counsel Shri Tomar on the validity of the order (Annexure P-6) passed on 11- 1 -1990 by the appellate authority, respondent No. 3, assailing it to be an order passed without jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order refusing to restore to file the appeal dismissed for default. Counsel contended that such a disposal was not contemplated in law, because the appellant had to be heard for exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. Admittedly, the appeal was dismissed for default on 2-9-1986, and for restoration the application was made on 26-5-1988, which was disposed of by the impugned order. The appeal had been preferred against an order passed on 28-6-1983 by Competent Authority (respondent No. 2) under Section 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, for short, the 'act', declaring as surplus 9996. 13 sq. metres of land and settling accordingly the final draft statement by disposing of the objection preferred by petitioner. ( 2 ) THE proposition canvassed by learned counsel