ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are these: The petitioner Sri Ricchhpal Singh was issued a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 30th September, 1978, a true copy whereof is Annexure I to the petition. Thereafter, a time-barred appeal was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and the appeal was, therefore, dismissed as barred by time by the appellate courts judgment dated 4th February, 1978, a true copy whereof is Annexure VII to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on record. 3. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof. I have heard Sri R. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. I may state that an application has been made by Gayase and others seeking impleadment in this case. They claim to be landless persons in whose favour allotment is said to have been made. The said application shall stand rejected inasmuch as I am dismissing this petition itself. It should be seen that the appeal was admittedly time barred and the petitioner was seeking the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The determination of the sufficiency of cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a matter which rests in the domain of the authorities below. A finding recorded about such sufficiency or insufficiency does not raise any question of jurisdiction, therefore, no interference is called for within the limited jurisdiction of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution vide Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerji ( AIR 1964 SC 1336 ). 4. Learned counsel contended that the Ceiling Act is a confiscatory piece of legislation. Therefore, the authorities below were duty bound to look into the facts and do the needful. In my view, so far as the appeal was concerned, the appellate court was bound to consider whether the appeal was within time or beyond time. 4. Learned counsel contended that the Ceiling Act is a confiscatory piece of legislation. Therefore, the authorities below were duty bound to look into the facts and do the needful. In my view, so far as the appeal was concerned, the appellate court was bound to consider whether the appeal was within time or beyond time. Section 13 of the Act very clearly lays down that an appeal shall be filed within 30 days of the date of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Section 42 of the Act says that the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to the ceiling proceedings including proceedings in appeal, application and objection under this Act. Accordingly Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court is clearly applicable. 5. This petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.