ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner was treated as the tenure-holder and the notice under S. 10(2) of the Act was issued. Thereafter, the proceedings took place culminating in a writ petition which was filed in this Court. This Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the directions given in the said remand order. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority decided the ceiling case in accordance with the directions and allowed the tenure-holder's objections. The Prescribed Authority discharged the notice issued to the petitioner under S. 10(2) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority's order is dated 28-7-1979. It seems that thereafter, a time barred appeal was filed by the State against the said order and the memorandum of appeal in the said appeal was accompanied by an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal. The appellate court allowed, vide its order dated 4-7-1980, the said application under S. 5 on condition that a certain amount was to be paid as costs to the other side within a month of the said order. The costs were not paid within one month and accordingly, on 4-8-1980 or 5-8-80 an order was passed whereby the application under S. 5 was declared to stand rejected and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of being time barred. A true copy of the said order is Annexure 3 to the petition. Thereafter, the next day the State moved an application stating that there was some confusion on the part of its counsel and therefore, the costs could not be paid within one month and a readiness was expressed to pay the costs. It was further stated that such costs were tendered to the counsel for the petitioner but he did not accept the same. Therefore, a prayer was made that the aforesaid order dated 4th or 5th August, 1980 (it is not clear, there seems some confusion in the recording of the date of Annexure 3 be recalled. The said application was allowed by the appellate court b' its impugned order dated 12-9-1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the petition. Therefore, a prayer was made that the aforesaid order dated 4th or 5th August, 1980 (it is not clear, there seems some confusion in the recording of the date of Annexure 3 be recalled. The said application was allowed by the appellate court b' its impugned order dated 12-9-1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the petition. A certified copy of the said order is also on the record. 3. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant writ petition against the said order dated 12-9-1980 and in support thereof, I have heard Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Gobardhan Singh v. Barsati ( AIR 1972 All 246 ) : 1972 All L J 169 is distinguishable on the ground that in the instant case the appeal had also been dismissed and therefore, the impugned order could not he passed. I am not impressed with this argument. It should he seen that the appeal was dismissed in consequence of the rejection of the application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. When the appellate court allowed the appellant's application for setting aside the order whereby the application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act had been declared to stand rejected, then obviously the appeal was also hound to he entertained because the court had allowed the application under S. 5 of Limitation Act and had condoned the delay. The appeal was, therefore. hound to he heard on merits. 5. This petition fails and is dismissed but there will he no order as to costs.