ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The facts, in brief, are these :- 2. The petitioner filed a statement under S. 6(1) of the Act. The draft statement was prepared under S. 8(3) of the Act was served upon the the petitioner personally on 11.4.78. Thereafter the petitioner himself moved an application on 1.5.78 before the Competent Authority praying that the petitioner did not have any objection to the said draft statement prepared under S. 8(1) and served upon him under S. 8(3) of the said Act. He further prayed that proceedings under S. 10 for the acquisition of the vacant land should be taken. Therefore, the Competent Authority passed his order dated 29.5.78, a true copy of which is annex. 3 to the petition. Certain land was declared as surplus and direction was given that the final statement be prepared under S. 9 and thereafter the notification be issued under S. 10 (1) of the Act. It seems that thereafter the final statement was prepared under S. 9 and the notification was issued under S. 10(1) of the Act. Thereafter the notification under S. 10 (3) was also published in the Gazette dated 9.12.1978 and the land in question vested in the State Government. Thereafter the State took proceedings for possession under S. 10 (5) of the Act and then the petitioner moved an application dated 23.2.79/26.2.79, a true copy of which is annex. 4 to the counter-affidavit. A complaint was made in the said application that the possession of the land in question had been taken by the State on 11.2.79 in the absence of the petitioner and it was also stated "that the possession is illegal and liable to be quashed." It was further stated in the said application "that the learned District Judge was pleased to stay the possession on 15.2.79 which has been duly communicated in the office." A prayer was made in the said application that the proceedings of possession be quashed. The said application was rejected by the Competent Authority by his order dated 8.3.79 a true copy of which is annex. 1 to the petition. Against the said order the petition. The said application was rejected by the Competent Authority by his order dated 8.3.79 a true copy of which is annex. 1 to the petition. Against the said order the petition. Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal, being Appeal No. 17 of 1979, in the court of the District Judge. Subsequently, he filed another appeal against the order dated 29.5.78, which had been passed by the Competent Authority under S. 8 (4) of the Act. The said appal was numbered as Appeal No. 17 of 1979 is annex. 2 to the writ petition. The memorandum of appeal in Appeal no. 81 of 1980 is annex. 4 to the writ petition. Both these appeals were dismissed by one common judgment dated 29.10.81 by the appellate court. A true copy of the said judgmetn in annex. 5 to the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri A.D. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner made a mistaken admission on 1.5.78 and he should not suffer on account of such erroneous admission. It was his contention that on merits the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the land in question being treated as an agricultural land and it was exempt from being treated as vacant land. Learned counsel further contended that the appellate court below has not dismissed the appeals treating them as time-barred. Therefore, the merit of the controversy needed to be examined. he placed reliance on a Full Bench decision in Nanha v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 All 91 . In my view, the said Full Bench decision has no applicability to the facts of the present case. It should be seen that in the instant case after the draft statement was accepted by the petitioner by his application 1.5.78, the Competent Authority proceeded in the matter and took proceedings under S. 9 and under S. 10. It is not disputed that even the notification under S. 10(3) was issued vesting the land in the State. Thereafter proceedings took place for getting possession under S. 10(5) and thereafter an application dated 23.3.79/26.2.79 (Annex. 4 to the counter-affidavit) was moved before the Competent Authority complaining about the alleged illegal manner in which the State was said to have taken possession on 11.2.79. Thereafter proceedings took place for getting possession under S. 10(5) and thereafter an application dated 23.3.79/26.2.79 (Annex. 4 to the counter-affidavit) was moved before the Competent Authority complaining about the alleged illegal manner in which the State was said to have taken possession on 11.2.79. A point was made in the said application that possession could have been taken only after 30 days from the service of the notice under S. 10 (5) of the Act. It was notice under S. 10(5) of the Act. It was stated in the application that the said notice under S. 10(5) had been served on the petitioner on 31.1.79. It will thus be seen that at that stage the only controversy which was raised by the petitioner was regarding the manner in which the possession had been taken by the State. As i have already stated above, this application was rejected by the Competent Authority by his order dated 8.3.79 and against his order an appeal was filed, being Appeal No. 17 of 1979. In the grounds of appeal also the objection raised was in relation to the manner in which possession had been taken by the State. It seems that long thereafter the petitioner thought it necessary to file an appeal against the order dated 29.5.78, which had been passed under S. 8(4) of the Act. This appeal was filed about one year after the said Appeal No. 17 of 1979. Both the appeals, as I have stated above, were dismissed by a common judgment dated 29.10.81 by the appellate court. The appellate court rightly did not go into the merits of the controversy as to whether the land in question was agricultural land or not and whether it could be treated as vacant land or not. The appellate court emphasised that the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not be allowed to raise a grievance after the land in question had become vested in the State. Inter alia, the appellate court's observation is as under :- "There is no occasion now to divest the State from this property simply because the appellant has awakened from his slumber now and wants to wriggle out of his earlier admission as contained in his own application (paper No. 5) dated 17.4.1978." The appellate court further observed that- "No other point was argued before me." 4. In these circumstances, in my view, there is no question of applying the ratio laid down in the said Full Bench decision. 5. Learned counsel further placed reliance on Damodaran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1976 SC 1533 . In particular, he placed reliance on the observations made in paragraphs Nos. 8 and 9. In my view, these observations have no applicability to the facts of the instant case. 6. I should further like to emphasise that the petitioner did not place any material before the Competent Authority or even before the appellate court as o the circumstances in which he made his admission on 17.4.78 and 1.5.78. Learned counsel's contention that they were erroneous admissions made in certain circumstance alleged in the writ petition cannot be allowed in a situation where no effort was made to explain such an admission before the Competent Authority and before the appellate court below. 7. This petition is accordingly dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.