ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are these : (1) Smt. Rampiyari Devi, respondent No. 4, was treated as the tenure-holder and the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to her. The petitioners sought to intervene in the said proceedings claiming title to the land in dispute. Their claim, however, was not entertained by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority declared some land as the surplus land of the said Smt. Ram Piyari Devi. (2) The petitioners filed appeals against various orders of the Prescribed Authority before the appellate court but the same were dismissed by the said court. (3) The petitioners thereafter filed three writ petitions in this court, which were numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 269 of 1976, 5029 of 1976 and 6672 of 1978. The said petitions were allowed by a common judgment dated 1-1-79 by a learned judge of this Court. The case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that the petitioners' objections should be dealt with in the same manner as if they had been filed by a recorded tenure-holder. True copy of the said judgment dated 1-1-79 is annexure I to the writ petition. (4) Thereafter the proceedings restarted before the Prescribed Authority and paragraphs Nos. 7 to 12 of the Writ Petition are reproduced below to disclose what transpired in the proceedings after the remand. "(7) That after the remand by this Hon'ble Court when the petitioners received notice from the Prescribed Authority they filed their objection on 30-6-1980 claiming co-ownership in the land in dispute. (8) That the notice of the proceedings, however, could not be served on one of the brothers, Sri Ram Bhadra Upadhya, and therefore, the Prescribed Authority directed that the notice for Ram Bhadra Upadhya be published in the Official Gazette. (9) That on 12-7-1982 the court ordered in presence of the parties that since the Gazette has not been received, therefore, 20-7-1982 be fixed for the receipt of the Gazette. Similar order was passed on 20-7-1982 and 18-9-82 was fixed in the case. (10) That on 18-9-1982 the parties were not present but the Gazette had also not been received, therefore, 20-10-1982 was fixed in the case. Similar order was passed on 20-7-1982 and 18-9-82 was fixed in the case. (10) That on 18-9-1982 the parties were not present but the Gazette had also not been received, therefore, 20-10-1982 was fixed in the case. (11) That it appears that on 20-10-1982 the Gazette was received and since the parties were absent therefore, the Prescribed Authority directed the ex parte proceedings be taken against the petitioners. A true copy of the order sheet from 12-7-1982 to 20-10-82 is attached as Annexure `2' to this petition. (12) That it appears that the Prescribed Authority proceeded to pass final order on 21-10-1982 in absence of the petitioners whereby he rejected the objection of the petitioners and again held that 27.89 acres of land were surplus. A true copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority is attached as Annexure 3' to this petition." (5) Subsequently, the petitioners moved an application on 5-11-82 for getting rid of the order dated 20-10-82 whereby the Prescribed Authority had directed the case to proceed ex parte against the petitioners. (6) The petitioners came to know of the aforesaid final ex parte order dated 21-10-82 (referred to in para 12 of the writ petition quoted above) for the first time on 25-11-82. According to the petitioners, the said order was ante-dated. (7) The petitioners filed an appeal on 1-12-82 against the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority dated 21-10-82. They also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. (8) In the meanwhile a writ petition was moved in this Court but the same was dismissed by the Court's order dated 17-12-82, a true copy of which is annexure 7 to the petition. However, the said writ petition is not relevant as the grievance of the petitioners in the said writ petition was regarding the failure of the appellate court to extend the interim stay order. (9) The petitioners moved an application dated 18-12-82 before the appellate court praying that their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act be rejected as not pressed as the petitioners had been advised that no such application was needed because their appeal was within time. True copy of the said application is annexure 8 to the writ petition. (9) The petitioners moved an application dated 18-12-82 before the appellate court praying that their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act be rejected as not pressed as the petitioners had been advised that no such application was needed because their appeal was within time. True copy of the said application is annexure 8 to the writ petition. The application was accordingly rejected by the appellate court as not pressed by its order dated 18-12-82 a true copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition. The appellate court on the same date dismissed the appeal holding the same as time barred. A true copy of the said order of the appellate court is Annexure 10 to the petition. (10) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri V.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, Sri G. N. Varma, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has made his submissions. 3. In the writ petition the following prayers have been made : ..... this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue : "(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 20-10-1982 and 21-10-1982 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 18-12-1982 passed by the learned District Judge (Annexures Nos. 2, 3 and 10), (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge to dispose of the case in accordance with law, (c) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, (d) to award costs." 4. Sri V.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the appeal was erroneously dismissed by the appellate court treating the same to be time-barred. In the instant case, the limitation did not start from 21-10-1982 when the final order was passed by the Prescribed Authority, inasmuch as the said order was not passed in the presence of the petitioners or their counsel and it was never communicated to them. The limitation started from the date of knowledge of the petitioners of the said order. According to the petitioners, they came to know of the said final ex parte order dated 21-10-1982 on 25-11-1982. The limitation started from the date of knowledge of the petitioners of the said order. According to the petitioners, they came to know of the said final ex parte order dated 21-10-1982 on 25-11-1982. The learned counsel also contended that the Prescribed Authority was wrong in passing the order's dated 20-10-1982 directing the ex parte proceedings to be taken against the petitioners. The learned counsel contended that 20-10-1982 was fixed for the arrival of the newspaper wherein the notice of the ceiling proceedings had been directed to be published by way of substituted service. According to the learned counsel, 20-10-1982 was not the date of hearing and, therefore, the Prescribed Authority was not entitled to direct the proceedings to proceed ex parte against the petitioners. Sri Misra placed reliance on the following cases : 1. Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500 , 2. Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993 , 3. K. Seethmma v. K. Kameswar Rao, AIR 1967 Orissa 152, 4. Thummala Suryamma v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, AIR 1975 Andh. Pra. 90, 5. Gopi Halwai v. Bibi Zainab Khatoon, AIR 1975 Patna 42 6. Dal Chand v. District Judge Mathura, 1967 All LJ 48. 5. Sri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, contended that even if the ratio of AIR 1961 SC 1500 (supra) be held to be applicable, still the petitioners in the instant case had the actual or constructive notice of the final order dated 21-10-1982 much prior to 25-11-1982. His contention is that the order dated 20-10-1982 clearly directed that the final order would be passed on 21-10-1982. Therefore, the petitioners should be held to have had clear notice of the date of the final order i.e. 21-10-1982. Sri Verma placed reliance on Smt. Jagat Janani Debi v. Smt. Jyotsna Basu, AIR 1978 Cal 392 and Abhi Ram v. Moti Ram, AIR 1978 Him. Pra. 28. In my view, the contention of Sri Misra is correct that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1500 (supra) is applicable in the instant case. Sri Verma placed reliance on Smt. Jagat Janani Debi v. Smt. Jyotsna Basu, AIR 1978 Cal 392 and Abhi Ram v. Moti Ram, AIR 1978 Him. Pra. 28. In my view, the contention of Sri Misra is correct that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1500 (supra) is applicable in the instant case. After referring to several decisions of the Bombay and Madras High Courts, the Supreme Court laid down as follows : "These decisions show that where the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the, enforcement of the remedy by the person, aggrieved against the said order by reference to the making of the said order, the making of the order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned." 6. There is nothing to show that on 21-10-1982 the petitioners or their counsel were present before the Prescribed Authority when the final order was pronounced. Admittedly, on 20-10-1982 also they were not present. In this view of the matter, it cannot be contended that the petitioners had any constructive or actual notice of the date fixed for the pronouncement of the final order namely 21-10-1982. Therefore, the appellate court should have gone into this question as to the date on which the petitioners first acquired the knowledge of the said final order dated 21-10-1982. The appellate court, however, did not go into said question presumably because it thought that the limitation started from the date of the final order namely 21-10-1982. It was in error in thinking so. 7. It is not necessary to refer to several other cases relied upon by the parties and which have been noticed earlier because the law laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1500 (supra) has been followed in many of them. The other contentions involved in the petition also need not be gone into because it will be for the appellate court to consider them in case the appeal is held to be within time on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioners of the final order dated 21-10-1982. 8. Accordingly, I allow this petition and quash the appellate court's order dated 18-12-1982 being Annexure 10 to the petition whereby the appeal was rejected as time-barred. 8. Accordingly, I allow this petition and quash the appellate court's order dated 18-12-1982 being Annexure 10 to the petition whereby the appeal was rejected as time-barred. The case is remanded to the appellate court for a fresh decision on the question of limitation of the said appeal in the light of the observations made herein-before. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.