JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This petition challenges the order of the District Judge. Saharanpur dismissing the appeal of the petitioner along with the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 2. In pursuance of the proceedings taken under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, some land of the petitioner was declared as surplus. The petitioner went up in appeal to the District Judge against this declaration made on 24-4-79. The appeal was filed on 15-9-81. Along with the appeal the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay stating that as he came to know of the order dated 24-4-79 on 3-9-81 he could not prefer the appeal earlier than 15-9-81. 3. The learned District Judge dismissed the application on 5-3-82 on the finding that as the appellant had come to know of the order dated 24-4-79, on 4.7.79 upon service of notice under sub-section 4 of Section 8, the petitioner would be deemed to have acquired knowledge of the ceiling proceedings and consequently filing of the appeal on 15-9-81 after a delay of about one year six months could not be excused. 4. Rule 5 of the rules framed under the Act provides for "Particulars to be contained in draft statement as regards vacant lands and manner of service of the same". 5. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 provided that the draft statement shall be served on the holder of the vacant land by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned. Admittedly, the draft statement prepared father together with the notice preferred to in sub-section 2 of Section 8 had not been sent to the petitioner by registered post. Service found sufficient by the learned District Judge was that which was sent by the Process Server. The petitioner denied that any notice had been taken to him by the Process Server. He denied that the notice contained his signatures. The learned District Judge did not investigate this controversy and assumed that the notice sent through the process Server had been served upon the petitioner. He rejected to application for condonation of delay. 6. The learned District Judge was wrong in doing so. He should have given a finding on this controversy when the same had been signed by petitioner. The learned District Judge did not investigate this controversy and assumed that the notice sent through the process Server had been served upon the petitioner. He rejected to application for condonation of delay. 6. The learned District Judge was wrong in doing so. He should have given a finding on this controversy when the same had been signed by petitioner. Without deciding this controversy, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be decided. The learned District Judge assumed some facts against the petitioner, which he was not justified in doing. 7. Apart from service of notice through the Process Server, since Rule 5 (2) of the Rules had not been complied with, the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed by the District Judge, Court of law is required to construe Section 5 of the Limitation Act liberally so as to advance justice. The petitioner could not have remained silent, if he had received notice of the proceedings. By the statement under sub-section (4) of Section 6 a large area of the land of the petitioner has been declared surplus. In these circumstances, the petitioners claim that he had no knowledge of the proceedings appears to be trust worthy. 8. Accordingly the suit petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the District Judge dated 6-3-82 is quashed. He is directed to decide the appeal on merits. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.