JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - The Petitioner, a land owner in the urban agglomoration of Cuttack, has prayed to quash the order of the Special Officer and competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the 'Act') in U.L.C. No. 2 of 1976. 2. Pursuant to the commencement of the Act the Petitioner submitted his return u/s 6(1) of the Act showing that he held the land to the extent of A 6.966 decimals. On the basis of the return filed and after making enquiry as the competent authority deemed necessary a draft statement was prepared showing that the total extent of vacant land owned by the present Petitioner is A 6.182 decimals out of which the extent of vacant land to be surrendered is A. 4.709 decimals. The draft statement having been served on the Petitioner, an objection was filed against the draft statement as required under Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act According to the order passed by the competent authority, the objection to the draft statement was duly considered and final statement was prepared after disposal of the objections. The Petitioner has alleged that the draft statement was not prepared by the competent authority and he was unaware of the final statement having been prepared in the meantime. He, however, contends that the competent authority has not applied his judicial mind to the objections raised against the draft statement and the order confirming, the draft statement-is not sustainable in law. A further objection had been raised that an application for exemption u/s 20 of the Act had been pending by the time the competent authority purports to have considered the objections against the draft statement for which reason all the proceedings taken in the ceiling case must be held to be without jurisdiction. According to the Petitioner the entire proceeding has been vitiated for violation of the principle of natural justice and the principles embodied in the Act and the Rules made thereunder for which reason necessary direction should be issued to the competent authority for reconsideration in the matter. 3. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the opposite parties that this writ application is not maintainable as the Petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the order passed by the competent authority as provided in Section 33 of the Act. 3. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the opposite parties that this writ application is not maintainable as the Petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the order passed by the competent authority as provided in Section 33 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in reply to the aforesaid contention urged that the Petitioner was not aware of the final order passed, by the competent authority and, therefore, he had no scope for preferring an appeal. It is, therefore, necessary to dispose of the preliminary objection before we deal with the other questions raised in this writ application. 4. The scheme of the Act requires that any person holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit is required to file a return u/s 6(1) of the Act. On filing of a return, the competent authority after such enquiry as he may deem fit to make, shall prepare a draft statement in respect of the person who has filed the return. According to Sub-section (3) of Section 8, the draft statement shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together with a, notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within 30 days of the date of service thereof. Rule 5 requires that the draft statement shall be served together with the aforesaid notice on the holder of the vacant lands and all other person so far as may be known who have or are likely to have any claim to or interest in the ownership, or possession, or both of the vacant lands by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned. On receipt of the draft statement if the land holder or any person interested having been served with a notice files on objection, the competent authority shall duly consider the same after giving the objectors reasonable opportunity of being beard and pass such orders as he deems fit. Pursuant to the said order passed, under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act, the competent authority shall make necessary alteration if any, in the draft statement and shall detetermine the extent of vacant land held by the person concerned in excess of the ceiling limit and cause a copy of the draft statement so altered to be served in the same manner on, the person concerned. The draft statement so altered is called the final statement. Section 10(1) of the Act requires that as soon as may be after the service of the final statement u/s 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government, and the claims of all persons interested in such vacant land may be made by them before the competept authority. The notice u/s 10(1) is required to be published in the official Gazette and also by fixing copies of the notification in a conspicuous place in the office of the competent authority and by publishing the same in two News papers having circulation in the locality where the vacant lands are situated. 5. The Petitioner in this case having filed the return u/s 6(1) of the Act the competent authority after making some enquiry prepared a draft statement which stands mentioned in the order sheet of the case as well as admitted in the writ application itself. We, however, do not find any material in support of the allegation made in the writ application-that some other officer other than the competent authority had prepared the draft statement and that the competent authority had merely put his signature in the draft statement without any application of mind. The records of the ceiling case having been produced before us it appears that in the matter of preparation of the draft statement various queries were made and the competent authority having examined the materials on record approved the draft statement and issued notice to the Petitioner inviting objection thereto. The Petitioner filed objection on 28-11-1983 through, his advocate and the competent authority thereafter posted various dates for hearing. The order sheet further reveals that the present Petitioner was heard in the matter on 3-1-1984 and the case was adjourned for further hearing. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner thereafter applied for adjournment on various dates and remained absent on the last few dates. The competent authority thereafter proceeded to dispose of the abjection on merits. The order sheet further reveals that the present Petitioner was heard in the matter on 3-1-1984 and the case was adjourned for further hearing. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner thereafter applied for adjournment on various dates and remained absent on the last few dates. The competent authority thereafter proceeded to dispose of the abjection on merits. Thus it is not correct that either the principle of natural justice or any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules was violated by the competent authority in disposing of the objection is disposed of, the final statement is requireq to be drawn up by making necessary corrections if any in the draft. The competent authority having prepared the final statement, directed a copy of the same to be served on the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. Publication of title final statement was also made u/s 10(1) of the Act and we see no infirmity in the procedure followed. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he having not been served with a copy of the order passed by the competent authority which according to him is required to be communicated to him, he could not prefer the appeal. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court reported in Keshab Chandra Rana Vs. State of Orissa and Another in support of the contention that communication of an order is not equivalent to the knowledge of the order. Their Lordships in the said case were dealing with a case under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958 in which the period of limitation provided in Section 12 for an appeal was 15 days from the date on which the order is communicated to the party aggrieved thereunder. Their Lordships were of the view that even if the opposite party is present in Court and the order is delivered in his presence on the date fixed, such delivery, of the order in his presence may at best amount to his knowledge of the order, on that day, but cannot, amount to communication of that order to him as contemplated by Section 12 of the Act. The aforesaid view of law has also been referred to and accepted in various other cases by this Court and we do not think it possible to deviate from that Another case in which the decision of Keshaba Chandra Rana's case (supra) was noticed with approval is nearer to the problem at issue. In the said case (Ungaraj Samantara's case) the provisions of Section 44 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act were under consideration. Section 44 of the said Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed u/s 41 or Sub-section (1) or (6) of Section 42 or Section 43 may within 30 days from the date of receipt or the order u/s 41 or Section 43 or from the date of publication of the order u/s 42 as the case may be prefer an appeal to the Commissioner. The Rule framed under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act did not make any provision for communication of the order passed u/s 41 of the Act. This Court interpreted the phrase "date of receipt of the order" occurring in Section 44(1) to mean "some thing more than mere pronouncement of the order in Court". It will held in that case that the rules should be read together with the Act under which they have been framed. It was further held that the rules cannot repeal or contradict any express provisions in the Act and have to be interpreted to carry out the purpose of the Act. If the statute provides for the purpose of enabling something to be done and the Rules are silent to mention in terms the details necessary for performance of the said Act, it is reasonable to infer by necessary implication that the law empowers the Court to work out the details. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in that case having not been communicated to the party, it was held that the limitation for an appeal shall be computed from the date of receipt of the order and in the absence of any material that the order was communicated, it can not be said that the appeal was barred by limitation. 6. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that the final statement made u/s 9 of the Act having been communicated to the Petitioner, the limitation would start from the date of the final statement for the purpose of appeal. The aforesaid contention in our opinion is not supportable. Section 8(4) requires the competent authority to consider the objection received against the draft statement and pass orders as it deems fit after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 9 empowers the competent authority to make the necessary alteration in the draft statement in accordance with the orders passed on the objections filed and determine the vacant land held by the person concerned in excess of the ceiling limit. Therefore, drawing up of the final statement is a mere consequence of the order u/s 8(4) of the Act passed By the competent authority. The preparation of the final statement is not an order by itself and the same can not be altered unless the order passed u/s 8(4) of the Act is set aside or modified. Its therefore, follows that it is the order passed u/s 8(4) of the Act which is appealable and not the final statement prepared u/s 9 of the Act. There is nothing on record of the competent authority to suggest that the order passed u/s 8(4) of the Act was communicated to the Petitioner. Accepting the view expressed in the decision reported in Lingaraj Samantaray and Others Vs. Sri Sidhabaladevjew, it is to be concluded that the order u/s 8(4) of the Act having not been, communicated in this case, the explanation furnished for not filing an appeal is acceptable would therefore, hold that the writ application cannot be defeated for the reason that no appeal had been preferred by the Petitioner. 7. So far as the objection taken by the Petitioner that the progress of the proceeding itself was incompetent as the exemption application u/s 20 of the Act was pending is devoid of any merit in view of the decision of this Court in O.J.Cs. 796 to 800 of 1988 disposed of on 2-2-1990. It may however be noted that the result of the exemption application may be relevant at the stage of Section 10 when decision relating to the specific land which vests in the State Government is to be arrived at. 796 to 800 of 1988 disposed of on 2-2-1990. It may however be noted that the result of the exemption application may be relevant at the stage of Section 10 when decision relating to the specific land which vests in the State Government is to be arrived at. We need not enter in to the merits of the objection against the draft statement reiterated before this Court for consideration in view of our conclusion that the order of the competent authority u/s 8(4) of the Act has not been communicated to the Petitioner which provides for a justification for not filing any appeal. 8. In the result, therefore, we would dispose of the writ application directing to the competent authority to communicate the order passed u/s 8(4) of the Act whereafter it would be open to the Petitioner to prefer any appeal if so advised. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. A. Pasayat, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.