JUDGMENT : A.N. Divecha, J. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No. 2 herein) on 14th May, 1985 under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 3 herein) on 9th January, 1989 in Appeal No. Surat 97 of 1985 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 declared the holding of the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 6850 square metres. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioners mother submitted the necessary declaration in the prescribed from under Section 6(1) of the Act with respect to her holding within the urban agglomeration of Surat. It appears that, during the pendency of that form before respondent No. 2, she breathed her last leaving behind her the present petitioner as her heir and legal representative. He appears to have proceeded further with the case. The declaration was duly processed and a draft statement was prepared and was caused to be served in accordance with Section 8 of the Act. It appears that no objection thereto came to be filed by or on behalf of the petitioner. Thereupon, by his order passed on 14th May, 1985 under Section 8(4) of the Act, respondent No. 2 declared the holding of the declarant to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 6850 square metres. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that the survey number of the land was not correctly mentioned in the order at Annexure-A to this petition. Thereupon, a correction order was passed on 15th June, 1985. Its copy is at Annexure-A-1 to this petition. That aggrieved the present petitioner. He carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 3 under Section 33 of the Act. A copy of the memo of appeal is at Annexure-B to this petition. It came to be registered as Appeal No. Surat 97 of 1985. It appears that its hearing was kept at Vadodara on 21st December, 1988. It appears that the petitioner had engaged one Advocate for conducting his aforesaid appeal before respondent No. 3. A copy of the memo of appeal is at Annexure-B to this petition. It came to be registered as Appeal No. Surat 97 of 1985. It appears that its hearing was kept at Vadodara on 21st December, 1988. It appears that the petitioner had engaged one Advocate for conducting his aforesaid appeal before respondent No. 3. It appears that the petitioners Advocate could not attend the hearing at Vadodara on 21st December, 1988 in view of his preoccupation elsewhere, and as such a telegram was sent to respondent No. 3 at Vadodara seeking an adjournment. It appears that the telegram did not reach in time and it could not reach respondent No. 3 when its delivery was effected as he had already left Vadodara at that time. Thereupon, the telegram appears to have been returned to the sender. Thereupon, the petitioners Advocate applied for adjournment on 3rd January, 1989 setting out the aforesaid factual position. A copy of the application for adjournment made by the petitioner's Advocate on 3rd January, 1989 is at Annexure-C to this petition. It appears that' application was not taken into consideration by respondent No. 3. Thereafter, by his order passed on 9th January, 1989 in the aforesaid appeal, respondent No. 3 dismissed the appeal. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. During the pendency of the appeal before respondent No. 3, one notification came to be issued under Section 10(1) of the Act pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-D to this petition as also the legality and validity of the notification at Annexure-F to this petition. 3. I think this petition deserves to be accepted on a short ground that an opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 while deciding the appeal. It is not in dispute that the learned Advocate for the petitioner did not remain present at the time of hearing of the appeal at Vadodara on 21st December, 1988. It is not in dispute that the learned Advocate for the petitioner did not remain present at the time of hearing of the appeal at Vadodara on 21st December, 1988. It appears that a telegram seeking adjournment was sent to respondent No. 3 at Vadodara but it reached the destination only when respondent No. 3 had left the place. The learned Advocate for the petitioner thereupon moved an application for adjournment on 3rd January, 1989. It appears that this application for adjournment was not taken into consideration by respondent No. 3 presumably on the ground that the hearing kept at Vadodara on 21st December, 1988 was concluded. 4. Respondent No. 3 might have been justified in not taking into consideration the application for adjournment at Annexure-C to this petition if the appellate order at Annexure-D to this petition was passed soon after conclusion of the hearing of the appeal on 21st December, 1988. It however transpires from the appellate order at Annexure-D to this petition that it was passed on 9th January, 1989. The application for adjournment was moved before the order at Annexure-D to this petition came to be passed. No order appears to have been passed on the application for adjournment at Annexure-C to this petition either granting or rejecting it. Even its rejection would not have been justifiable in view of the fact that the appellate order did not come to be passed soon on or after conclusion of the hearing at Vadodara on 21st December, 1988, in any case on or before the application for adjournment at Annexure-C to this petition made on 3rd January, 1989. In that view of the matter, I think interests of justice would require respondent No. 3 to grant hearing to the petitioner as claimed on his behalf by his Advocate by his application at Annexure-C to this petition. The appellate order at Annexure-D to this petition has been passed without hearing the petitioner through his Advocate. 5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned order at Annexure-D to this petition cannot he sustained in law on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner through his Advocate. The appellate order at Annexure-D to this petition has been passed without hearing the petitioner through his Advocate. 5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned order at Annexure-D to this petition cannot he sustained in law on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner through his Advocate. The matter will have to be remanded to respondent No. 3 for restoration of the appeal to file and for his fresh decision according to law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. In the result, this petition is accepted. The impugned order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 3 herein) on 9th January, 1989 in Appeal No. Surat 97 of 1985 at Annexure-D to this of the appeal to file and for his fresh decision I according to law in the light of this judgment of mine. It is desirable that the fate of the appeal is decided by respondent No. 3 as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 30th June 1995. Rules is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the subject-matter of this petition till the fate of the appeal is decided by respondent No. 3 pursuant to this judgment of mine. Application allowed.