JUDGMENT : C.K. Thakker, J. 1. This Civil Application is filed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1230 of 1996 in Special Civil Application No. 681 of 1988. The registry of this court has raised an objection that the appeal filed by the applicant-appellant is barred by 8 years and 9 months. In Civil Application it was mentioned that though the order was passed by the learned single Judge on February 11, 1988, the appeal was filed only on October 6, 1996 as the applicant was not aware of the order passed by the learned single Judge. It was further stated that Special Civil Application was dismissed on February 11, 1988 but the applicant was not aware of that decision. There was no direct contact between the applicant and his advocate. The applicant came to know about the order only when a notice dated September 7, 1996 was issued by the opponent no.2 under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land(Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter all necessary actions were taken like collecting of papers, consulting an advocate, getting a copy of the order etc. and immediately Letters Patent Appeal was filed. According to the applicant therefore, there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 2. Now, looking to the record it clearly appears that a bald statement is made by the applicant which cannot be believed. Special Civil Application was dismissed at admission stage even without issuing notice to the other side. The order passed by the learned single Judge (Coram: G.T. Nanavati, J as then he was). The court was satisfied about the correctness of the order and the petition was dismissed at the threshold. 3. The matter, however, does not end there. Looking to the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, which is placed on record of this application, it is clear that a draft statement under Section 8 of the Act was issued on May 2, 1994 and final statement under Section 9 of the Act was issued on September 7, 1996. Now reading sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the legal position is clear that as soon as draft statement is issued, objections are to be invited and the person concerned is to be given an opportunity and only thereafter in accordance with the decision on such objections, a final statement is issued under Section 9 of the Act. Now reading sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the legal position is clear that as soon as draft statement is issued, objections are to be invited and the person concerned is to be given an opportunity and only thereafter in accordance with the decision on such objections, a final statement is issued under Section 9 of the Act. 4. Again, thereafter Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10 was issued on January 5, 1995. Notification under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Act was issued and published in the Official Gazette on October 10, 1995 and the land vested in the Government free from all encumbrances and only thereafter a notice was issued to the applicant to remain present at the spot so that possession of the land can be taken over by the authorities against which the applicant has approached this Court. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the applicant was not aware of the proceedings. It also cannot be believed that the applicant came to know about the order passed in 1988 for the first time in 1996. 5. Hence we do not see any reason to condone gross and inordinate delay. Civil Application is accordingly rejected. No costs. In view of this order, no order is required to be passed on Letters Patent Appeal or on Civil Application for stay. Application Rejected.