JUDGMENT By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks quashing of the exparte order dt. 27.12.1983 passed by the competent authority and order dt. 31.5.1995 passed in appeal by the Commissioner, Jabalpur in ·proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the 'Act') in relation to the alleged agricultural land held by late Shivram Bakshi (father of the present petitioner). The relevant facts leading to the present petition are as follows: Late Shivram Bakshi, father of the petitioner claimed to have possessed in his ownership plot No. 19/1 having an area of 36873 sq.ft. including a bungalow situated in Civil Lines, Block No. 21, Jabalpur and agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 16/9 and 16/11, area 5.50 acres in Patwari Circle No. 21, Village Imalia, Tah and DistrictJabalpur. In the ceiling case under the Act late Shivram Bakshi was duly noticed and was represented by a counsel engaged by him. On 17.12.1983 an exparte order was passed against him because of his absence and absence of his counsel. Pursuant thereto on 27.12.1983 draft statement under section 8 of the Act was passed. Shivram Bakshi died on 27.1.1985 as per the copy of the death certificate (Annex. P-4) filed with the petition. As is disclosed from the entire order sheets of the ceiling case of late Shivram Bakshi filed by the State with the return, on 8. L91 the counsel engaged for late Shivram Bakshi intimated the fact of death of his client and sought leave to substitute the names of his legal representatives ·including the present petitioner. On 7.7.92 the competent authority brought on record the names of the legal representatives of late Sqivram Bakshi. On 22.1 0.92 on behalf of the petitioner an application was filed for setting aside the exparte order passed under section 8 of the Act on 25.7.83. By order passed on 24.10.92, the competent authority held that only certain specified powers of Civil· Procedure Code are available to the competent authority by virtue of section 31" of the Act, but it has no power to set aside an exparte order preparing draft statement under section 8 of the Act. Against the order of the competent authority dt. 24.10.92 the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 33 of the Act to the Commissioner, Jabalpur who also by the impugned order dt. Against the order of the competent authority dt. 24.10.92 the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 33 of the Act to the Commissioner, Jabalpur who also by the impugned order dt. 31.5.95 refussed to interfere and maintained the order of the competent authority passed on 24.10.92. It is against the above mentioned two orders of the competent authority dt. 24.10.92 and 31.5.92 of the appellate authority that the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel Shri S.P. Sethi appearing fpr the petitioner strongly relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Atia M ohammadi Begum v. State of M.P. [1993(II) MPWN 58 = AIR 1993 SC 2465 ]. The above Supreme Court decision was followed by learned Single Judge of this Court (as he then was) in M.P. 348/83 (Gwalior Bench) Ghanshyam Das v. AdditionaLCollector, Gwalior, decided on 24.3.94. Based on the above decisions it is contended that the agricultural land of the deceased holder, in the absence of existence of any master plan of Jabalpur 'on the appointed date', could not be held to be an urban land for working out the ceiling limit of the holder. It is submitted that this Court should set aside the exparte order passed in the year 1983 under section 8 of the Act and quash all further proceedings with remand of the case to the Competent Authority for re-determining the ceiling limit of the deceased holder. On behalf of the State the petition has been opposed stating that draft statement prepared in the year 1983 under section 8 of the Act cannot be set aside after such a long delay. The state has also produced before this Court all the order sheets of the ceiling case with the relevant Khasras of the Agricultural land in question. . After examining the record of the ceiling case (copy of which is filed with the return), this Court declines to interfere on the sole ground of undue delay and lapse on the part of the petitioner in availing the statutory remedy under the Act within a reasonable period. From the facts and dates mentioned above it is apparent that the exparte order against the holder in his absence was passed as back as on 25.7.83. The draft statement under section 8 was thereafter issued on 27 .12.1983. Shivram Bakshi father of the petitioner died on 27.1.85. From the facts and dates mentioned above it is apparent that the exparte order against the holder in his absence was passed as back as on 25.7.83. The draft statement under section 8 was thereafter issued on 27 .12.1983. Shivram Bakshi father of the petitioner died on 27.1.85. The order· sheets, however, go to show that no steps were taken by the holder from July, 1983 till his death in January, 1985 to appear in the proceedings and to contest the case. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that he derived kpowledge of the proceedings only in the year 1991. Such a bald statement cannot be believed. Even after appearing in the ceiling case on 8.1.91 through the lawyer, the petitioner did not resort to the remedy of revision before the State Government provided under section 34 of the Act. Instead he wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the competent authority under section 31 of the Act. As has rightly been held by the competent authority and appellate authority, section 31 of the Act confers specified powers of Civil Court under CPC on the competent authority and it had no power to set aside or cancel an order issuing a draft statement under section 8 of the Act. For same reason remedy of appeal under section 33 before the Commissioner could not be resorted to and the appellate authority committed no error in dismissing the appeal.. On the sole ground of undue delay on the part of the deceased holder and the petitioner, this Court declines to go into the merits as the orders of the ceiling authority. The petitioner may still invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under S. 34 of the Act and in that eventuality the State Government may pass such orders as are permissible in law. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed but In the circumstances, without any order as to costs.