Judgment Nagendra Rai and R.S.Garg JJ. 1. The matter arises out of a proceeding under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The State of Bihar has not taken any decision to withdraw the applicability of the Act after its repeal by the Central Government. Be that as it may the factual matrix for the purpose of disposal of the case is that the land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Mr. Saiyed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam. That proceeding was decided by the authority against which he preferred an appeal before he Commissioner under the provisions of the Act and the appellate Court remanded the matter to the original authority to consider the matter in the light of the directions made in the order and thereafter the authority (District Collector) has passed the order dated 9.3.1988 contained in Annexure-2 whereby two units had been given to the person against whom the proceeding was initiated and the heirs of Mehdi Imam. 2. The land ceiling proceeding was initiated with regard to the building and land in the heart of town at Patna which is known as Rizwan Building. The claim of the petitioner is that he has interest in the land and the building. Her case is that it is a waqf property and she has share to the extent of 10 annas but no opportunity of hearing was given in the proceeding and accordingly, she prayed for quashing the order passed by the Collector as well as the notification made u/s. 10(3) of the Act notifying the surplus land having vested in the State of Bihar. 3. The admitted fact is that against the order of the Collector a contained in Annexure-2 appeal has been preferred before the Commissioner by the person against whom the proceeding was initiated. Their stand is that the property belonged to them only. The State has also objected to the stand of the petitioner. 4. The question as to whether the petitioner has interest in the land/building or the persons against whom the proceeding was initiated have interest in the entire property is a question of fact and that has to be decided on the basis of materials produced by the parties after giving full opportunity of hearing to them by the authority constituted under the Act. Once an appeal is pending before the authority against the order passed in the proceeding, we are of the view that it will not be proper for this Court to decide the matter and make an observation regarding the merits during the pendency of appeal. However petitioner should be allowed to present her case before the appellate authority. If after hearing the matter the appellate authority finds that the petitioner is also the person who has interest in the land and she should have been heard before the original authority, in that case he will remand the matter to the original authority who will consider and take decision in accordance with law. In case the appellate authority does not find merit in the stand of the petitioner, then the appeal already filed shall be disposed of in accordance with his finding. 5. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner to file an appeal/petition before the Commissioner within a period of three weeks from today and thereafter the appellate authority will dispose of the appeal on merit in the light of the observations made above alongwith the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3. 6. So far as the notification issued u/s. 10(3) of the Act is concerned, the same shall not be given effect to till a final decision is arrived at in the matter by the concerned authority under the Act. 7. It is made clear that in case the claim of the petitioner is allowed, in that case the notification has to be recalled and modified to the extent of the claim made by the petitioner and other claimants. 8. In the result, the writ application is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.