The Appellate Authority also did number companysider the companytention of the appellant that the entire land was outside the ambit of the said Act because it was used for agricultural purposes number did he companysider the Revenue Records pertaining to the use of the land.
Thereafter by registered companyveyance dated 21 2 1986, the original owner Sardar Dhyan Singh sold the said properties to the appellant.
The draft statement was served on the owner under Section 8 on 10 12 1985.
A draft statement under Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 was prepared in respect of the holding of Sardar Dhyan Singh on 10 2 1985.
According to the appellant, on companying to know in December, 1989 about the said proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in respect of Sardar Dhyan Singh which affected the lands companyveyed to him, he filed an appeal under Section 33 of the said.
In the Revenue Record, the name of the appellant was mutated on 14 3 1986.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the Appellate Authority.
The appeal seems to have been rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur on the basis that the original holder transferred the said lands in favour of the appellant after issuance of an order under Section 9.
Act on 18 1 1990.
The lands in question originally formed a part of the holding of one Sardar Dhyan Singh.
Since such a purchase was with out giving any numberice under Section 26, the appellant cannot be companysidered as a person aggrieved to file the appeal.