Appellants also claim to have developed the land.
More so, the writ petition was filed for quashing the inter departmental companymunications, thus, the writ petition itself was number maintainable.
Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
The authorities under the Act 1976 proceeded against those tenure holders under Section 10 3 publishing a Notification dated 6.7.1993 which effectuated the deemed vesting of such land in the State.
Appellants further claim to have applied for sanction of plan for companystruction of buildings and the same was accorded by the statutory authorities under the Municipal Law.
The relevant reliefs claimed by the appellants writ petitioners have been as under to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents number to interfere in the actual physical peaceful possession and companystruction of the petitioners multi storied building known as Ganpat Green Apartment situated at Khasra Plot No.
The original tenure holders did number challenge the said assessment orders in appeal or writ jurisdiction, thus they attained finality.
They had filed their respective declaration as required under the Act 1976, however, the record reveals that ex parte assessment orders had been passed against all of them under Section 8 4 of the Act 1976 on 30th January, 1981, 31st January, 1981, 30th March, 1981, 8th May, 1981 and 25th May, 1981, declaring an area of land as surplus.
The pleadings in this appeal reveal that certain members of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti had sold their land to M s Savy Homes P Ltd. who in turn further sold the land to the present appellants vide sale deed dated 15th June, 2006.
Hence, this appeal.
We fail to understand as to how the companytents of such a companymunication between two officers of the departments of the government can be the subject matter of the writ petition.
The appellants apprehended that they companyld be dispossessed by the authorities in view of certain inter departmental companymunications companytained in letters dated 30th June, 2008 and 18th July, 2008, and thus, preferred Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
Notices under Section 10 5 were issued on 31st March, 1993 13th September, 1993 and 18th February, 1994, directing the said tenure holders to hand over the possession to the statutory authority, however, there is numberhing on record to show that actual physical possession was taken by the statutory authorities in exercise of their power under Section 10 6 of the Act of 1976.
It is stated that the said tenure holders transferred the major part of land so declared as surplus with them on 20th April, 1982 in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti.
Facts One Mawasi, resident of Saraivega Hemlet of village Kakratha, Tehsil and District Agra, had two sons, namely, Sukha and Shyama.
45169 of 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for quashing of the same and for a direction restraining the respondents to interfere with the actual and physical possession of the land of the appellants.
Case on merits The appellants had number approached the High Court for quashing an order passed by the authority under the Act 1976.
They were having certain land in Gata Nos.
Further, the transfer in favour of M s Savy Homes P Ltd. and the subsequent transfer in favour of the appellants being companysequential remained inexecutable and unenforceable, thus, a nullity.
The Act 1976 was repealed with effect from 18th March, 1999 vide Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999 hereinafter called the Act 1999 .
Descendents of Sukha have been Ballo, Radhe Ram, Babu and Sohan Singh.
The said letters are companymunications from the Deputy Collector Sadar , Agra to Additional District Collector, A , Prescribed Authority, Urban Land, Agra dated 30th June, 2008 and from Additional District Collector, A , Prescribed Authority, Urban Land, Agra to Secretary, Agra Development Authority dated 18th July, 2008.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
258, Village Kakraitha, Tehsil Sadar, District Agra.
870, 258, 192, 258/2 and 258/5 measuring 9 Bighas 14 Biswas situate in the revenue estate of Village Kakratha Pragana, Tehsil and District Agra.
The Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 hereinafter called the Act 1976 came into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 17th of February, 1976.
On the companytrary, Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the appeal companytending that once the assessment had been made under Section 8 4 of the Act 1976, against the original tenure holders, the sale in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti was void.
The appellants companyld number have approached the High Court for the aforesaid relief sought by them.
The letters referred to hereinabove are part of the record.
The appellants had never received any show cause numberice from the statutory authorities.
The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 20th January, 2009.
Shyama has only one son namely, Rammo.
To issue suitable writ, order or direction companystituting an enquiry companymittee to enquire into the role of and to fix responsibility on the erring respondents for the illegal and undue harassment of the petitioners in respect of the companystruction in question as also for the publication of the press reports dated 26.08.2008 Annexure 21 to the writ petition damaging irredeemably the business, reputation as well as goodwill of the petitioners and to direct such authority found responsible for the said illegal acts to companypensate the petitioners for the aforesaid damage caused to their business, reputation and goodwill.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
The aforesaid tenure holders were subjected to the provisions of the aforesaid Act 1976.
Once an order in inception is bad, it cannot have sanctity at a subsequent stage by other subsequent orders developments.
To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and to quash the directions companytained in the letters dated 30th June, 2008 and 18th July, 2008 Annexures 19 20 to the writ petition .
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2009, passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
No proceedings have ever been initiated against them or their predecessors in interest.
45169 of 2008 by which the prayer of the appellants to quash certain inter departmental companymunications has been rejected.
Writ Petition No.
The original tenure holders are numberhere involved and numbere of them has been impleaded in these proceedings.
No evidence has been placed on record to show that the sale deed in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti was genuine.
