- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 1-1-1985 by which appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 was allowed by the appellate authority and the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority was set aside. It appears that the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, for release of the building in question. The said application was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondents. After going through the material on record, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application by judgment and order dated 2-12-1983. Challenging the validity of the said order, the appeal was filed by the contesting respondents. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and dismissed the release application by the impugned judgment and order dated 1-1-1985. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal was allowed by the appellate authority on the ground that the map of the building in question was not sanctioned by the Competent Authority. It has been stated that the petitioner, in the meanwhile, applied for approval sanction of the building plan. The application filed by the petitioner was, however, dismissed by the Competent Authority. Challenging the validity of the said order, appeal was filed. The said appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 22-9-1981. Challenging the validity of the said order, a revision was filed before the State Government which was allowed by the order dated 3rd December, 1982. Chal lenging the validity of the said order, a Writ Petition No. 2829 of 1983 was filed in this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 26-5-1997. The effect of the said order was that the order passed by the Appellate Authority revived and the building plan submitted by the petitioner shall be deemed to be sanctioned in accordance with the Rules. Thus the ground on which the appeal was allowed by the respondent No. 1 became non-existent. In view of these facts, the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. It may also be noted, in the meanwhile parties have entered into com prise by which dispute giving rise to the present petition has been amicably resolved.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserved to be allowed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 1-1-1985 is hereby quashed. No orders as to costs. Petition allowed. .;