B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) By the Court.The petitioners have preferred this petition for quashing the notice dated 7th March, 2000 whereby the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter called the 'Development Authority') had put the premises in dispute to auction described as House No. 26-27, Pannalal Road and mentioned at Serial Nos. 38 to 41 of the said auction notice. The recital of the impugned notice indicates that the said land was made available to the Development Authority after having been declared surplus in the hands of the owners under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1976'). The challenge is on the ground that the property in dispute was never taken of and any proceedings under the Act 1976 stood abated by virtue of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1999').
(2.) The facts relevant for the purposes of this controversy are that notices under the provisions of the Act 1976 were issued proposing to declare surplus certain area of the premises whereafter the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 22.10.1982 declared an area of 1054.05 sq. meters as surplus in the hands of each of the three petitioners respectively. The petitioners contend that the said order of the Prescribed Authority was not followed up by taking recourse to proceedings for obtaining physical possession of the said land, as a result whereof the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act 1999. Accordingly, it is urged that the auction proceedings resorted by the Development Authority treating the said land to be surplus under the Act 1976 is patently illegal and unlawful, which cannot be given effect to. The matter has been contested by the respondents and a Counter-affidavit has been filed by Harendra Veer Singh, the then Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad and another Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Tehsildar in the office of the Development Authority Shri Pushkar representing the respondents No. 2 and 3. Rejoinder affidavits to the said Counter-affidavits have also been filed by the petitioners.
(3.) We have heard Shri S.N. Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri P.K. Mukherjee for the petitioners, Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1, 4 and 5.;