Arun Tandon and Dilip Gupta, JJ. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by one Ritesh Tewari in his personal capacity as well as in his capacity as pro prietor of M/s. Ganpati Builders of the following reliefs : "(i) to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of man damus directing the respondents not to interfere in the actual physical peaceful possession and construction of the petitioner's multi-storied building known as 'Ganpati Green Apartment' situated at Khasra Plot No. 258, Village Kakraitha, Tehsil Sadar, District Agra. (ii) to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and to quash the directions contained in the letters dated 30.6.2008 and 18.7.2008 (Annexures-19 and 20 to the writ petition. (iii) to issue suitable writ, order or direction constituting an enquiry committee to enquire into the role of and to fix responsibility on the erring respondents for the illegal and undue harassment of the petitioners in re spect of the construction in question as also for the publication of the press reports dated 26.8.2008 (Annexure-21 to the writ petition) damaging irre deemably the business, reputation as well as goodwill of the petitioners and to direct such authority found responsible for the said illegal acts to compensate the petitioners for the aforesaid damages caused to their busi ness, reputation and goodwill."
(2.) THE basic averments made in support of the aforesaid reliefs in the writ petition are that the petitioners have purchased 3440.50 sq. yards i.e., 2876.64 sq. metres of land of Khasra Plot No. 258 from M/s. Savy Homes (P) Ltd. through a registered sale deed dated 15.6.2006. THE petitioners have thus become sole and exclusive owner of the said area of Khasra Plot No. 258. THEy applied for sanction of a plan to construct a multi-storied building on the land. THE Agra development authority vide letter dated 10.1.2007 raised a demand of Rs. 23,19,956/- towards statutory charges for sanctioning the building plan as well as for compounding the construction already raised. THE amount is stated to have been deposited by the petitioners on 10.1.2007. THE Agra development authority vide letter dated 7.12.2007 made a further demand of Rs. 25,10,466/-towards compounding of the unauthorized construction raised by the writ peti tioners within seven days along with certain conditions mentioned therein. THE petitioners is stated to have deposited the said amount on 10.12.2007. At this stage the petitioners were informed of the orders dated 30.6.2008 and 18.7.2008 (Annexures 19 and 20 to the writ petition), whereby the Sub Divisional Magistrate had informed the Additional District Magistrate (Admn.)/Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Agra that the petitioners have raised constructions on a portion of the land which is vested in the State Government after ceiling proceedings were initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976) against the recorded tenure holder. THErefore, the map, if any, sanctioned by the Agra Development Authority be directed to be cancelled and appropriate action be taken for restoring the possession to the State Government. On the said report, the A.D.M. (Admn.)/Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Agra has called upon the S.D.M. to take appropriate action in respect of the construction raised by the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the record of the present writ petition, submits that proceedings under the Land Ceiling Act were initi ated against the recorded tenure holders under the Act of 1976. On the basis of the statement filed by the recorded tenure holder an order dated 30.3.1981 in Case No. 5274/4787/76-77 (State v. Ramo) was passed by the competent au thority declaring amongst other 9006 sq. yards of land of Khasra Plot No. 258 as surplus. The order was not challenged any further by the recorded tenure holders. The entire Khasra Plot No. 258 was transferred by way of sale by the recorded tenure holder in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti vide regis tered sale deed dated 20.4.1982. The purchaser Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti carved out various plots of different sizes and allotted the same to its members through various sale deeds. Large number of such members of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti in turn executed a sale deed of their plots in favour or M/s. Savy Homes (P) Ltd. and M/s. Savy Homes (P) Ltd. in turn have sold the above men tioned land in favour of. the writ petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 15.6.2006. Petitioners alleged that the proceedings initiated against the recorded tenure holder under the Act of 19/6 were illegal and without jurisdic tion. The order dated 30.3.1981 was in ex parte order. In the alternative they have contended that actual physical possession of the surplus land in terms of the order dated 30.3.1981 has not been taken and, therefore, with the issuance of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter re ferred to as the Repeal Act) the proceedings under the Act of 1976 stands abated and the recorded tenure holder and consequently the subsequent pur chasers become lawful owners entitle to retain the possession of the land trans ferred in their favour. It is, therefore, submitted that the aforesaid two orders be quashed and the other reliefs qua restraining the respondents from interfer ing in the actual possession and the construction raised therein be granted.
(3.) THE writ petition is opposed by Smt. Archana Srivastava learned Standing Counsel and it is contended that from the facts as they stand on record, admittedly an order referable to section 8 (4) of the Act of 1976 was is sued against the recorded tenure holder declaring the land in question as sur plus on 30.3.1981, the order has been permitted to become final inasmuch as no appeal has filed against the said order as provided under the Act of 1976 nor the order was challenged before any Court of law. Proceedings under section 10 (1) and 10 (3) were taken in respect of the land in question. Along with the counter-affidavit details of notices dated 13.9.1993, 18.9.1984 and 31.3.1993 un der section 10 (3) and 10 (5) of the Act have been referred to. Copy of the notice under section 10 (5) of 1976 Act has been brought on record which in turn refer to the notification issued under section 10 (3) bearing No. 943/5274/4287 dated 31.7.1993 (Annexure-C.A.-2 to the present writ petition) as well as dated 16.10.1993. She, therefore, submits that in the facts of the present case it is ad mitted that the transfer by way of sale has been effected subsequent to the or der dated 30.3.1981 and such sale is null and void in view of the provisions con tained in section 5 and section 10 of the Act of 1976. Petitioners therefore, have no legal right to claim relief on the basis of such void sale deed over the land by means of the present writ petition nor the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1976 against the recorded tenure holder can be permitted to be questioned by them. She vehemently contends that in cases the Writ Court entertains the writ petition and the reliefs prayed for are granted, it will amount to recogni tion of transfer by sale which stand declared null and void by operation of Taw as per the provision of the Act of 1976 on the date of transfer. She, therefore, submits that this Writ Court may not interfere at the behest of the petitioner who claims title on the basis of null and void sale deed over the land in ques tion. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.;