Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

1. The appeal was filed against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging inter-departmental communications related to land disputes (!) (!) .

2. The dispute involves land in the revenue estate of a village, with original tenure holders having had assessment orders passed against them under the relevant land ceiling act, which declared certain land as surplus [1000495180002][1000495180003].

3. The original tenure holders did not challenge the assessment orders, which became final, and subsequently transferred the land to third parties. These transfers were challenged as void because they occurred after the assessment orders and in violation of the land ceiling laws [1000495180004][1000495180014].

4. The land ceiling law provided that transfers of surplus land after a certain notification were null and void, and the transfer in favor of the Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti was considered illegal and invalid [1000495180016][1000495180017].

5. The proceedings under the land ceiling act were abated upon the enactment of the Repeal Act, provided possession had not been taken by the State. The authorities had not physically taken possession of the land, rendering the proceedings ineffective [1000495180012][1000495180013].

6. The court emphasized that the transfer deeds, particularly the sale deed of 1982, were not on record and lacked proof of genuineness, making it impossible to verify their validity [1000495180017].

7. The court reiterated that pleadings must be complete, with facts and evidence properly pleaded and proved; incomplete pleadings cannot be entertained (!) (!) (!) .

8. The discretionary power of the court under constitutional provisions is to be exercised to prevent injustice and promote equity, but only when there is a grave miscarriage of justice or a clear violation of law (!) (!) (!) .

9. The court held that an order declared invalid at inception cannot be validated through subsequent actions or developments, and illegality at the root invalidates all subsequent proceedings (!) (!) (!) .

10. The court found that the sale deed in favor of the third-party association was void and that subsequent transactions based on it should be disregarded (!) (!) .

11. The court noted that the power to elicit facts through questions is an extraordinary judicial tool to discover the truth, but in this case, efforts to ascertain the facts were unsuccessful (!) (!) .

12. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appeal lacked merit based on the facts and legal principles discussed, and no costs were awarded (!) .

Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance with specific legal issues related to this document.