The petitioner challenges the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in file No.J2/13180/78 dated 23.12.2006. The purport of the notice is that the lands covered by Sy.Nos.75 and 77, T.S.No.46/1, 2, 3, Block E, Ward 211 of Yakutpura in an extent of 5634.32 sq. mts held by Sri Mohd.Hasan Ali Khan stood vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances w.e.f. 24.04.2006.

The declarant was one Sri Mohd.Hasan Ali Khan and it is the admitted case that the petitioner school is in possession of the extents covered by the declaration.

At the first instance, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34670 of 1998 questioning the order dated 27.08.1998 in Memo No.79553/UC.II(2)/94-2 in this Court. This Court through order dated 28.12.1998 in WPMP.No.42670 of 1998 in W.P.No.34670 of 1998 directed that parties shall maintain status quo.

It is not in dispute that the said status quo order was in force till 04.04.2007. On 04.04.2007, the date on which the petitioners with a view to pursuing the remedy of appeal filed under Section 33 of the Act desired to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

From the above limited narration, it is clear that the 2nd respondent is under obligation not to pursue or initiate any steps concerning the lands covered by the declaration of

Sri Mohd.Hasan Ali Khan vide File No.J2/13180/78. Contrary to the above legal obligation, through the impugned notice, it is stated that the lands covered by declaration of Sri Mohd.Hasan Ali Khan stood vested in Government free from all encumbrances w.e.f. 24.04.2006 and in consequence thereof, the impugned notice under Section 10(5) is issued.

The grievance of the petitioners is that any action or steps initiated during the currency of the status quo order is both contumacious, illegal and that the same cannot be stated or put to use against the petitioner. Even if any possession is recorded in the file of the respondents, the same is not binding on the petitioners because the possession is and was still with the petitioners. This Court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the record in the declaration of Sri Mohd.Hasan Ali Khan to examine the compliance with the mandatory steps at various stages.

A perusal of the record discloses that the respondents on the one hand refer to filing of writ petition by the petitioners and are conspicuously silent about the interim order granted on 28.12.1998. On the other hand, the respondents, as if there has been no response or reply to various notices issued by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Act, proceed to pass orders under Section 10(3) and served notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. The manner in which these orders have been passed is completely illegal and not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Act. The record further discloses that on 12.03.2007 they claim to have taken possession from the petitioners. Once the earlier proceedings issued under Section 10(3) are illegal and cannot affect the right, any action initiated pursuant thereto has no independent legs to stand. Therefore, the notice issued by the respondents is illegal and liable to be set aside.

The decision of the Supreme Court in a decision in STATE OF U.P V. HARI RAM (2013) 4 SCC 280) has clearly laid down the principle that the authorities are under mandatory obligation to follow the procedure at various stages under Section 10 of the Act before affecting the rights of petitioner and any deviation thereof vitiates their action. In the above decision, it was held thus:

“The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession un