The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that a writ petition is not maintainable if the order passed by the tribunal has merged with that of the High Court's order.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/award dated 5. 6. 1987 passed by the U. P. Avas Evam vikas Parishad Tribunal, Agra, respondent No. I as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: a notification was issued under Section 357 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam on 23. 4. 1960 for acquiring a huge track of land of village Ghatwasan in the district of Agra for the purposes of a scheme knows as Ghatwasan Grahsthan Evam Sarak Yojna, Agra. The said notification was followed by another notification issued under Section 363 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam on 26. 9. 1964. Under an agreement dated 31. 5. 1968 the execution of the aforementioned scheme was transferred to the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad herein after referred to as the Parishad. It included the land of the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The possession was taken over by the Collector and handed over to Parishad on 18. 6. 1971. An award was made by the Collector/special Land Acquisition Officer on 24. 11. 1972. It may be mentioned here that "the Collector/special Land Acquisition Officer classified the land in question in Belt 3 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1. 34 per square yard alongwith solatium @ 15% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

( 3 ) A reference was made which was registered as L. A. Case No. 8 of 1981 before the U. P. Avas evam Vikas Parishad Tribunal, Agra. The Tribunal by the order dated 5. 6. 1987 has enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs. 1. 34 per square yard awarded by the Special Land Acquisition officer to Rs. 12 per sq. yard. It also enhanced the solatium from 15% to 30% and the interest was enhanced from 6% to 9%. The order dated 5. 6. 1987 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing First Appeal No. 19 of 1988. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 4. 10. 1993 dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in default and further by the order of the same dated dismissed the appeal as barred by time. An application for recall of the order dated 4. 10. 1993 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22. 4. 1997.

( 4 ) THE petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by the Honble supreme Court on the ground of delay vide order dated 20. 1. 1998. A review application was also filed, which was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 22. 7. 1998. Against the order dated 22. 4. 1997 passed by this Court a Special Leave Petition was also filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 10. 8. 1999.

( 5 ) I have heard Sri Pankaj Mithal learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dilip Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the Learned Standing Counsel, who represents Respondents No. 4.

( 6 ) SHRI Dilip Gupta learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition before this Court. According to him, the petitioner had preferred a First Appeal against the order dated 5. 6. 1987 passed by respondent No. 1 which had been dismissed as barred by time, and the Special Leave Petition against the said order has also been rejected by the Honble Supreme Court. He, thus, submitted that the order of the Tribunal came to be merged with the order passed by this Court in the First appeal and a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable for quashing of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the judicial side. He relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sheodan Singh v. Dariyao Ku