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.

4. Shri Verma submits that in the absence of any consequential action having been taken in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10 (5) and 10 (6) of the Act 1976 and having failed to invite the petitioners to offer their choices of land as required under Section 8(3) of the said Act, the respondents have no authority in law to either claim possession over the land or treat it as surplus and put it to auction. He contends that the petitioners have been throughout in continuous uninterrupted actual physical possession and, therefore, with the commencement of the Act 1999, all proceedings that had been initiated for declaring the land as surplus stood abated and hence the consequential action of putting the property to auction is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 have vehemently opposed the writ petition contending that the land had vested in the State under Section 3 of the Act 1976 and taking over of actual physical possession is totally immaterial. It is urged that any subsequent proceedings for taking possession are merely formal and as such even if it is assumed that actual physical possession had not been taken, it would not materially affect the status of the land after the commencement of the Act 1999. A feeble and half-hearted attempt has been made on behalf of the respondents to demonstrate that some steps as required under the provisions of Section 10 (5) of the Act 1976 had been taken to serve notice on one of the petitioners namely p