The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India and its refusal to interfere with orders due to the fraudulent nature of the suit.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of this case are that on 20. 6. 1976 a notice under the U. P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short act of 1976) was issued to one Fakir Chand. By order dated 6. 2. 1984, passed under Section 10 (5) of Act of 1976, an area measuring 840. 36 sq. meters of land of Fakir Chand was declared surplus. Then on 31. 12. 1985 the possession of the said surplus land measuring 840. 36 sq. meters of Fakir Chand was taken by the State of U. P.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, on the basis of an agreement dated 26. 3. 1974, said to have been executed by one smt. Kaushalya Devi (wife of Fakir Chand), on 7. 12. 1990, the petitioner filed Original Suit No. 795 of 1990 in the court of Civil Judge, Saharanpur, for specific performance. Interestingly, said smt. Kaushalya Devi (who is the wife of Fakir Chand, whose 840. 36 sq. meters of land had been declared surplus), had entered into an agreement dated 26. 3. 1974, much prior to the coming into force of Act of 1976, which was with regard to the land of Fakir Chand which was subsequently declared surplus under the Act of 1976. The said agreement was not even registered. Further the suit No. 795 of 1990 was filed 16 years after the alleged unregistered agreement was said to have been executed between the petitioner and said Smt. Kaushalya Devi (wife of Fakir Chand ). The said suit was not contested by the defendant Smt. Kaushalya Devi and by judgment and order dated 3. 5. 1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) the suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the petitioner. No issues were framed nor was the case discussed in the judgment and merely by mentioning that there is no opposition and that the evidence had been taken on affidavit, it was held that the suit deserves to be decreed and was accordingly decreed.

( 4 ) IN paragraph 4 of the plaint (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), mention had been made that said smt. Kaushalya Devi had agreed that the sale deed would be executed by her after obtaining permission from the ceiling authorities. Even then, without noticing as to whether any such application had been filed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi under the Act of 1976 or as to whether any such permission had been granted, the suit was decreed. Nowhere from the record has the petitioner been able to show that the said land in question was owned by Smt. Kaushalya Devi. On being asked, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that since the said question had become final after the passing of the decree in Original Suit No. 795 of 1990, the petitioner was not required to prove the title of Smt. Kaushalya Devi. This is an interesting case where the property of X is sold by A to B, and without ascertaining as to whether A is the owner of the property or not, B gets the ownership of the property; even when X, who is the original owner, may have been deprived of the said property by operation of law.

( 5 ) NOW coming to the present proceedings, by an order dated 4. 4. 2003, passed under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short Act of 1972) the prescribed Authority, Respondent No. 3. has directed eviction of the petitioner from the property in dispute which had been declared surplus under the Act of 1976 on 6. 2. 1984 and possession had been taken by the State on 31. 12. 1985. The appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the said order of the Prescribed Authority dated 4. 4. 2003 has been dismissed by the respondent No. 2 on 25. 1. 2006. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

( 6 ) THE authorities below have observed that the possession of the plot had been taken by the state Government much prior to the passing of the decree and the suit having been filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement, said to b