V.K. SHUKLA, J

Present writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the orders dated 20.5.1985, 8.5.1989 and 23.5.1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Etah non-suiting the interest of the petitioner qua premises in question.

2. Brief background of the case is that Rajendra Kumar Jain proceeded to file application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against Suraj Prasad mentioning therein that decree of ejectment be passed. In the said proceeding so undertaken, on 19.8.1982 parties to the dispute entered appearance and entered into compromise mentioning there n that building in question is in dilapidated condition and as such same may be demolished and reconstruction may be carried there. Said compromise was entered and decree was passed immediately on the basis of the compromise on 19.8.1982. Said decree in question was not placed for execution and Rajendra Kumar Jain ultl'11ately moved an application for execution being Mise. Application No.2 of 1988 wherein service on respondents was presumed to be sufficient on 30.5.1988. Thereafter Form-D was issued on 8.5.1989 itself and possession was taken from the petitioner by force, it has been alleg