Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Thereafter the Dy. Secretary by his communication dated 5th September, 2000 conveyed the direction of the State that because the courts have already held that the proceedings have lapsed and that now there is no justification to acquire the land in question, necessary proceedings may be taken for regularisation of the land and most part of which is constructed. The petitioners have challenged this order for the reasons stated hereinabove. The observation made by the Division Bench in earlier case, in my opinion, still holds good. The fact that the petitioner was given a letter of allotment when the Urban Improvement Trust grantee had no interest in the land makes it abundantly clear that the allotment itself does not give any right to the petitioner to enforce that letter against the Urban Improvement Trust. The petitioner raises the contention on the basis that after the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner, the land stood vested in Urban Improvement Trust vide notification dated 8th July, 1987 and published on 30th July, 1987 possession had already been with the Urban Improvement Trust under the earlier proceedings which have been held to be void, there was no impedement so far as the Urban Improvement Trust is concerned to deliver the possession of the land in his favour since vesting took place in 1987.