Judgment : VENKATASWAMI, J.: The agreement holder for the purchase of the property in question, aggrieved by the order of the Appropriate Authority, dt. 9th Dec., 1986, passed under s. 269UD of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has filed this writ petition challenging that order. 2. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, owners of the property in question, by approaching this Court, have obtained an order, making the Department pay a sum of Rs. 16, 00, 000 to the Punjab & Sind Bank, Mount Road, Madras, towards mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of the property in question, vide judgment in W.A. No. 1637 of 1987, dt. 15th Oct., 1987 [Tirath Kaur vs. Shyam Investments]. Possession of the property was also taken by the Department on 1st Feb., 1988. 3. In the decision reported in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India r/w 1993 (110) CTR(SC) 179, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while upholding the validity of Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, inter alia, have observed as follows : "We may clarify that, as far as completed transactions are concerned, namely, where after the order for compulsory purchase under s. 269UD of the IT Act was made and possession has been taken over, compensation was paid to the owner of the property and accepted without protest, we see no reason to upset those transactions and hence, nothing we have said in the judgment will invalidate such purchases." The above observations squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand, as we have seen that the owners of the property have approached this Court and made the Department part with the consideration in discharge of the usufructuary mortgage, and possession was also taken by the Department. Accordingly, applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.