JUDGMENT : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel for the respondent. 3. Our attention was drawn to the original records, the Order under Sections 8(4), 9 and notification issued under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (now repealed) and possession certificates in respect of each case respectively. All the lands which are the subject matter in these appeals have been purchased by the respondent herein from the original declarants/land owners during the years 1991-1992. After the order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed, and notification was issued under Section 10(3) of the Act. The same was followed by issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act to the declarant calling upon him to deliver possession of the land declared as surplus. Indisputably, the respondent has purchased the said property after the notification was issued under Section 10(3) of the Act. However, no person is permitted to transfer the title of excess vacant land after the publication of notification, which is prescribed under Section 10(4) of the Act. Section 10(4) of the Act reads thus: “10 “Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.- (4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under sub-section (3)- (i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and (ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land.” Since, the purchase of the lands is after the statutory vesting of the land with the State Government, therefore, at the instance of the respondent herein, the relief ought not to have granted by the High Court in its favour. The correctness of taking over possession of such excess vacant land declared by the competent authority in the notification published or his authorised officer could not have been examined and granted the relief by the High Court at the instance of the respondent herein, who has purchased the lands, after vesting of the lands with the State Government, which is statutorily void, the learned senior counsel for the appellants Mr. Misra submits that the respondent is not entitled for the relief granted by the High Court in the impugned judgment/ order. This aspect of the matter has not been examined by the High Court, though it is not urged before the High Court. Since it is a legal question and it can be urged at any time, therefore, the said contention is pressed into operation by the learned senior counsel in these proceedings. 4. We have examined this aspect. Having regard to the undisputed fact that the respondent has purchased the property from the declarant which is vested with the State Government under Section 10(5) of the Act in terms of Section 10(3) Notification, therefore, the transfer of property in favour of the respondent, who is claiming its interest in the said property is void ab initio in law. On this ground alone, the order passed by the High cannot be allowed to sustain. 5. It is also brought to our notice by the learned senior counsel Mr. Misra that after the proceedings Under Sections 10(3) and 10(5), notice and the alleged taking over possession of the land in question, the subsequent event has taken place, namely, the said property has been transferred to the Lucknow Development Authority by the State Government and the development authority has laid a park for public use. On this, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the said event has taken place during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. Though it may be the fact, subsequently, after the transfer of the property in favour of the development authority, the authority has developed a park is an undisputed fact. This is also a very relevant aspect of the matter for this Court to annul the impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court. 6. In our opinion, the respondent herein has no locus standi to challenge the inaction on the part of the appellants viz. This is also a very relevant aspect of the matter for this Court to annul the impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court. 6. In our opinion, the respondent herein has no locus standi to challenge the inaction on the part of the appellants viz. not taking possession legally strictly complying with the statutory provisions under Section 10(5) of the Act and taking over possession as provided under Section 10(6) of the Act. At this juncture, this aspect need not be examined by this Court at the instance of the respondent. 7. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned order passed by the High Court to the extent it granted relief to the respondent herein is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Having allowed the appeals, considering the respondent's submission that the possession of the land was taken over under Section 10(6) of the Act, it is open for the respondent to prefer a claim under Section 11 of the Act for compensation by filing an appropriate application under the provisions of the Act before the appropriate authority, which claim shall be examined independently by the competent authority and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously but not later than six months from the date of receipt of such application.