On a writ petition by the housing society against the order the Court held that,  the building was constructed on a piece of land, title to which had vested in the Central Government in the year 1994. The original owner, therefore, had no authority to deal with the land in question. He had fraudulently executed another development agreement with the developers. The assessee-society or its members did not have any legal title to the land in question. The erstwhile owner upon being divested of title, could not have passed on any valid title to the developer and in turn, the developer could not have passed valid title to the assessee-society. The society had no locus standi to file the writ petition. However it was an agreed position that after the passing the order under section 269UG of the Act, the Department took no further steps to safeguard its interest in the land. Taking into account the inaction on the part of the Income-tax Department in safeguarding its rights in the property by having the appropriate entries made in the property records, some conciliation had to be found. The Central Board of Direct Taxes should sympathetically examine these facts and take appropriate decision in terms of its powers under section 119(2).  That respondent No. 9 was a legal heir of one of the original purchasers. The proceedings qua the deceased had abated. In any case, no grievance could be examined at his instance in this petition. However on equitable grounds the original purchasers or their heirs must receive a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs they had paid to the owner in July, 1994.