- (1.) Delay condoned.
(2.) Leave granted.
(3.) Two questions arise for our consideration, namely, (1) whether the High Court ought to have considered the Respondent's plea that the possession allegedly taken on June 27, 1989 was by an officer who was not authorised and only a paper possession was taken, and (2) whether the High Court was justified in directing the competent authority to examine the case of the Respondent in the light of Notification dated October 6, 1997 in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. (for short, '1999 Repeal Act').;