Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned standing counsel for the Petitioner state.
(2.) THE first writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 22.10.1993 passed by District Judge, Kanpur in Misc. Ceiling appeal No. 187 of 1989 which had been filed by the Respondents in the writ petition. Second writ petition is directed against the judgment of the same District Judge of the same date passed in Misc. Ceiling appeal No. 186 of 1989 filed by Respondent No. 1, J.D. Dalmia and Umesh Krishna Dalmia. Respondent No. 1 in the first writ petition is son of Respondent No. 1 in the second writ petition. In the matter sub judice in first writ petition, competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 had held that the Respondent of the writ petition possessed 306.92 sq. meters land as excess vacant land. In the matter sub judice in second writ petition the Competent authority had held that Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition and Umesh Krishna Dalmia possessed 613.84 sq. meter land as excess vacant land. Against both the orders appeals were filed which were allowed by the impugned judgments and orders. In both the appeals it was held that Appellants did not possess any excess vacant land. As the appeals filed by the Respondents of these writ petitions were allowed hence they must be continuing in possession. Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 has been repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 and by virtue of Section 4 which is quoted below all proceedings are to abate:
(3.) ABATEMENT of legal proceedings All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate: Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority. 4. Under Section 3 of the Repeal Act of 1999 it is provided that the repeal of the principal Act would not affect the vesting of any vacant land possession of which has been taken over by the State Government. As possession was not taken, hence, Section 3 dealing with savings is not applicable. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed as having abated.;