- (1.) Without entering into the merits of the controversy, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally.
(2.) The land in dispute falls within the domain of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. According to the petitioner's counsel, after repeal of the Act, the proceedings initiated in pursuance to the Repeal Act became nonest and the petitioner is entitled to retain the possession of land in question with hereditary right. Attention of this Court has been invited to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in : (2007) 11 SCC 90 Mukarram Ali Khan versus State of U.P and others and other judgment reported in, 2011 (3) SCCD 1382 (SC) Ritesh Tewari and another versus State of U.P. and others.
(3.) In the case of Mukkarram Ali Khan (supra), their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that in view of repeal of 1976 Act (supra) and being adopted by the State of U.P by a resolution as required under Art. 252(2) of the Constitution and the repealing Act having come into force in the State of U.P with effect from 18.3.1999, all pending proceedings under 1976 Act shall be treated to have abated. The operation portion of the judgment from Mukarram Ali Khan (supra) is reproduced as under: 2. Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the primary point urged was that possession has not been taken pursuant to orders passed by the authorities under the Act. An affidavit has been filed indicating that the possession of the land has not been taken and the land in question continues to be in possession of the appellant and his sons.;