THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT APPEAL No:1707 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 03.09.2002 in dismissing W.P.No.7052 of 1991 filed challenging the orders passed by the 2nd respondent-Special Officer and Competent authority under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. On filing the declarations by the writ petitioners under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, (for short, ‘the Act’) in C.C.No.5562 of 1976, the 2nd respondent-Special Officer and Competent Authority passed an order under Section 8(4) of the Act, holding that the petitioners are holding excess land of 7541.576 sq. metres. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the 1st respondent. But the said appeal was dismissed on 29.11.1990 and the review petition filed thereafter was also rejected by order, dated 12.3.1991. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed stating that an extent of land admeasuring 0.4181 sq. mts is covered by an unregistered agreement of sale, for which exemption was granted in G.O.Rt.No.3784, dated 18.12.1975 under Act 12/72. But the Special Officer and Competent Authority had not accepted to exclude the land covered by an agreement of sale in the holding of the declarants. In a counter filed by the respondents, it is admitted that after dismissal of the appeal, a declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued on 21.1.1991 and it was published in A.P. Gazette on 29.1.1991 and a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 30.3.1991 directing the petitioner to deliver possession. At that stage, the writ petition was filed. It is to be noted that pending the writ petition there was stay of dispossession and on dismissal of the writ petition, the present appeal has been filed. By order dated 12.11.2001, this Court passed the following order: “The petitioners had the benefit of stay of dispossession during the pendency of the writ petition. There will be stay in regard to dispossession only.” In that process, the possession has not been taken over pursuant to the orders of the 2nd respondent under Section 8(4) of the Act and the declaration issued under Section 10(3), except issuing a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act to deliver possession. There is no dispute that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was repealed in the State of A.P. with effect from 27.3.2008 through G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (U.C.I) dated 22.4.2008 as contemplated under clause (2) of Article 252. On such repeal, all the proceedings made under ULC Act pending immediately before the commencement of the Act 15 of 1999, before any Court, Tribunal or other authority gets abated as per Section 4 of the Act 15/1999. Admittedly, the possession of the property in question has not been taken. Hence, the proceedings in question stand abated. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed disposing of the writ petition holding that the entire proceedings get abated on repeal of the Act. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy ____________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Date: 19.1.2011 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT APPEAL No:1707 OF 2002 (JUDGMNT delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) 19.1.2011