1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4266 of 1987 Date of decision:- 03.12.2010 Smt. Indu Lekha Khanna and others. ......Petitioners Vs The Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Amritsar and another. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) The challenge in the writ petition is against an appellate order dated 11.02.1987 confirming the order dated 27.02.1985 of the primary authority with regard to excess/surplus land of the writ petitioners determined under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only). The aforesaid Act has been amended in the year 1999. While Section 3 of the Act of 1999 deals with situations where the repeal of the principal Act does not affect actions taken under the said Act, Section 4 provides that all proceedings where possession of the excess land has not been taken over shall stand abated. In this regard, a judgement of the Apex Court in Mukarram Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007(4), RCR (Civil), 119 and a judgement of this Court in 2 Daljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2005(3), PLR, 748, has been placed before the Court by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners has also asserted that by virtue of the interim order passed in this case possession of the land has not been taken over from the writ petitioners. There is no material on record on behalf of the respondents to controvert the aforesaid position. If that be so, the case will squarely be covered by the decisions referred to above and the proceedings shall have to be treated as having abated by operation of law. Writ petition, therefore, is disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) 03.12.2010 JUDGE Amodh