THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.112 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner acquired lands at various places within the State, namely, Guntur, Somajiguda and Uppal. The land in Guntur is part of Guntur Urban Agglomeration and those at Somajiguda and Uppal are within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. Part of the land acquired by the petitioner was purchased by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submitted a declaration before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Secunderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). The 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 16.09.2005, holding that the petitioner is liable to surrender an extent of 42959.84 square metres of land. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 33 of the Act, before the 1st respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 05.12.2006. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the appeal was dismissed, on finding that the petitioner held land in excess of ceiling limits. It is also stated that a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 12.12.2006 and the Act came to be repealed, even before the possession was taken. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Assignments and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The necessity to discuss the various points urged on behalf of the petitioner, touching on the merits of the matter, is obviated, on account of a substantial development, namely, the repeal of the Act and adoption of the same by the A.P. State Legislature. The Act was repealed in the year 1999, and in the year 2008, the State Legislature passed a resolution accepting the same. The repealing Act as well as the resolution direct that the proceedings under the Act would abate, except where possession of the excess land was taken under Section 10(6) of the Act. In the instant case, though the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, the possession was not taken by the time, the State Legislature passed the resolution adopting the repealing Act. The averment made in the counter-affidavit in this regard reads as under: “In the instant case, the petitioner filed Writ Petition questioning the validity of notice U/s.10(5) of the Act, 1976. It is submitted that the possession of the land has not been taken over U/s.10(6) of the Principal Act. Hence, further action will abate pertaining to the property covered by the Writ Petition, as per the provisions under Urban Land (C & R) Repeal Act, 1999.” With that, the lands, which are the subject matter of the order under Section 8(4) of the Act, at the appeal, are no longer governed by the provisions of the Act. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:24.03.2009. GJ