IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1576 OF 2001 (M/S) Old CMWP No. 19570 of 1998 State of U.P. through the Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Dehradun. … Petitioner. Versus 1. Sri J.C.Atri Son of Sri Ajmer Singh, employed at Punjab National Bank, P.O. Raiwala, District Dehradun. 2. The District Judge, Dehradun. 3. Sri Nazar Husain 4. Sri Roshan Ali, Sons of Sri Ali Bux. Resident of village Kanwali, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun. …. Respondents. Sri Nand Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dated 24-03-2006 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. By means of the present Writ Petition, the petitioners- State has challenged the judgment and order dated 7-6-1994 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun (respondent no. 2) in Urban Land Ceiling Appeal No. 31 of 1993, J.C.Atri Vs. State of U.P. By the impugned judgment and order ( Annexure-1 to the writ petition), respondent no.2 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Competent Authority Dehradun. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent nos. 3 and 4 were Bhumidhars of the agricultural land situate in village Kanwali, Central Doon, district Dehradun, who sold the land measuring 0.051 acres in favour of J.C.Atri through registered sale deed dated 30-4-1984. J.C.Atri moved an application before the Competent Authority for a no-objection certificate as he intended to make construction over purchased land. The application was rejected on the ground that the land has been 2 declared as surplus vacant land as that of Nazar Husain, though the statement of property of Roshan Ali was still pending disposal vide order dated 5.2.1993. Aggrieved, the respondent no.1 preferred appeal before the District Judge, after perusing the entire evidence observed that the land under the sale deed was purchased by the appellant prior to enforcement of the Master Plan and the disputed land was agricultural land, therefore, the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act were not attracted. Ultimately, the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 7-6-1994 and the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority, which gave rise to the present writ petition. I have heard learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The Act Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. 33 of 1976) was repealed by the Central Act No. 15 of 1999. The Legislature of State of U.P. has since adopted the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1999, by a resolution as required by Article 252(2) of the Constitution, which has come into force in Uttar Pradesh on 18-03-1999 and the same are also applicable in the State of Uttaranchal. Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 provides as under: “4. Abatement of legal proceedings.-All proceedings relation 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.” 3 As stated by the learned Standing Counsel, Sri Nand Prasad, appearing on behalf of the State, no declaration has been published under Section 10(3) of the principal Act, therefore, no question of vesting of the land in the State or taking over possession arises. The effect of the repealing Act on present case is that where for land in dispute, no declaration was published under Section 10(3) of the Act, there is no question of vesting the land in the State or taking over possession of it. The present proceedings have to be abated and are hereby abated under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The facts of the case are squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P. and others” (2000, AIR, SCW, 1882). In view of the above, the Writ Petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as infructuous. Ordered accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP