IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 13492 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- MOHANBHAI HARIBHAI MALI Versus URBAN LAND TRIBUNAL AND EX- OFFICIO SECRETARY-APPEALS ULC -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR CJ VIN for Petitioner MR VM PANCHOLI, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 MR YN OZA for Respondent No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH Date of decision: 04/08/1999 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the competent authority and the order passed by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The authorities have not taken possession of the land in question from the petitioner, which fact is not in dispute in view of the written instructions dt.23-6-99 received by the learned AGP from the Section Officer, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat. 3. The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, as adopted by the Gujarat State Legislative Assembly as per the resolution dated 30th March, 1999, passed under Article 252 (2) of the Constitution. In view of the provisions of the aforesaid Repeal Act, 1999, the orders impugned in the present petition do not survive and all the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of the land in question as well as the present petition have abated. 4. Mr YN Oza, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 7 states that the proceedings are pending between the parties before the Civil Court. This Court is not concerned with the disputes between the parties before any other forum since this petition is disposed of only on the ground that the petition has abated. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of as having abated. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S. Shah, J.) sundar/-