IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27023 of 2001 Between: Smt Damayanthi Bai & others. ..... PETITIONER AND Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CEILING THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27023 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 29-12-2000 passed by respondent No.2 aﬃrming the order dated 23-06-1987 passed by respondent No.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the record shows that against the order dated 23-06-1987 passed by respondent No.1, determining the excess land under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioners ﬁled an appeal before respondent No.2, who by his order dated 29-12-2000, dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the said two proceedings, the petitioners ﬁled the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri M.Chandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) on the basis of the record produced in the Court submitted that proceedings were at Section 10(5) stage when the writ petition was ﬁled and possession under Section 10(6) has not been taken. Under Section 3(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the repeal of the Act shall not aﬀect the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section 3 of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by it in this behalf or by the competent authority. This repeal Act was adopted by the A.P. State Legislature by its resolution dated 27-03-2008. In view of the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that possession under Section 10(6) of the Act was not taken from the petitioners, it shall necessarily be held that all the proceedings under the Act including the orders impugned in this writ petition have abated. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. As a sequel to the above, WPMP.No.34170 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt:29-10-2008 usd