// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2146/1998 Yaswant Singh S/o Shri Madhosingh (deceased) through Prabha Kumari D/o late Shri Yasvant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Jaipur & Others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 26.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri R.S. Purohit with Shri Ajay Gupta, Counsel for petitioner Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. G.A., for respondents #### By the Court:- Learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application on 1st April, 2002 under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC for substitution of legal heirs and representative of deceased petitioner Yaswant Singh. It is prayed in the application that Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Shri Yaswant Singh and Smt. Prabha Devi D/o Shri Yaswant Singh may be substituted in place of deceased-petitioner Yaswant Singh. It appears that subsequently another application dated 12th September, 2005 was filed for substitution of name of Prabha Devi in place of Smt. Laxmi Devi, who also died. The subsequent application dated 12.09.2005 had already been allowed by this Court on 20.10.2005, // 2 // therefore, there is no need to pass any further order on the application dated 01.04.2002 and the same stands disposed of. The petitioner has also filed another application dated 14.12.2007 to dispense with service of notice of Smt. Indra Devi and Smt. Saroj Devi. The prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed and service of Smt. Indra Devi and Smt. Saroj Devi is also dispensed with. The application dated 14.12.2007 stands disposed of. The petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.11.1997 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur, and order dated 24.05.1997 passed by the Court of Additional Director & Competent Authority, Urban Ceiling Department, Jaipur, under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ULCAR Act has already been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999), and as per Section 4 of the Act of 1999 the present proceedings have become abated, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of with observation that these proceedings have become abated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation (AIR 2000 SC 3415) held as under:- “2. The Act has since been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999). The Legislature of State of U.P. // 3 // has since adopted the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 by a resolution as required by Article 252 (2) of the Constitution. The Repealing Act has since come into force in the State of U.P. with effect from 18.3.1999. The appellant has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 31.10.1999 in this Court and on that basis, it has been prayed that the present proceedings be abated. The State has not filed any reply to this affidavit. 3. Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 provides as under: “4. Abatement of legal proceedings.- All proceedings relating 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 authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.” 4. In the counter-affidavit not a word has been said about the possession of the surplus land. In fact, it is maintained by the appellant that the possession is still with the appellant who was also granted an interim order regarding “status quo”. 5. Since there is nothing on record to indicate that the State had taken possession over the surplus land, the present proceedings have to be abated and are hereby abated under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.” // 4 // The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed land is still in possession of the petitioners. This fact has not been disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate also. In view of the above, the present proceedings have become abated in view of Section 4 of the Act of 1999 and the present writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR // 5 // ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.1715/1998 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2146/1998 Yasvant Singh S/o Shri Madhosingh (deceased) through Prabha Kumari D/o late Shri Yasvant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Jaipur & Others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 26.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri R.S. Purohit with Shri Ajay Gupta, Counsel for petitioner Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. G.A., for respondents #### By the Court:- In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//