( 1 ) THESE appeals had been referred to the constitution Bench as a three- judge Bench was of the opinion that there exist certain differences in the two judgments of this Court; one in state of U. P. v. L. J. Johnson, 1983 (4) SCC 110 and other in the case of Meera Gupta v. State of West Bengal, 1992 (2) SCC 494.

( 2 ) C. A. Nos. 368, 2493 and 1294-95/85. These cases relate to the interpretation of different provisions of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. During the pendency of these appeals in this Court, the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act has been repealed by Act 15 of 1999 and the State of U. P. also has adopted the same by a Resolution. In view of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Repealing Act and the fact that the possession of the vacant land has not been taken over by the State Government, which is asserted by the Counsel appearing for the appellants and is also apparent from the interim orders passed by this Court, the question for consideration no longer survives. Further under Section 4 of the repealing Act all proceedings under the act must be held to have abated. In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to proceed with t