ORDER

1. AT THE HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS PLACED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-1-2000 ADDRESSED TO THE APPELLANTS BY NARENDER NATH CHAUDHARY, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, URBAN LAND CEILING, KANPUR, WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE WILL ABATE UNDER SECTION 10(3) OF THE URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976, (FOR SHORT "THE E ACT") AS THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT YET BEEN INITIATED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS URGED THAT HAVING REGARD TO SECTION 4 OF THE URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) REPEAL ACT, 1999 (FOR SHORT "ACT OF 1999"), THE PROCEEDINGS ABATE. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, ALL ALONG, THERE HAD BEEN INTERIM ORDERS IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANTS AND THIS COURT ALSO HAD F GRANTED INTERIM ORDER ON 9-2-1998.

2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS STATES THAT IN VIEW OF THE LETTER AFOREMENTIONED, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISPOSED OF.

3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, HAVING REGARD TO SECTION 4 OF THE ACT OF 1999, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT ABATE. NOTHING MORE IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE IN THIS CASE. IN THIS VIEW, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WILL NOT H