JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner before the High Court. In the Writ Petition, he prayed that the proceedings in respect of the land bearing survey No. 195, Hissa No. 2 (New 195/1) of Village Parsik, District Thane under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act") on the basis of the return filed by Nabibai Tukaram Patil may be declared as abated in view of the repeal of the Act. The appellant asserted that the possession of the subject land was with him and at no point of time, his possession was ever disturbed or attempted to be taken by the respondents.

3. In response to the Writ Petition, a reply affidavit was filed by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration, Thane before the High Court. In paragraph 3 of that affidavit, it is stated that notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued to the appellant on February 25, 2005 calling upon the appellant to hand over the possession of the subject land within 30 days from the receipt of the said notice and, thus, the subject land had vested with the State Government. In paragraph 10 of the said affidavit, it is stated that the Competent Authority had already taken action under Sections 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act and, therefore, the subject land is deemed to have vested in the State Government.

4. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by observing that the possession of the subject property had already been taken by the Government of Maharashtra under the Act.

5. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the High Court that the possession of the property had been taken by the Government of Maharashtra was factually incorrect. He submitted that, as a matter of fact, even in the reply affidavit before the High Court filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, no such statement about possession was made. The subject land although had vested in the Government of Maharashtra on action having been taken under Sections 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act, learned senior counsel submitted but actual possession continued with the appellant.

6. Mr. Uday B. Dube, learned counsel for the respondents submitted and, in our view fairly that there was nothing on record to indicate that actual possession of the subject land had been taken over by the respondents from the appellant. He further submitted that the observation of the High Court that the possession of the subject land had already been taken by the Government of Maharashtra was based on the assertion made in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 that land had vested in the State Government on action having been taken under Sections 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act and for no other reason.

7. The Act came to be repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short " the Repeal Act") on March 22, 1999. However, the State of Maharashtra did not adopt the Repeal Act immediately. On resolution having been passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly as well as Maharashtra Legislative Council that w.e.f. November 29, 2007, the Repeal Act came to be adopted and became operative in the State of Maharashtra.

8. Section 2 of the Repeal Act reads as follows:

"2. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) is hereby repealed."

9. Section 3A of the Repeal Act reads as follows:

"3 : Savings (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect-

(a) the vesting of anyvacant land under sub- section (3) of section 10, 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;

(b) the validity of any order granting exemption under sub-section (1) of section 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment of any court to the contrary;

(c) any payment made to the