JUDGMENT

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Two questions arise for our consideration, namely, (1) whether the High Court ought to have considered the Respondent's plea that the possession allegedly taken on June 27, 1989 was by an officer who was not authorised and only a paper possession was taken, and (2) whether the High Court was justified in directing the competent authority to examine the case of the Respondent in the light of Notification dated October 6, 1997 in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. (for short, 1999 Repeal Act').

4. It is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that on November 4, 1982 a draft statement of land held by the Respondent in excess of ceiling limit was prepared Under Section 8(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 1976 Act') and notice Under Section 8(3) was issued. Final statement Under Section 9 was issued by the competent authority on March 5, 1986 and ultimately on September 23, 1987 notification Under Section 10(1) was issued which was published in the Government Gazette on October 8, 1987. In the meanwhile, the Respondent made an application for exemption