Compliance with the provisions of the ULC Act, including the requirement of taking possession and the status of exemption applications, is crucial in determining land ownership disputes.

Gopala Gowda, J

The correctness of the order dated 27/6/2005 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P.No.28205/2002 and quashing the orders impugned therein, is questioned in this appeal. The learned single Judge has held that the first respondent herein is entitled to retain the land bearing Sy.No.53/6B of Ullal Village in Mangalore Taluk as owner. The said land was declared as 'excess land' under the repealed Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act (hereinafter referred to as ULC Act) and allotted to the appellant herein without taking possession of the same from the first respondent as required under Section. 10(6) of the U.L.CAct.

2. The order dated 417/1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner declaring the land as excess, was questioned in appeal by first respondent's husband before the Divisional Commissioner. During the pendency of the said appeal, the ULC Act was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Repeal Act). As per Section.3 of this Act, the pending proceedings stood abated. Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 23/1 0/1999 disposed of the appeal accordingly. Both the orders of the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Divisional Commissioner are quashed by the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved of the same this appeal is filed by the allottee.

3. It is the case of the Appellant that the land in question was acquired by the Government by issuing notification dt.26/l 0/1995 under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act; possession was taken on 1217/1996 and handed over to the appellant on 317/1998 and that no application under Section.20 of ULC Act seeking exemption of the land in question was pending. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned' single Judge committed an error by passing the impugned order.

4. Learned AGA Smt. Vijaya A.D has supported the case of the Appellant and contended that the decision report in Smt. YUVARANI KEMPUCHELUVAJAMMANNIAVARU TRUST vs SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & COMPETENT AUTHORITY' relied upon by the learned counsel ILR for the first respondent is not applicable to the present case as the first respondent was informed to renew her claim for exemption but she has not done so. According to the learned AGA, the exemption application was disposed of and this submission is made on the basic of the Para wise remarks furnished by the Deputy Commissioner to the Divisional Commissioner on 11/2/1999. It is her contention that since the application under Section.20 of the U.L.C Act was not pending before second respondent, the decision referred to supra has no application and consequently Section 3 of Repeal Act is not attracted to the fact situation, therefore the learned Single Judge has erred in applying the above referred case and granting the relief to the first respondent.

5. Mr. R.S. Ravi, learned counsel for the first respondent ha~ justified the order of learned single Judge contending that the aforementioned decision squarely applies to the case as the application filed by first respondent seeking exemption from applicability under Section 20 of ULC Act is not at all disposed of by the State Government in accordance with law. Therefore, Section 3 of Repeal Act is applicable to the case on hand, hence the learned Single Judge is justified in granting the relief to first respondent.

6. With reference to the aforementioned rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we have examined the order passed by the learned single Judge, which is impugned in this Appeal. In order to resolve the controversy in this case, we extract Section 2 and the relevant portions of Section 3 of Repeal Act:-

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

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

(a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section(3) of section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the