H. Billappa, J.—The appellants have challenged the order dated 21-11-2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. No. 30792 of 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the proposed action to take possession of surplus/excess land is abated.

2. Aggrieved by that, the appellants have filed this writ appeal.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are:

The respondents are the legal heirs of Vasant Killekar who was the owner of R.S. No. 1042/1B-PI measuring 1 acre 36 guntas, situated at Belgaum. The first appellant by order dated 26-6-1986 acting under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has held that retainable area is 4000 sq. mtrs. and excess area is 7,977.85 sq. mtrs. The appellant 1 published notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act calling upon objections if any. As objections were not filed final order under Section 10(3) was passed on 30-9-1991. Notices dated 15-5-1992 and 5-9-1992 under Section 10(5) were issued to surrender possession. Possession was not surrendered. It is stated, the appellants took possession on 22-9-1992.

4. Vasant Santu Killekar filed W.P. No. 28348 of 1992 challenging the notice under Section 10(5). On 25-11-1992, interim order was passed staying the notice under Section 10(5). Thereafter, final order was passed on 8-10-1996 allowing the writ petition and directing to consider the representation under Section 20 of the Act and till then not to take steps to take possession. So far the representation under Section 20 of the Act has not been considered.

5. Thereafter, the respondents have approached this Court in W.P. No. 30792 of 2008. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 21-11-2011 has disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the proposed action of the appellants herein to take possession of the surplus/excess land is abated. Therefore, this writ appeal.

6. In the meanwhile, the respondents have filed W.P. No. 61411 of 2012 challenging communication dated 13-2-2012 vide Annexure-G and for writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein not to dispossess the respondents from R.S. No. 1042/1B-PI, measuring 1 acre 36 guntas, situated at Belgaum. The writ petition is connected to the writ appeal.

7. The learned AGA contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted by order dated 26-6-1986 it was held that retainable area is 4,000 sq. mtrs. and excess area is 7977.85 sq. mtrs. Thereafter, opportunity was given to file objections and objections were not filed. Therefore, final order was passed on 30-9-1991 and notice was issued to surrender possession. Thereafter, possession has been taken on 22-9-1992 by the Revenue Inspector. The order dated 30-9-1991 and taking of possession on 22-9-1992 have not been challenged.

8. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the representation dated 13-4-1987 was given under Section 20 of the ULC Act and it has not been considered. Unless the representation is considered, the authorities cannot take possession. Further, he submitted that possession was not taken by the Competent Authority as required under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act. The record indicates that possession has been taken by the Revenue Inspector and not by the Competent Authority. Further he submitted that in W.P. No. 28348 of 1992 notice under Section 10(5) was challenged. There was an interim order. Thereafter, the writ petition came to be disposed of on 8-10-1996 directing to consider the representation under Section 20 of the Act and not to dispossess till then. So far the representation has not been considered. He placed reliance on the unreported decision of this Court in W.A. No. 30661 of 2012 to contend that possession has not been taken as required under law.

9. Further he submitted that the respondents had requested Tahsildar to remove the n