The repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, had the effect of preventing the vesting of any vacant land in the State Government under Section 10(3) of the Act where possession had not been taken over by the State Government, and all legal proceedings relating to any order made or purported to have been made under the Act would abate, except for proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the Act insofar as they related to land of which possession had been taken over by the State Government.

( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of two writ petitions C. W. P. No. 1845/87 and C. W. P. No. 1848/87. The firet petition was filed by the petitioner to impugn the order dated 11th September, 1979 of the Competent Authority as framed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) and order dated 4th June, 1980 of the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has also challenged notification dated 20th November, 1985 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. The second petition has challenged the rejection of application of the petitioner vide order dated 1st April, 1987 by the respondent for grant of exemption under Section 20 of the Act. The petitioner and her sons are stated to be living in House No. 61/17, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which belongs to them. It is further submitted that in 1967, two residential plots bearing Nos. F-221 and F-222 admeasuring 800 sq. yds. each in the approved colony of Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi were alleged to be purchased by the HUF in the name of the petitioner and the family is stated to be in possession of the same. The Act came into force and the petitioner submitted a statement to the Competent Authority under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act wherein two plots as referred to above and residential house known as 61/17, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi were included. A draft statement under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 was also sent on 30th April, 1977 to which the petitioner filed objections and the Competent Authority vide order dated 11th September, 1979 held that the aforesaid two plots in Mansarovar Garden constitute the excess vacant land. The impugned order which was communicated to the petitioner reads as follows:

"no. CAD/20/76-UIC 28586. dated 11. 9. 1979 ORDER Smt. Iqbal Kaur resident of 61/17, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, filed a statement under Section 6 (1) of the ULCR Act in which she has disclosed the following holdings: 1. Vacant plot No. F. 221, Mansarovar Garden measuring 668. 90 sq. meters. 2. Vacant plot No. F-222, Mansarovar Garden measuring 668. 90 sq. meters. 3. Built up residential plot No. 61/17, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, measuring 591. 98 sq. meters. A draft statement u/sec. 8 (3) of the ULCR Act in relation to the above holdings was sent on 30. 4. 1977 and objections to the draft statement were invited. Smt. lqbal Kaur filed the objections to the draft statement. In reply to the draft objection it was contended. 1. That the three properties belong to the joint Hindu family. The case was examined in light of the objections filed and the applicant was afforded an opportunity for hearing. No proof in support of the assertion that the plots belong to the HUF was produced. As per the copies of the sale deeds, Smt. lqbal Kaur is the owner of the three properties in question and she will be deemed to be holding the same in terms of the provisions of the ULCR Act. As the applicant holds vacant land and land with a building containing dwelling unit two shall be clubbed u/sec. 4 (9) of the Act and the total holding of the applicant comes to 1929. 78 sq. meters. After allowing the benefit of covered area (223 sq. meters), land appurtenant and additional contiguous land to the built up property No. 61/17, there is no excess vacant land in this property. However, the area of the two vacant plots in Mansarovar Garden measuring 1337. 80 square meters in an excess vacant land. I hold accordingly. Final statement u/sec. 9 of the Act is enclosed after making necessary alterations in the draft statement which was served on him u/sec. 8 (3) of the Act. (S. K. Mehra) Competent Authority. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an appeal against the abovesaid order which was dismissed on 4th June, 1980 by the Appellate Authority as constituted under Section 33 of the Act. The following order was passed :

"the case was fixed for hearing at 10. 30 a. m. today. The appellant has no