The repeal of a statute can have implications on the jurisdiction of the authorities to proceed with matters relating to the repealed statute.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has prayed for further time to obtain instruction. I am not inclined to accept such request, in view of the fact that the case has been adjourned on number of occasions as apparent from the various orders passed by different learned Judges on different occasions. From the records it appears that the writ petition was admitted during April 2002. After more than a year, when the matter was listed on 17.9.2003, a direction was given to the Government for production of file. On 24.9.2003, the matter was again posted to 13.10.2003 for production of file. This order clearly indicates that if the files are not produced on that day, the matter shall be decided on merits as if no subsequent withdrawal of exemption has been made by the respondents. Thereafter, on 20.10.2003, the learned single Judge has passed the following order:-

"Considering the issue raised and the stand taken by the petitioners, post the writ petition for final hearing on 1.12.2003. The respondents are permitted to file a counter affidavit in the meanwhile."

Thereafter the matter was listed on 22.12.2003 and has been posted today for orders. Keeping in view of the aforesaid background, the request of the learned Additional Government Pleader for further adjournment for filing counter cannot be accepted.

2. Even though the question raised appears to be a pure question of law, it is necessary to notice in brief the factual backdrop. Proceedings under the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1970 had been initiated. Subsequently, exemption was granted under Section 21 of the Act subject to certain conditions, vide order dated 9.3.1996. The Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1970 has been repealed by the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 published in the Gazette dated 16th June 1999 stating that such act came into force at once, i.e. to say, with effect from date of publication in the Gazette. Section 3 of the Repealing Act is to the following effect: Section 3

Savings: (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not effect-

(a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of section 11, 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 21 or any action taken thereunder.

(2) Where-

(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under section (3) of section 11 of the Principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by competent authority; and

(b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land,

then, such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government.

3. In the aforesaid factual and legal background, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the fact that the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 has been repealed, there is no further jurisdiction to pass the impugned proceedings in the matter relating to Urban Land Ceiling. The impugned order is dated 23.8.2001 which has been passed after the Act had been repealed.

4.The learned counsel for the State relied upon Section 3(1)(a) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act. The same has been already extracted above. In the present case, the possession of the land had not been taken over by the State at any time. On the other hand, exemption had been granted. The impugned order indicates that the authority wanted to take action on the ground that the order of exemption has been violated by the petitioners and requested the Special Commissioner of Land Reforms to take approp