By the Court.—We have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned standing counsel appears for the respondents.

2. M/s. Star Paper Mills Ltd - the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 has no application in respect of commercial land, and to set aside judgment dated 31.8.1996 passed by the District Judge, Saharanpur to the extent that the same declares 1,24,007.062 sq.mtr of land held by the petitioner as excess vacant land. The Company has also prayed for directions, not to interfere in their peaceful use and occupation of the land.

3. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976) was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1999) w.e.f. 22.3.1999.

Section 3 of the Repealing Act provides as follows:

3. Savings.—(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 State Government or any person duly 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 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment of any court to the contrary;

(c) any payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20

(2) Where—

(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and

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

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

4. Where a possession of the urban land declared as surplus, beyond the permissible limits under the Act, has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government, such land would not vest under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the principal Act, and as a consequence to the repeal of the Act, the person even if he was holding or a surplus land was determined under the Act, would continue to remain in possession of the land.

5. In the present case, the petitioner had filed a return on 9.9.1976 under Section 6 of the principal Act of 1976 showing that it had total land measuring 4,17,499.05 sq. mtr. Before the determination could be made by the prescribed authority, the petitioner applied for exemption under Section 20 of the Act of 1976, on various grounds. The State Government by order dated 10.8.1981 granted exemption of the entire land for establishing industrial unit, with the condition that within five years, the petitioner will be required to establish the unit. The petitioner did not fulfil the condition and applied for extension. By a Government Order dated 29.4.1987, the condition to establish the unit was extended for a further period of five years upto 10 years, and consequently the exemption was extended upto 9.8.1991. It appears that the petitioner could not establish industrial unit even within the extended time. In the meantime a Full Bench of this Court, held that each building will be entitled to 500 sq. mtr. of land as appurtenant land on each constructed unit. The Prescribed Authority had by the order dated 24.7.1995 determined 1,36,155.14 sq. mtrs of land as surplus vacant land. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 37 of the Act of 1976. The District Judge, decided U.C.A. No. 30 of 1995, and by order dated 31.8.1996, modified the order of the Prescribed Authority declaring surplus land by 1,24,007.062 sq. mtrs giving rise to this writ petition.

6. It is stated