Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—We have heard Sri Ved Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. By this writ petition we have been asked to consider the grant of the following prayers:

(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.5.1982 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent No. 3.

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3, not to dispossess the petitioner from the land and the parties may be directed to maintain status quo over the land.

(iii) issue any other and further writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present writ petition.

(iv) Award the costs to the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.

3. The facts, in brief,as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner was a recorded tenure holder in Village Harunagala of Plots No. 535, 559, 296 and 534. Out of the said holding the vacant land of the petitioner was 8837.39 Sq.Meter. The statement under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), was filed by the petitioner before the competent authority having jurisdiction specifying therein the location, extent, value and other particulars as prescribed, of all the vacant land. Pursuant to filing of the aforesaid statement under Section Section 6 (1) of the Principal Act, an enquiry is said to have been made after survey etc. and a draft statement was prepared by the competent authority under Section 8 (1) of the Principal Act and a notice to that effect was served on 17.11.1981 in which 7337.39 sq.mtrs. Of land was determined to be in excess to the ceiling limit as prescribed under the Act. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice the petitioner filed his objection alongwith an application under Section 20 of the Act. The objection of the petitioner was considered and vide the impugned order dated 18.5.1982 the draft statement filed under Section 8 (1) of the Principal Act was considered and 7337.39 sq. mtrs. of vacant land was declared to be in excess of the ceiling limit and a notice under Section 9 was issued for preparation of final statement and thereafter the notification under section 10 (1) of the Act was directed to be issued. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner extensively, who submits that the entire proceedings have been initiated ex parte and the property as contemplated in view of 10(3) of the Act, has not been acquired. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the possession of the declared excess land having not been taken over by the competent authority, there was no vesting of the same with the State Government. Therefore, at the time of coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (in short the Repeal Act) with effect from 18th March, 1999, in view of Section 4 of the said Repeal Act, the petitioner being in continuous possession of the property, the competent authority has now no jurisdiction to interfere in any manner with the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that even if it is presumed that the possession was taken on the possession memo, but his signature has not been obtained on the same and, therefore, in view of various judgments the ‘actual physical possession’ cannot be construed as having been taken and in view of the Repeal Act no further action can be initiated by the authorities pursuant to the impugned order. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the authorities be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession over the property in question. Except the above no other points were adverted to.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing