By the Court.—We have heard Shri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. The pleadings have been exchanged.

2. The petitioner’s grand father Shri Nankoo son of Shri Tejai resident of Pure Surdas, Post Jhunsi, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Allahabad filed a return under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short the Act). After a survey, a notice under Section 8 (3), with a statement prescribed form was issued on 20.3.1982, and was served on him on 5.4.1982. He did not file any objection and thus an order was passed under Section 8 (4) on 13.9.1982, declaring 16360.10 square meters in his hands as surplus land.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notices were never served upon the land holder at any stage from 1976 till date, and thus the whole proceedings are illegal and arbitrary. Though Shri Nankoo had filed a return, an illegal and arbitrary order was passed without hearing him, under Section 8 (4) of the Act. Shri Nankoo died more than twenty years’ ago leaving behind Shambhu Nath, Lalji, Prabhu as his sons and legal heirs. Shri Shambhu Nath also died leaving behind the petitioner as his son and legal heir. The petitioner has an interest in the land declared as surplus. The respondents have without any notice or information to the petitioner, took further proceedings for possession. A notice under Section 10 (5) was issued on 23.6.1996, but was never served on him.

4. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that since the petitioner’s grand father Shri Nankoo did not file any objection to the notice under Section 8 (3), and the statement served upon him, the order under Section 8 (4) was made absolute on 13.9.1982 declaring 16360.10 square meters as surplus land. A final statement was prepared under Section 9 and that the notification under Section 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the Act was published in the Gazette of U.P. on 4.11.1983 and 10.2.1996 respectively in accordance with the Rules. A notice under Section 10 (5) was issued on 24.4.1996 to the petitioner’s grand father to hand over possession. After the publication of notice under Section 10 (3) of the Act on 10.2.1996, the surplus land has vested in State free from all encumbrances. In para-7 of the counter-affidavit filed by Shri Devendra Singh, Assistant Engineer, Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad, it is stated that after the publication of notification under Section 10 (3) on 10.2.1996, the land had vested in the State free from all encumbrances. A notice was issued under Section 10 (5) on 24.4.1996 to hand over possession, and consequently the land is in possession of the State. The entire proceedings were held and concluded prior to the enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which came into force in the State of UP on 18.3.1999.

5. It is submitted by Shri Raj Karan Yadav, that under Section 3 of the Repeal Act the vesting of the vacant land is not sufficient. Under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act the possession of the land must be taken by the State or any person authorised by the State Government failing which the entire proceeding would abate under the Repeal Act, 1999. Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 are quoted as below :

“3. Saving.—(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 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 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 Sec