The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to determine actual physical possession and the impact of the repeal on legal proceedings.

( 1 ) THE impugned land of the writ petitioners is, according to the respondent authority, surplus in nature and had been taken by the authority as per Sections 10 (5) and 10 (6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Such Act was repealed by virtue of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. State of Uttar Pradesh adopted the repealing Act of the central Government. Therefore, the repealing Act is applicable in the State with full force.

( 2 ) THE bone of contention of the petitioners argument is that the authority had not taken the actual physical possession of the land in question, therefore, the possession cannot be kept by the state Authority after the repealing Act being enforced in the State. The writ petition was filed after the repealing Act came into force.

( 3 ) THEREFORE, the moot point is whether the words actual physical possession are contemplated under the prevailing law or not. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to us, there is no such bearing under the law leaving aside the word possession. But we are constrained due to evaporation of earlier law. Therefore, the point has to be rationally thought for the necessity. Doubtful words are to be interpreted according to context following the maxim noscitur a sociis. If the word possession in the existing law does not only include actual physical possession, what other type of possession can include? Obviously it is symbolic possession. But symbolic possession is byproduct of principal Act which will be effective at the time of vesting by applying deeming provision now has been repealed. Symbolic possession stands with the support of law wherein physical possession stands with the support of fact. When law evaporates, symbolic possession automatically evaporates. But physical possession remains to get it tested. Therefore, if subsequent Act supports existence of such possession, it has to be construed as physical possession but not symbolic possession. Court will only test with whom such actual physical possession lies. If the actual physical possession of the State is such that it is impossible to return back such possession, obviously no order can be passed in such case although law is little tilted in favour of the land holders. Legislature has made the provisions very clear under Sections 3 and 4 of the Repealing Act. The relevant sections of the Repealing act are quoted hereunder :

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 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 Section 10 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 the 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. 4. Abatement of legal proceedings.--All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal or any authority shall abate : provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Governm