Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—This writ petition raises an important issue as to whether after the repeal of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1976”) by The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Repeal Act, 1999”) an appeal challenging the order of the competent authority dated 31.3.1997, declaring surplus vacant land can be filed under Section 33 of the Act, 1976.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.8.2012, passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar allowing the Appeal No. 68/2011 filed by the respondent against the order dated 31.3.1997, of the competent authority under the Act, 1976 by which 48266.42 Square Metres was declared as surplus vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit.

3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the writ petition are: Proceedings under the Act, 1976 were initiated by issuing a notice dated 27.12.1996 under Section 6(2) to the tenure holder Jagdish Chandra-respondent to the writ petition. The tenure holder did not submit any return of the land held by him. A draft statement was prepared and sent to the tenure holder alongwith the notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1976 dated 28.2.1997. No objection having been filed in response to the aforesaid notice, the competent authority passed an order dated 31.3.1997 under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 declaring 48.266-42 sq meteres land as surplus vacant land in the hands of the tenure holder. Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976 dated 26.6.1997, was issued to the tenure holder giving particulars of the land held by the tenure holder in excess of the ceiling limit. Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 dated 25.3.1998 was issued declaring 48266.42 square metres of land shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State. Notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 dated 29.7.1998, was issued to the tenure holder asking him to hand over the possession of the land within 30 days, failing which proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 shall be undertaken. The possession of the land is claimed to have been taken on 10.2.1999 exercising power under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976. The tenure holder having failed to deliver the possession of the land, the State Government transferred the land to the Kanpur Development Authority whose name came to be recorded in the revenue records in 1406-1411 Fasli. Thereafter the Act, 1976 was repealed by Repeal Act, 1999 which was published in the Gazettee w.e.f. 18.3.1999. The tenure holder filed an appeal under Section 33 of the Act, 1976 against the order dated 31.3.1997 of the competent authority after more than a decade in the year 2007. An application for condonation of delay was also filed. The District Judge condoned the delay in filing the appeal and heard the appeal on merits and allowed the same by judgment and order dated 13.8.2012. This writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P. challenging the order dated 13.8.2012, passed by the District Judge.

4. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally.

5. We have heard Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, Shri Manish Nigam and Shri Dipak Srivastava have been heard for the sole respondent.

6. Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State challenging the order dated 13.8.2012, passed by the District Judge submitted that after the repeal of the Act, 1976 by the Repeal Act, 1999, no appeal could have been filed by the tenure holder and the appeal filed by the tenure holder in the year 2007 against the order dated 31.3.1997, was not maintainable and the order dated 13.8.2012, passed by the District Judge allowing such appeal is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that after