JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent no.2 in Revenue Case No. 67/A-90/82-83, whereby the respondent no.2 has rejected an application submitted by the petitioners. In the said application, the petitioners claimed that in place of name of the State illegally recorded in respect of the land situated at Village Purwa, bearing N.B. No. 162, Patwari Halka No. 28/33, Khasra No. 662/15, area measuring 70724 hectares, the entry be corrected and the name of the petitioners be recorded. The respondent no.2 rejected the said application mentioning therein that the land in question has been vested in the Government and in view of the proceeding initiated under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (for brevity, 'Act of 1976') which has been repealed by the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation (Repeal) Act, 1999 (for brevity, 'Act of 1999'), there is no such provision in the Repeal Act, when possession has already been taken of the land, the said land shall be released. It is also mentioned in the order that as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1999, if proceeding in relation to the original Act of 1976 is pending before any Court or Tribunal or against any officer then only provisions of Act of 1999 could be applied, otherwise the provisions of the Act of 1999 would not affect any of the proceeding already completed.

2. The petitioners have claimed that possession of the land has never been taken from them by complying the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1976 and they are still in possession of the said land. Accordingly, as per Section 4 of the Act of 1999, the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Act of 1976 are liable to be quashed and the revenue record be accordingly corrected by deleting the name of State Government.

3. The petitioners by this petition are claiming that the respondents under the provisions of the Act of 1976 initiated proceedings against the land of mother of the petitioners but without following the mandatory provisions and without giving any notice under Section 10 (5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976, the possession of the land in question has shown to have been taken and unilaterally corrected the revenue record showing that the land is vested in the State and as such, owned by the State Government whereas the petitioners are still in possession of the land and, therefore, after enforcement of the Act of 1999, proceedings of ceiling under the provisions of the Act of 1976 are said to be abated and consequently revenue record is required to be corrected.

Along with the petition, the petitioners have also filed several judgements of the High Court in which the authority has rejected the application filed by the land owners without making any enquiry to ascertain as to whether the land owner still holds the possession or not and that order of the authority was set aside directing him to make proper enquiry.

As per the petitioners, the order impugned in this petition is also of the same nature and deserves to be set aside as the land in question is still in possession of the petitioners.

4. Respondents have filed the reply stating therein that possession of the land is taken by them in proper manner by complying the mandatory requirement of Section 10 of the Act of 1976 and after such a long time, that too after enforcement of the Repeal Act, the petition is not maintainable.

5. To