The repeal would not affect the vesting of the land in case the possession is taken by the State Government lawfully.

JUDGMENT :

1. This order will also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 7335/2002. However, for the convenience facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 1133/2008.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court calling in question the orders dated 31-5-2006 and lease deed dated 6-10-2007 executed by the respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 7 contending inter alia that they are the owners and in cultivating possession of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 361, 362, 363, 364, 371/1, 434, 437, 439, 405/1, 356/1, 406, 407/1, 422/1 and 421 total area admeasuring 37.58 acres situated at Village Babadiyakala, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal. It is contended by the petitioners that since treating as if the aforesaid land vested in the State Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act for brevity), despite the fact that the land was never vested in the State Government, the orders of allotment of land on a lease to the respondent No. 7 has been issued, therefore, they are required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is contended that earlier a writ petition was filed on the same subject-matter when certain land was being used by the State Government without the consent of the holder of the land and since the subject-matter of the writ petition is also identical, the main grievance of the petitioners may be considered in view of the subsequent orders passed, which have been brought on record and the order impugned be quashed.

3. The brief facts are given for the proper appreciation of controversy involved in the petition. Originally the land belongs to one Shri Chandmal Daga and his brother. There was a partition between the two brothers and the disputed land fell in the share of Shri Chandmal Daga. Since said Chandmal Daga has died on 9-2-2005, the present petitioners have filed this petition as the legal representative and successor of estate of Chandmal Daga. It is contended that some sort of report was given and though the land was situated within the Urban Agglomeration, on being informed that the land is being used for agriculture purpose, the proceedings initiated against the brother of said Shri Chandmal Daga under the 1976 Act were closed. However, Shri Chandmal Daga was called upon to furnish a return as provided under section 6 of the Act. For the purposes to demonstrate that the use of the land in particular area was agriculture and it was not to be treated as urban residential open land, said Shri Chandmal Daga made an application for grant of time to ascertain certain documents and after obtaining their copies to file his reply. Such a request made by Chandmal Daga was rejected and an appeal was preferred before the competent appellate authority as per the 1976 Act i.e. the Commissioner of Bhopal Division. The application was also made by the original holder to grant exemption under section 20 of the 1976 Act stating that the land in dispute was being used for agricultural purposes, but such application was rejected by the State Government. Thereafter, hasty actions were being taken by the competent authority, Urban Ceiling, and therefore, a prayer for grant of interim relief was also made. Prior to this, certain orders were already issued, the lands were declared to be surplus and proceedings were initiated for taking possession of the land after making a declaration that the land stand vested in the State Government. It is the contention of the petitioners that well before the date which was fixed for taking possession, the interim order of stay was obtained, the same was brought to the notice of the competent authority under the 1976 Act, the said authority endorsed the order to the Tahsildar, who was executing the directions for taking possession of the land, but the said Tahsildar acted only when paper possession of the land was taken. It is contended that even when the fact was well within the knowledge of the competent authority