PANCHAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal, which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against judgment dated 20/07/1995 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5389/95, by which order dated 17/06/1983 passed by the Competent Authority declaring 646. 37 sq. mts. of land from the holding of the appellant as excess land as confirmed by the order dated 23/02/1995 rendered by the Urban Land Tribunal, is upheld. ( 2 ) THE appellant had submitted Form No. 1 under section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ("act" for short) on 12/08/1976. In the said form it was mentioned by the appellant that he was holding 837 sq. mts. of land bearing survey No. 65 and 809. 37 sq. mts. of land of Survey No. 64 situated within the limits of Saijpurbogha,taluka : City, Ahmedabad. The Competent Authority held that the appellant was entitled to hold 1000 sq. mts. of land and, therefore, declared 646. 37 sq. mts. of land as excess land by order dated 17/06/1983. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before Urban Land Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dated February 23, 1995. Therefore, the above-referred to two orders were challenged by the appellant by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 5389/95. The learned Single Judge rejected the petition by judgment dated 20/07/1995, which has given rise to the present appeal. ( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that the Parliament has enacted The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 by which the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is repealed. Section 4 of the repealing Act provides that all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of the Act, before any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall abate. The proviso to the said section specifies that section 4 shall not apply to the proceedings relating to sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, 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. The record of the case does not indicate that either the State Government or the Competent Authority has taken possession of the land which was declared to be excess land by the Competent Authority. Mr. S. T. Mehta, learned A. G. P. has produced a photostat copy of letter dated November 2, 1999 addressed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Ahmedabad to the learned Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad. In the said letter, it is mentioned that after vesting of the land in the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the repealed Act, the Competent Authority had issued notice calling upon the appellant to surrender possession thereof, but possession of the land has not been taken over either by the State Government or by the Competent Authority. The photostat copy of the letter addressed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Ahmedabad to the learned Government Pleader is ordered to be taken on record of the case. There is no manner of doubt that though the land was declared to be excess land under the provisions of the repealed Act, possession of the land has not been taken over either by the Government or by the Competent Authority and, therefore, Letters Patent Appeal will have to be treated as having abated in view of the provisions of section 4 of the repealing Act. As Letters Patent Appeal has abated, the same deserves to be disposed of accordingly. FOR the foregoing reasons, it is held that the Letters Patent Appeal has abated. We make it clear that we have not pronounced upon legality or otherwise of the order rendered by the learned Single Judge which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal, nor the order passed by the Competent Authority as confirmed by the Urban Land Tribunal. However, we clarify that it would be open to the appellant to point out to the Competent Authority that the proceedings have abated in view of the provisions of the repealing Act. Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed as having abated, with no order as to costs. .