D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THE orders and action of the authorities, under the Urban Land ceiling Act, are under challenge in this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioners land, having an area of 12,385 Sq. Metres was declared excess under Sec. 8 (4) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 on 3. 1. 1985. On 22. 8. 1985, the petitioner offered a scheme on the said excess land under Sec. 21 of the Urban Land ceiling Act for construction of dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society. Annexure-b is the aforesaid scheme. This scheme was rejected on 15. 12. 1986 on the sole ground that notification under Sec. 10 (3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act (for short, the Act) was published in the Official Gazette on 25. 7. 1985 vide Annexure-c. However, the petitioner, feeling aggrieved against this order of rejection of proposed scheme under sec. 21 of the Act, preferred on appeal, wherein the order of rejection of scheme under sec. 21 was set aside on 15. 12. 1986 and the case was remande. d to the competent authority for deciding the scheme/application under Sec. 21 afresh. After remand, no action was taken by the competent authority to consider and decide the scheme submitted by the petitioner under Sec. 21, either before or after 30. 3. 1999. The Act was, thereafter, repealed in the year 1999 and it was adopted by the State of Gujarat with effect from 30. 3. 1999. The Repeal Act No. 15/99 shall be referred as repeal Act in the following portion of the judgment: ( 3 ) THE petitioners allegation is that, on 20. 3. 1986, illegal symbolic possession of the excess land was taken by the respondent and no actual possession was taken. The petitioner is still in possession of the said land. It is also the averment of the petitioner that, on 20. 3. 1986, possession could not be taken by the respondent because, the scheme under Sec. 21 of the Act was pending and the same was rejected on 15. 12. 1986. Consequently, prior to 15. 12. 1986, possession could not be taken, and the said recovery of possession by the respondent is contrary to law. 3. 1986, possession could not be taken by the respondent because, the scheme under Sec. 21 of the Act was pending and the same was rejected on 15. 12. 1986. Consequently, prior to 15. 12. 1986, possession could not be taken, and the said recovery of possession by the respondent is contrary to law. ( 4 ) IN this factual background, the petitioner has prayed that the action of the State, respondent No. 1, of taking possession of the so-called excess land on 20. 3. 1986 is illegal and that the State is in unlawful possession of the scheme land from 20. 3. 1986 to 30. 3. 1999. It is further prayed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to handover possession of land, which was taken as paper possession of Final Plot Nos. 115, 116, 108, 287 and 280 of Mangalpur, District Vadodara, measuring 12,385 Sq. Metres. ( 5 ) SHRI P. M. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Premal Joshi, learned agp representing the respondents were heard and affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit were examined. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed by Act No. 15 of 1999 and this was adopted by the State of Gujarat with effect from 30. 3. 1999. It has to be seen, what is the effect of the Repeal Act. For this, two sections of the Repeal Act are relevant and material. ( 7 ) SECTION 4 provides that, all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this ordinance, before any Court, Tribunal or any authority, shall abate. ( 8 ) THUS, Sec. 4 deals with abatement of pending legal proceedings. The Proviso to sec. 4, however, provides that, the provision of this section will not apply to proceedings relating to Secs. 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 authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority. 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 authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority. It is, thus, clear from Sec. 4 of the Repeal Act that, pending proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act shall abate, but such proceedings will not abate in relation to Secs. 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Principal Act, where possession of the land has been taken over by the State Government or by any person duly authorized by the State Government or by the competent authority. ( 9 ) THE second relevant section is Sec. 3, which provides that, the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect. . . (1) the vesting of any vacant land under Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority. (2) the validity of any order granting exemption under Sub-sec (i) of Sec. 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment of any Court to the contrary. (3) any payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 20. ( 10 ) THUS, under Sec. 3, vesting of vacant land will not be affected in cases where possession of the land has been taken over by the State Government or by a person duly authorized by the State Government or by the competent authority. ( 11 ) LIKEWISE, validity of order granting exemption under Sec. 20 (i) of the Act will also not be affected by the repeal of the old Act. Similarly, any payment made to the State government as a condition for granting exemption under Sec. 20 (i) will also not be affected by repeal of the Principal Act. ( 12 ) THE contention of Shri Premal Joshi, learned AGP has been that, since possession has been taken over by the State Government, Sec. 4 will apply and all proceedings and orders passed in those proceedings will abate. Hence, this petition has become infructuous and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. ( 12 ) THE contention of Shri Premal Joshi, learned AGP has been that, since possession has been taken over by the State Government, Sec. 4 will apply and all proceedings and orders passed in those proceedings will abate. Hence, this petition has become infructuous and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. ( 13 ) ON the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that possession was taken only on paper and physical possession of excess land is still with the petitioner, hence it is to be declared that paper possession is not in compliance of proviso to Sec. 4 of the Repeal Act. The question which calls for consideration on these arguments is, whether the disputed question of Government taking over possession of the excess land can be decided in this writ petition, in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Normally, disputed questions of fact, which require taking evidence, are not to be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court under Art 226 of the constitution of India, However, if it is prima facie shown by the Government, namely, the respondent No. 1 that possession was taken in accordance with the requirement of the repeal Act Sec. 4 then it can not be adjudicated, whether it was paper possession or symbolic possession or illegal possession. If, however, it is found that possession was not taken, as contemplated by the Repeal Act then, certainly it can be said that possession was not taken in accordance with law and such finding can be recorded in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India because, such finding will not require any evidence. On the other hand, it has to be seen, whether the so-called possession was taken over as provided under the Repeal Act. ( 14 ) SHRI Joshi, learned AGP has relied upon the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (M/s.) vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 1608 . It was, however, not a case under Urban land Ceiling Act or under the Repeal Act. On the other hand, it was a case under Land acquisition Act. After going through this judgment, I find that it is distinguishable on facts. In this case, the allegation was that the possession of acquired land was taken by the state Government. It was, however, not a case under Urban land Ceiling Act or under the Repeal Act. On the other hand, it was a case under Land acquisition Act. After going through this judgment, I find that it is distinguishable on facts. In this case, the allegation was that the possession of acquired land was taken by the state Government. It was shown that, possession was taken in presence of Panchas and panchnama was prepared; entries were made in the Panchnama and also in Revenue record showing taking of possession. Subsequently, some of the Panchas filed affidavit, alleging and deposing that their signatures were obtained on blank papers and that they had not gone to the site. The Apex Court held that, such affidavits would be meaningless and can not be relied upon to hold that the possession was not taken. Thus, in this case, the distinguishing feature is that, possession was taken in normal course in presence of witnesses and their signatures were obtained on Panchnama. Entries were also made in revenue Records showing taking of possession. There was, thus, prima facie material to indicate that possession was taken in accordance with law and subsequent affidavit of some of the Panchas denying their signatures on the Panchnama was found to be meaningless. In the case before me, the facts are otherwise. In the counter affidavit of competent authority, Shri S. A. Patel, all that is mentioned is that, notification under Sec. 10 (3) was issued on 31. 5. 1985, which was duly published on 25. 7. 1985 and excess land vested in the Government and no right, title remained in the hands of the petitioner. It is further deposed that, thereafter notices under Sec. 10 (5) had been issued on 17. 12. 1985 and 23. 1. 1986, which were duly served upon the petitioner by Regd. Post. Thereafter, possession of the land in question was taken over on 20. 3. 1986 in presence of Panchas. It is not indicated in this affidavit that any Panchnama was executed or signatures of panchas were obtained. It is also not indicated who were the Panchas. Likewise, it is not indicated in what manner possession was taken, namely, whether any boundary pillar was erected over the excess land or someone on behalf of the Government was deputed there to demarcate the land and keep watch over the same. It is also not indicated who were the Panchas. Likewise, it is not indicated in what manner possession was taken, namely, whether any boundary pillar was erected over the excess land or someone on behalf of the Government was deputed there to demarcate the land and keep watch over the same. It is also not indicated that any fencing was erected around the excess land. Such vague affidavit can not be relied upon, especially when there is affidavit of petitioner and his rejoinder affidavit that, he is still in possession and the so-called delivery of possession is paper transaction. The requirement of law, under Secs. 3 and 4 for taking possession is like this. The possession of excess land is to be taken over firstly by the State Government, secondly, by any person duly authorized by the State Government and thirdly, by the competent authority. In the counter affidavit of Shri S. A. Patel, it is not mentioned whether any person authorized by the State Government took possession of the excess land or he, being the competent authority, himself recovered possession of the excess land. Competent authority could have recovered possession himself without any further authority from the State government. However, if somebody else was to recover possession he should have been duly authorized by the State Government. On this point also, the counter affidavit is silent. It does not indicate who was the person authorized by the State Government to take over possession, nor it is said that the deponent, competent authority Shri S. A. Patel himself recovered possession of the excess land. In this counter affidavit, it is also not stated on which date and in which month possession was taken over from the petitioner, nor it is indicated that, taking over possession was peaceful, or force was used as contemplated under Sec. 10 (6) of the principal Act. In view of these infirmities it can not be said that possession was taken in accordance with the Repeal Act. The short affidavit of Shri S. A. Patel, in these circumstances, can not be considered to be a material for holding that, recovery of possession was in accordance with legal mandate of the legislature reflected under Secs. 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act. The short affidavit of Shri S. A. Patel, in these circumstances, can not be considered to be a material for holding that, recovery of possession was in accordance with legal mandate of the legislature reflected under Secs. 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act. As such, even if actual or symbolic possession was taken or paper possession was taken, it can not be said to be taking over possession in accordance with the Repeal Act, and such taking over possession is certainly contrary to law. ( 15 ) IT may also be mentioned that, on 22. 8. 1985, the petitioner submitted a proposal and scheme under Sec. 21 for construction of dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society vide Annexure-b. It remained pending and was rejected on 15. 12. 1986 on the sole ground that notification under Sec. 10 (3) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 25. 7. 1985 vide Annexure-c. This ground is also contrary to law because, scheme under sec. 21 could be considered and granted or refused by the State Government only when the excess land vested in it and the vesting could be effected only by notification under sec. 10 (3) of the Act. However, this order of rejection was set aside by the appellate authority on 19. 9. 1998 and the order rejecting the scheme under Sec. 21 on 15. 12. 1986 was set aside. The order of the Urban Land Tribunal/additional Chief Secretary, Revenue department shows that the petitioners application was partly allowed. The order of the competent authority dated 15. 12. 1986 was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal of the scheme under Sec. 21 of the Act, after giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein, who should be permitted to produce authentic and reliable evidence. This order was obviously passed before the repeal Act came into force. However, no respect was given by the competent authority to this remand order and the scheme under Sec. 21 already submitted by the petitioner on 22. 8. 1985 remained pending. ( 16 ) THE contention of the petitioner has been that, till the Act was repealed, no action was taken by the competent authority on his scheme under Sec. 21 of the Act. Shri Joshi, however, contended that the said scheme was rejected. 8. 1985 remained pending. ( 16 ) THE contention of the petitioner has been that, till the Act was repealed, no action was taken by the competent authority on his scheme under Sec. 21 of the Act. Shri Joshi, however, contended that the said scheme was rejected. However, since the principal Act was repealed with effect from 30. 3. 1999, now even in pursuance of the order of the tribunal dated 19. 9. 1998 the said scheme which has abated can not be considered by the competent authority. ( 17 ) THE petitioner has, however, challenged the action of the authorities in taking illegal possession on paper, which is nothing but symbolic possession. On this point, it is clear stand of the petitioner that unauthorized possession was taken on 20. 3. 1986. The question is, whether it was paper possession, symbolic possession or actual possession, can such possession be taken during pendency of the scheme under Sec. 21 of the Act. Admittedly, on 20. 3. 1986 petitioners scheme under Sec. 21 submitted on 22. 8. 1985 was pending. Right from the beginning the stand of the petitioner was that, he wanted to erect dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society. The said scheme though rejected on 15. 12. 1986 will be deemed to be pending in view of the remand order of the Urban Land tribunal dated 19. 9. 1998. Even otherwise, on 20. 3. 1986 the petitioners scheme under sec. 21 was pending and it was rejected by the authority at the first instance on 15. 12. 1986. On these facts, it can be said that action of taking possession, whether actual, symbolic or on paper, on 20. 3. 1986 is illegal. In this view I am fortified by two decisions of this Court and a decision of the Apex Court. ( 18 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in Samarathben M. Chokshi vs. State, 1994 (1) glr 203 , has held that the State is under a duty to stay proceedings beyond the stage of sec. 10 (2) of the Act both if an exemption application under Sec. 20 or Sec. 21 is preferred. Identical view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Savitaben r. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 1999 (1) GLH 100 . 10 (2) of the Act both if an exemption application under Sec. 20 or Sec. 21 is preferred. Identical view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Savitaben r. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 1999 (1) GLH 100 . ( 19 ) IN Samarathben M. Chokshis case (Supra), the Division Bench ultimately observed as follows: (1) The proceedings under the Act in respect of the lands in question prosecuted upto the stage of Sec. 10 (2) of the Act are for the present left untouched; (2) The proceedings prosecuted after the stage of Sec. 10 (2) of the Act did not survive; and (3) The prosecution of further process under the Act after the stage of Sec. 10 (2) of the Act will depend upon the decision on the application under Sec. 21 of the act. Same view has been reiterated in Savitaben R. Patels case (Supra ). ( 20 ) EXAMINING these two decisions it is clear that if an application under Sec. 20 or sec. 21 of the Act was pending, proceedings upto Sec. 10 (2) of the Act only could be maintain and further proceedings after Sec. 10 (2) would not survive. Further proceedings after Sec. 10 (2) of the Act will depend upon the decision of the application under Sec. 20 or Sec. 21 of the Act. In the case before me, this situation does not arise. Because of repeal Act, the remand order of the Tribunal has, for all purposes, becomes infructuous and the competent authority, after the Repeal Act, can not take up the scheme under Sec. 21 for fresh consideration but, in any case, since the scheme under Sec. 21 of the petitioner was pending the competent authority could not have travelled beyond Sec. 10 (2) of the Act. . ( 21 ) THE Apex Court has, however, gone a little further in the case of Darothi Clare parreira vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC 2553 . It was held in this case that, "having regard to the scheme of the Act, it can not be said that until the application under sec. 21 or Sec. 20 is considered and disposed of, the competent authority has no power to have the notification under Sec. 10 (3) vesting the excess land in the Government published. The very language of Secs. 21 or Sec. 20 is considered and disposed of, the competent authority has no power to have the notification under Sec. 10 (3) vesting the excess land in the Government published. The very language of Secs. 20 and 21 and the exercise of the power thereunder would arise only when the land stands vested in the Government. The power of examination and exemption would arise only when the Government becomes the owner and the erstwhile owner seeks to obviate the hardships under Sec. 20 or to subserve the housing scheme for weaker sections under Sec. 21 as envisaged thereunder. Thereat, the government is required to consider whether the proposals made by the erstwhile owner for undertaking the scheme as envisaged under Sec. 21 or hardships as envisaged under sec. 20 for exemption would merit consideration. " Thus, from this verdict of the Apex court, it is clear that the authorities, even during pendency of scheme/application under sec. 20 or Sec. 21 of the Act, could have gone upto the stage of Sec. 10 (3) of the Act and not beyond that. If this is so, then action of the authorities in issuing notification under sec. 10 (5) of the Act is patently illegal and such illegal action which is prima facie borne out from the counter affidavit of Shri S. A. Patel can be examined in this writ petition. The counter affidavit of Shri S. A. Patel reveals that notification under Sec. 10 (3) was issued on 31. 5. 1985 and was published on 25. 7. 1985. Upto this stage, there was no illegality in the action of the authorities. However, it is further clear from this affidavit that, thereafter notices under Sec. 10 (5) were issued on 17. 12. 1985 and 23. 1. 1986 and were served on the petitioner. This action was patently illegal, in as much as, the authorities could not have gone beyond Sec. 10 (3) of the Act during pendency of the scheme of the petitioner under sec. 21 of the Act. If the authorities further acted to take possession either on paper or actual on 20. 3. 1986, they committed further illegality and this illegal action can not be validated despite the fact that the principal Act has been repealed by Act No. 15 of 1999. 21 of the Act. If the authorities further acted to take possession either on paper or actual on 20. 3. 1986, they committed further illegality and this illegal action can not be validated despite the fact that the principal Act has been repealed by Act No. 15 of 1999. ( 22 ) FOR the reasons stated above and considering the legal and factual aspect of the case, I am of the view that, firstly it is not cogently established that the Government had taken over possession of the excess land in accordance with the Repeal Act. Secondly, action of the respondent upto the stage of Sec. 10 (3) has to be left untouched but beyond that, the action upto Sec. 10 (5) in taking over possession becomes illegal. As such, the petition succeeds. ( 23 ) IT may be mentioned that the petitioner has alleged that he is still in actual possession. However, in the relief clause, alternative relief has been sought that, if it is held that symbolic possession or paper possession was taken over by the Government, it may be ordered to be restored to the petitioner. In order to avoid further complication, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions : (1) The writ petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs. (2) It is declared that the action of the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling act upto the stage of Sec. 10 (3) of the principal Act are in accordance with law which can not be disturbed in this writ petition. However, the action at the stage of Sec. 10 (5) of the Act is illegal and consequently taking over possession either physical or actual or symbolic or on paper, of the excess land has become illegal. (3) The possession of an area of 12,385 Sq. Metres of land of Final Plot Nos. 115, 116, 108, 287 and 280 of Mangalpur, District Vadodara is ordered to be restored by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. .