N. S. VEERABHADRAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner sought for quashing of Annexure-D dated 27. 11. 2001 communicated to the petitioner in pursuance of the letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, by the principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, dated 12. 9. 2001. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner Sri Kuratti Veerappa, being the owner of the land RS No. 9b/2a of Sutagatti village, Hubli Taluk, measuring about 5 acres equivalent to 20, 234. 8286 Sq. Mts. submitted a declaration as required under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 showing excess land as 18, 734. 2286 excluding the area of 1, 500 Sq. Mts. The Deputy commissioner also issued notification declaring that 18, 734. 2286 is the excess of land as required under Section 10 (3) of the Act. At this stage, the petitioner filed WP No. 2146/91 which came to be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law. At this Stage, the petitioner filed an application under Section 20 to the Government for grant of exemption in respect of the excess land for growing Ayurvedic Herbal Plants. The Government of Karnataka, considering the reasons stated in the application, by its order dated 4. 2. 1995 (Annexure-A), granted exemption on 4 conditions. The 1st condition is that the land is to be used only for growing Ayurvedic Herbal Plants. The 2nd condition is that the exempted land should not be used for the purpose other than agriculture and should not be alienated etc. , After grant of exemption, by an order dated 4. 2. 1995, the excess land remained with the possession of the petitioner. Subsequently, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came to be repealed by Act 15/99 with effect from 17. 9. 1999 as per notification issued by the Government of Karnataka under Clause (2) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India. After repealing of the act, the petitioner filed an application before the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban development, as per Annexure-B dated 10. 1. 2001 for relaxation of the conditions imposed while granting exemption as per Annexure-A. The Secretary for the Urban Development Department called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad. After repealing of the act, the petitioner filed an application before the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban development, as per Annexure-B dated 10. 1. 2001 for relaxation of the conditions imposed while granting exemption as per Annexure-A. The Secretary for the Urban Development Department called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad. In pursuance of it, the Deputy commissioner submitted a report to the Principal Secretary as per Annexure-C dated 29. 3. 2001 recommending for relaxation of the conditions. On receipt of the report by the Principal secretary to the Government, the Department of Urban Development addressed a letter dated 12. 9. 2001 to the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D informing the Deputy Commissioner that the Repealing Act does not give or reserve any powers to modify or withdraw any action validly taken under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. ( 3 ) ANNEXURE-D reads as follows: "please recall the discussions I had with you in Dharwad during my visit to your District between 4th and 5th of September 2001. This is regarding the case of Veerappa Yacharappa kurahatti, who had been granted exemption under Section 20 (1) (a) of the Urban Land Ceiling act, 1976 in respect of 18734. 2286 Sq. , Mts. Of land subject to the condition that the same should be used for cultivating Ayurvedic Herbal Plants; it should not be disposed of by way of sale, gift or transfer or in any other manner and that it should not be converted for non-agricultural purpose. The Repealing Act does not give or reserve any powers to modify or withdraw any action validly taken under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. Now that the ULCR Act has been repealed and the said Act is not available there is nothing that the Government can do in the matter. Whatever is to be done has to be done in accordance with the relevant laws applicable to land and land matters as are in force currently. Accordingly, you might like to take further action in the matter at your end. " The same was communicated by the Deputy Commissioner by his letter dated 27. 11. 2001 to the petitioner rejecting his request for relaxation of the conditions. It is this order which is questioned by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, you might like to take further action in the matter at your end. " The same was communicated by the Deputy Commissioner by his letter dated 27. 11. 2001 to the petitioner rejecting his request for relaxation of the conditions. It is this order which is questioned by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sri Umesh R. Malimath submitted that the reasonings of the Government are not proper and that they have not passed any speaking order. The case of the petitioner was not at all considered by the Government for relaxation of the conditions in view of the repealing of the Urban Land Ceiling Act by the Act 15 of 1999. The learned Counsel further submitted it is clear from the reading of Section 20 of the Act of 1976 that the Government is empowered to grant exemption in respect of the holdings irrespective of the provisions of the repealing Act, it is the Government alone which is appropriate to pass orders by invoking section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, submitted that it is the Government which is appropriate to pass orders and that it cannot simply reject on the ground that the Act is repealed. Therefore, prayed to quash the impugned order and to direct the Secretary to the Government to pass appropriate orders in the matter by exercising its inherent powers. ( 5 ) SRI M. Narayanappa, learned High Court Government Pleader justified the impugned order by contending that when once the Act is repealed, there is nothing left to the Government to do anything in the matter. Therefore, the question of interfering with the communication made to the petitioner rejecting the request for relaxation of the conditions does not arise. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. ( 6 ) IN the light of the submissions, the point for consideration that arises is: whether the State Government has no power to consider the application of the petitioner for relaxation of the conditions in view of the repealing of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act, 1976 by the Act 15 of 1999 which came into force with effect from 17. 9. 1999? 9. 1999? ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that in pursuance of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 the petitioner declared his holdings as required under Section 6 of the Act. It is found from the records that a notification was also issued under Section 10 (3) of the Act vesting the excess land. The petitioner questioned the said order in WP No. 2146/91 which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal. After remand, the petitioner filed an application under Section 20 of the Act for grant of exemption. The Government considering the reasons stated in the application granted exemption permitting to grow Ayurvedic Herbal Plants and not to alienate the property or use it for agricultural purpose. ( 8 ) AFTER repealing of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 by the Act 15 of 1999,) the petitioner submitted an application dated 10. 1. 2001 to the Principal Secretary, Department of urban Development, who in turn, called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner. The deputy Commissioner by his letter dated 29. 3. 2001 sent a favourable report for relaxation of the conditions. But the Secretary to the Government intimated the Deputy Commissioner by his letter dated 12. 9. 2001 rejecting the prayer for relaxation of the conditions on the ground that the act is repealed and that there is nothing for the Government to do anything in the matter. ( 9 ) IT is settled position of law that when the Act is repealed, substituted or amended, wherever there is repugnancy, the General Clauses Act comes into play according to the situation, circumstances and facts of the case. ( 10 ) IN the case of T. S. BALIAH v. ITO1, while considering Section 6 of the General Clauses act, 1897 it is observed as follows: "the principle of this section is that unless a different intention appears in the repealing Act, any legal proceeding can be instituted and continued in respect of any matter pending under the repealed Act as if that Act was in force at the time of repeal. Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the general Clauses Act Will follow unless, as the section itself says, a different intention appears in the repealing statute. . . . . Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the general Clauses Act Will follow unless, as the section itself says, a different intention appears in the repealing statute. . . . . . . . . . " ( 11 ) THE repealing provisions of Section 3 reads thus. "3 (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect (a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 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; (b) the validity of any order granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20 or any action taken thereunder notwithstanding any judgment of any Court to the contrary; (c) any payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20. (2) Where ( a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and (b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land, then, such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the state Government. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 makes it clear that where exemption is granted under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect. But nothing prevents or restricts the power of the Government to invoke the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and to pass appropriate orders. The authority which granted exemption is the same authority which is competent to pass appropriate orders in the matter. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that the government has no power or cannot do anything in the matter, is not sustainable. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the State Government to pass appropriate orders for relaxation of the conditions if it requires according to the circumstances and facts of the case.