JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. Short facts of the case are that petitioner is a holder of agricultural land measuring 3.580 hectares, bearing Survey Numbers 220, 392, 394 and 435 at village Musakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore. Father of the petitioner Hiralal submitted statement u/s 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, wherein it is mentioned that land involved is agricultural land. On 31-12-1985, petitioner submitted an application u/s 20 for exemption wherein specifically mentioned that the nature of land is agricultural land. On 25-3-1986, the competent authority ordered that draft statement be issued and it was recommended to the State Government to reject application filed by the petitioner u/s 20 of the Act for exemption. Vide order dated 12-5-1986, draft statement was issued and surplus land was declared, against which the objections were submitted by the petitioner on 3-7-1986, alleging that the land is agricultural land. Vide order dated 15-9-1995 i.e. approximately after ten years, the objection submitted by the petitioner to draft statements were rejected. On 6-12-1996, competent authority again requested the State Government to reject the application filed by the petitioner u/s 20 of the Act. On 29-1-1997, competent authority directed to issue notice u/s 10(3) of the Act. The notification was published on 25-4-1997 and the objections submitted by the petitioner were dismissed on 5-5-1997. Thereafter, on 22-9-1997, possession of the land was taken over by the State Government and vide order dated 22-12-1997, the State Government exempted land u/s 20 of the Act upto June, 1999 or till implementation of Scheme No. 72 by Indore Development Authority, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into force on 11-1-1999 and was given effect in State of Madhya Pradesh with effect from 17-2-2000, after coming into force of Repeal Act. The present petition has been filed on 23-6-2000, wherein petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notice dated 24-1-1997 u/s 10(3) of the Act and the act of the State in taking over the possession dated 22-9-1997 and also the mutation in pursuant to the order dated 22-9-1997 in revenue record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of the land was agricultural as father of the petitioner has submitted statement on 16-5-1977. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of the land was agricultural as father of the petitioner has submitted statement on 16-5-1977. It is submitted that in the order of exemption dated 22-12-1997 (Annexure-P-7) the State Government has specifically mentioned that vide letter dated 4-1-1984 issued by Joint Director Town and Country Planning, Indore, it is evident that land bearing Survey No. 392 is for agricultural purpose and for agro based industries. It was further recommended that the claiming of exemption is justified. Vide letter dated 25-3-1986 issued by competent authority, Indore it is also evident that most of the land in question is proposed for agricultural purposes or for agro based Industries. It is submitted that paper possession as alleged to have been taken vide Annexure-P-8 dated 22-9-1997 in which it is specifically mentioned that houses are constructed on Survey No. 220, while soyabean crops are standing on Survey Nos. 392, 394 and 435. Learned Counsel submits that in fact no possession was taken and the Panchanama (Annexure-P-8) is merely a paper formality. It is submitted that in the return at Page No. 9 respondents themselves has specifically stated that, Since the possession of the land had already been taken by the time, the respondents refrained themselves from doing anything more with the land, possession of which had been taken. The respondents allowed the land to remain as it is and permitted the petitioner to use it for the purpose for which he wanted it to be used and then the respondents further proceeded with the case only after the period of exemption was over. It is submitted that from the aforesaid pleadings in the return it is amply clear that paper formalities relating to possession was completed and no actual physical possession was taken. Learned Counsel submits that after completion of two years for which the exemption was granted, petitioner again applied for extension of renewal of order of exemption u/s 20 vide application dated 18-3-1999. It is submitted that prior to it on 11-1-1999, the Repeal Act was enacted by the Central Government and the same was adopted in State of Madhya Pradesh on 17-2-2000. Since all through the petitioner was in possession, therefore, petitioner is entitled to get the aforesaid Notification and order of possession quashed. It is submitted that prior to it on 11-1-1999, the Repeal Act was enacted by the Central Government and the same was adopted in State of Madhya Pradesh on 17-2-2000. Since all through the petitioner was in possession, therefore, petitioner is entitled to get the aforesaid Notification and order of possession quashed. Shri S. C. Bagadiya, Learned Counsel submits that since nature of the land was agricultural, therefore, the provisions of the Act was not at all applicable in the present case. Shri Umesh Gajankush, Learned Counsel for the respondents submit that the possession of the land was taken over by the State Government vide Annexure-P-8 dated 22-9-1997, in compliance of the order dated 27-1-1997. It is submitted that appeal was provided u/s 33 of the Act against the said order, but neither the order of possession was challenged nor any appeal was filed against the action of the respondents in taking actual possession on 22-9-1997. Hence, the action of the State attend finality and as per Sub-section (1)(a) of section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the petitioner is not entitled for questioning action which was taken in the year 1997. Sub-section (a) of Sub-section (1) of section 3 reads as under: 3. SAVINGS. (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 authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority. So far as land use is concerned, Learned Counsel submits that it has been specifically stated that information was invited from town and country planning department and the same was received and as per their letter, the land was assigned for agro industries, roads and gardens. Learned Counsel further submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that no appeal was filed by the petitioner in time u/s 33 of the Act and the present petition is filed after three years of taking over of the possession. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was in actual physical possession of the land, the land was exempted for a period of two years, vide order dated 22-12-1997, therefore, there was no occasion to the petitioner to challenge the said order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was in actual physical possession of the land, the land was exempted for a period of two years, vide order dated 22-12-1997, therefore, there was no occasion to the petitioner to challenge the said order. It is also submitted that the alleged paper possession was taken on 2-9-1997, while the present petition is filed on 23-6-2000 i.e. within three years, which is taken as reasonable period for filing a petition. Sub-section (o) of section 2 lays down the definition of "Urban Land", which reads as under: (o) "Urban land" means, (i) any land situated within the limits of an urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan ; or (ii) in a case where there is no master plan, or where the master plan does not refer to any land as urban land, any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration and situated in any area included within the local limits of a municipality (by whatever name called), a notified area committee, a town area committee, a city and town committee, a small town committee, a cantonment board or a Panchayat, but does not include any such land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Explanation:--- For the purpose of this clause and clause (q)-- (A) "agriculture" includes horticulture, but does not include-- (i) raising of grass, (ii) dairy farming, (iii) poultry farming, (iv) breeding of live-stock, and (v) such cultivation, or the growing of such plant, as may be prescribed; (B) land shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture, if such land is not entered in the revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture: Provided that where on any land which is entered in the revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture, there is a building which is not in the nature of a farm-house, then, so much of the extent of such land as is occupied by the building shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture; Provided further that if any question arises whether any building is in the nature of a farm-house, such question shall be referred to the State Government-and the decision of the State Government thereon shall be final; (C) "Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (B) of this Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture if the land has been specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture." Sub-section (q) of section 2 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the word, "vacant land" means land not being land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration, but does not include: (i) land on which construction of a building is not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated. (ii) in an area where there are building regulations, the land occupied by any building which has been constructed before or is being constructed on, the appointed day with the approval of the appropriate authority and the land appurtenant to such building; and (iii) in an area where there are no building regulations, the land occupied by any building which has been constructed before, or is being constructed on, the appointed day and the land appurtenant to such building. Provided that where any person ordinarily keeps his cattle, other than for the purpose of dairy farming or for the purpose of breeding of live-stock, on any land situated in a village within an urban agglomeration (described as a village in the revenue records), then, so much extent of the land as has been ordinarily used for the keeping of such cattle immediately before the appointed day shall not be deemed to be vacant land for the purposes of this clause. Undisputedly land in question was an agricultural land which is evident from the statement submitted by the predecessor in title of the petitioner and also by the petitioner and thereafter from the order of exemption Annexure-P-7, wherein repeatedly it has been mentioned that the land is agricultural land. Apart from this the document Annexure-P-8, whereby the possession as alleged to have been taken it is specifically mentioned that the crop of soya is standing on Survey Nos. 392, 394 and 435 and houses are constructed on Survey No, 220. It is true that after taking the alleged possession vide Annexure-P-8 on 23-9-1997, no appeal has been filed by the petitioner u/s 33 of the Act. The validity of the earlier orders passed by the competent authority u/s 10 was also not challenged, however, the exemption was granted to the petitioner vide Annexure-P-7 order of the State Government dated 22-12-1997. Since, the petitioner was in possession and the exemption was granted to the petitioner, therefore, if no appeal has been filed by the petitioner then it cannot be said that this Court cannot examine the action of the State in its writ jurisdiction. Since, the petitioner continued in possession throughout and on 22-12-1997 the exemption was granted to the petitioner and in the return submitted by the State, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner was allowed to remain as it is and permitted to use for the purpose for which he wanted to use makes it clear that at no point of time the possession was taken from the petitioner. Apart from this the document Exhibit-P-8 appears to be a paper possession. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner is estopped to challenge the action in view of the provisions of section 3 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Apart from this the document Exhibit-P-8 appears to be a paper possession. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner is estopped to challenge the action in view of the provisions of section 3 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. In view of this petition stands allowed and the action of the respondents u/s 10 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act stands quashed. No order as to costs. C. C. as per rules. Final Result : Allowed