Judgment :- Gopala Gowda, J. The correctness of the order dated 27/6/2005 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P.No.28205/2002 and quashing the orders impugned therein, is questioned in this appeal. The learned single Judge has held that the first respondent herein is entitled to retain the land bearing Sy.No.53/6B of Ullal Village in Mangalore Taluk as owner. The said land was declared as `excess land under the repealed Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act (hereinafter referred to as ULC Act) and allotted to the appellant herein without taking possession of the same from the first respondent as required under Section. 10(6) of the U.L.C Act. 2. The order dated 4/7/1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner declaring the land as excess, was questioned in appeal by first respondents husband before the Divisional Commissioner. During the pendency of the said appeal, the ULC Act was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Repeal Act). As per Section.3 of this Act, the pending proceedings stood abated. Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 23/10/1999 disposed of the appeal accordingly. Both the orders of the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Divisional Commissioner are quashed by the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved of the same this appeal is filed by the allottee. 3. It is the case of the Appellant that the land in question was acquired by the Government by issuing notification dt.26/10/1995 under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act; possession was taken on 12/7/1996 and handed over to the appellant on 3/7/1998 and that no application under Section.20 of ULC Act seeking exemption of the land in question was pending. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge committed an error by passing the impugned order. 4. Learned AGA Smt. Vijaya A.D has supported the case of the Appellant and contended that the decision report in Smt. Yuvarani Kempucheluvajammanniavaru Trust Vs Special Deputy Commissioner & Competent Authority 1998(6) Kar.L.J 609 relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent is not applicable to the present case as the first respondent was informed to renew her claim for exemption but she has not done so. According to the learned AGA, the exemption application was disposed of and this submission is made on the basis of the parawise remarks furnished by the Deputy Commissioner to the Divisional Commissioner on 11/2/1999. According to the learned AGA, the exemption application was disposed of and this submission is made on the basis of the parawise remarks furnished by the Deputy Commissioner to the Divisional Commissioner on 11/2/1999. It is her contention that since the application under Section.20 of the U.L.C Act was not pending before second respondent, the decision referred to supra has no application and consequently Section 3 of Repeal Act is not attracted to the fact situation, therefore the learned Single Judge has erred in applying the above referred case and granting the relief to the first respondent. 5. Mr. R.S.Ravi, learned counsel for the first respondent has justified the order of learned single Judge contending that the aforementioned decision squarely applies to the case as the application filed by first respondent seeking exemption from applicability under Section 20 of ULC Act is not at all disposed of by the State Government in accordance with law. Therefore, Section 3 of Repeal Act is applicable to the case on hand, hence the learned Single Judge is austified in granting the relief to first respondent. 6. With reference to the aforementioned rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we have examined the order passed by the learned single Judge, which is impugned in this Appeal. In order to resolve the controversy in this case, we extract Section 2 and the relevant portions of Section 3 of Repeal Act:- "2. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter refer to as the principal Act) is hereby repealed. 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 authorised by the State Government in this behalf or the competent authority; .(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. Thus, as per Section 1(1)(a) of the Repeal Act, the repeal of ULC Act will not affect vesting of vacant land under Section 10(1) of ULC Act, the possession of which has been taken over by the competent Authority or any person duly authorized by the State Government. Now, we proceed to examine whether possession of the land in question is taken by the competent Authority as required in law. 7. Learned AGA relied upon the so-called mahazar in proof of taking over possession of the land in question. Copy of the said mahazar is produced as Annexure-R4 along with the statement of obaections filed by 4th respondent to the writ petition. After perusing the same, it is seen that it was prepared on 3/7/1998. Before the description of the land, it is mentioned that as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner dated 2/7/1998 the land has been transferred to the Revenue Inspector.. Immediately after the description of the land, the Revenue Inspector of Urban Land Ceiling has signed. It is not known who took possession of the land and who transferred it to the Revenue Inspector. Thereafter it is mentioned that the possession of the land is taken-over by the Revenue Inspector of Urban Development Authority and he has signed it. 8. That apart, though it is captioned as `mahazar, no witness has signed it to evidence the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken by the competent Authority. Except the signatures of aforementioned two Revenue Inspectors, only the names of witnesses are mentioned and they have not signed it. It is also pertinent to note that the entire document is in Kannada language but the names of the witnesses are typed separately in English. This clearly indicates that the said names have been subsequently got typed. In view of all these factors, we hold that the said document is not a genuine document and possession of the land is not at all taken by the competent Authority as required under Section. 10(6) of ULC Act. 9. Assumingthat the Revenue Inspector took possession of the land, no document is produced to show that he was the competent authority under Section 10(6) of ULC Act to take possession of the land which is declared as surplus urban land under Section.10(3) of the Act. 10(6) of ULC Act. 9. Assumingthat the Revenue Inspector took possession of the land, no document is produced to show that he was the competent authority under Section 10(6) of ULC Act to take possession of the land which is declared as surplus urban land under Section.10(3) of the Act. The language used therein is "the competent Authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government". There is no document in the original file of the State Government to show that possession of the land was taken by the competent Authority and given to the State Government. Even if the alleged mahazar is construed as the document regarding taking of possession of the land in question, possession was not given to Government but was given to Urban Development Authority. Viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that possession of the land was taken by competent authority from the owner of the land in question and given to Government. Therefore, question of vesting of the surplus urban land with the Government did not arise at all. In the circumstances, Section 3(1) of Repeal Act will not apply to the land in question. 10. Now, we proceed to examine whether the exemption application filed by the owner under Section 20 of U LC Act is pending or disposed of by the State Government. The filing of such application by the owner of the land in question is not in dispute. According to the respondents, the same has been disposed of and not pending with the State Government. In support of this, they have relied upon the document Annexure-A dated 4/7/1995. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:- "As could be seen from the records an extent of 0-51st acres or 2083-45 Sq.Mts. in S.No.53/6B of Ullala Village was recommended for exemption u/s 20 to Government vide this office C.Disc.ULC.ESR.99/84-85 dt.27/8/1989 and the orders of the Government is still awaited. However as per Government direction the declarant may renew his claim for exemption at this stage." (Emphasis laid by the Court) It is clear from the above extracted portion from the document referred to supra that the exemption application filed under Section.20 of the ULC Act was not disposed off. However as per Government direction the declarant may renew his claim for exemption at this stage." (Emphasis laid by the Court) It is clear from the above extracted portion from the document referred to supra that the exemption application filed under Section.20 of the ULC Act was not disposed off. The applicant was asked to renew the request for exemption at that stage which is not tenable in law. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the applicant-first respondent has not renewed the request for grant of exemption from the applicability of the land in question and as such there is no application pending before the State Government for its consideration. This contention of the learned AGA is wholly untenable and therefore the same cannot be accepted by us. When an application under Section 20 of the ULC Act is filed by first respondent seeking exemption from the applicability of the Act, a statutory duty is cast upon the State Government to dispose of the same in accordance with law either granting the prayer or rejecting it. From the extracted portion above, it is clear that "orders of the Government is still awaited" on the exemption application. When no order is passed on the application and it was under the consideration of the Government, question of renewing the request by the owner at that stage does not arise. For all practical purposes, it has to be taken that exemption application is pending and it was not disposed off. When such a request was pending consideration, the grant of land in favour of Appellant Authority by the State Government does not arise that too when the land is not vested with the Government. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the appellant herein has no right over the land in question and it has no locus standi to file this writ appeal. The order of learned single Judge does not warrant interference. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.