JUDGMENT Honble Amitava Lala, J.—Composite hearing has been made in respect of both the writ petitions and both the petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. These writ petitions have been made praying inter alia to : (A) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.8.2008 and 8.9.2008 (Annexure-12 to Writ Petition No. 48134 of 2008) passed by the respondent no. 2 and quashing the order dated 28.8.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition No. 53580 of 2008) (B) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to restore the possession of the property in dispute as on 28.7.2008. (C) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (D) award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 3. The petitioners before us had earlier got executed a registered agreement for sale in their favour from the admitted owner of the property which now stands cancelled. On the other hand respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have got executed a sale deed from the admitted owner, but against this, a civil suit has been instituted before the appropriate Civil Court to which the present petitioners wanted to intervene as a party defendant-respondent. 4. In spite of such aspect of the matter as referred to above the petitioners have challenged the order impugned by saying that by the order impugned dated 28.8.2008 the petitioners have been dispossessed from the property in question illegally . 5. The order impugned has been passed by the concerned District Magistrate following the directions given by the writ Court on 6.8.2008 in Writ Petition No. 34707 and 38126 of 2008. The relevant portion of the order of the Division Bench of this High Court is as follows : "8. The result is that the Collector J.P. Nagar should restore the position as was in existence immediately before the order dated 28.6.2008. The possession should be restored to the persons from whom it was taken. 9. The parties may appear before the District Magistrate, J.P. Nagar on 18.8.2008. He may pass fresh order after hearing not only the parties before the Court, but any other person claiming interest in the property. The possession should be restored to the persons from whom it was taken. 9. The parties may appear before the District Magistrate, J.P. Nagar on 18.8.2008. He may pass fresh order after hearing not only the parties before the Court, but any other person claiming interest in the property. This order may be passed without being influenced by the any of the observations made in this order.” 6. However, the petitioners have taken the plea before us that the order aforesaid, which has given direction to the concerned District Magistrate to adjudicate the matter, had not been challenged by the petitioners at any point of time before any higher Court. Now when the order impugned disposing the petition had been passed against them, they again filed these writ petitions on the plea that by virtue of the repeal of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the authority concerned lost his jurisdiction in the matter. The effect of repealing the Act has been given on 5th September, 2005. The earlier writ petition was disposed of on 6th August, 2008 and the order impugned was passed on 20th August, 2008, a long time after the order of repealing. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a 5-Judge Bench judgement of the Apex Court, being JT 2000 (1) SC 453 to establish that if a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards. Savings of the nature contained in Section 6 or in special Acts may modify the position. Thus the operation of repeal or deletion as to the future and the past largely depends on the savings applicable. 8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents No. 7 and 8 relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 1 SCC 391 , to establish before us that the Act concerned thereunder is hit by terms of clause (c) of Section 6, which says that unless different intention appears the repeal struck off any right or privilege or law which had accrued under the repealed Act. 9. 9. We have gone through Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act 1897 and find that, in any event, two possibilities are here before us, that is, either this is a proceeding initiated prior to or after the repealing of the Act. Therefore, it is a continuance of the process, because the District Magistrate has acted on the basis of the directions of the Court. In any event the petitioners have become affected. Therefore, though the order passed by the District Magistrate is under challenge, we cannot hold and say that the order is a nullity because a Division Bench of the High Court has categorically put back the original possession of the parties immediately before the order dated 28.6.2008 in it’s aforesaid paragraph 8 of the order. 10. Having said so, after a period of one year from the date of filing the writ petition, we do not find any logic and substance to pass any order or send the matter back to the District Magistrate once again for doing perpetual mistakes, if any. 11. It is admitted position that presently petitioners cannot have any better right than the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 unless, of course, it is proved beyond doubt before the Civil Court and a decree is passed in their favour in respect of the right, title and interest of the property in dispute. 12. Therefore, we cannot put the cart before the horse and in such circumstances we dismiss both the writ petitions, however, without imposing any cost. 13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 14. However, passing of this order will not, in any way, affect the right of the petitioners either to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate Civil Court or take any appropriate steps with regard to their rights. Honble Ashok Srivastava, J.—I agree. ————