JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the State of Uttarakhand, represented by the Collector, Dehradun, and the Divisional Forest Officer, Dehradun, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment of the Forest Settlement Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 261/98-99 dated 21.03.2003, and the judgment of the Additional District Judge, III FTC Dehradun in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2003 dated 13.07.2004. 2. Section 2 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the “1950 Act”) relates to Modification of the Act, in its application to certain areas. Sub-Section (1) (c) thereof stipulates that the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, apply the whole or any of the provision of the Act to any of the areas or estates subject to such exceptions or modifications, not affecting the substance, as the circumstances of the case may require i.e. areas held and occupied for a public purpose or a work of public utility and declared as such by the State Government. Section 2(2) of the 1950 Act was substituted by U.P. Act No. 15 of 1978. Section 2(2) of the 1950 Act, as substituted by U.P. Act No. 15 of 1978, stipulates that, where the declaration made by the State Government under Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) is in respect of any area held on the seventh day of July, 1949, for the purposes of a housing scheme by a Co-operative Society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or a limited liability company under the Companies Act, 1956, the State government may by notification, in public interest, rescind or supersede the declaration in respect of such area as has not actually been utilized in execution of a housing scheme till the date of the notification whether on account of any default on the part of such society or company, or for any other reason whatsoever. Under the Explanation thereto, an area shall, for the purposes of this Sub-Section, be deemed to have not been actually utilized, in the execution of a housing scheme, if, on the date of the notification under this Sub-Section, (a) in the case of a building site, constructions have not been made at least up to the stage of completion of foundation; and (b) in any other case, the land is not covered by any road or part. 3. U.P. Act No. 15 of 1978, whereby Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 of the 1950 Act, was substituted is a validating Act and stipulates that, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, a notification made by the State Government, discontinuing or purporting to discontinue any exemption from the operation of the 1950 Act in respect of an area, as has not actually been utilized in execution of a housing scheme before the date of such notification, shall be deemed to be and always to have been made in the exercise of the powers under Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 of that Act as amended, where the area to which the notification relates was such as had, within the meaning of Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 of the said Act as amended by Chapter II of the 1978 Act, not been actually utilized for execution of a housing scheme till the date of the notification so made. 4. In its order, in Civil Appeal No. 2046/1974 dated 11.11.1975, the Supreme Court had observed that until the ban in the way of the clearing of the forest was removed, and the land was made free from it, no further development such as laying out plan, carving out plots etc. 4. In its order, in Civil Appeal No. 2046/1974 dated 11.11.1975, the Supreme Court had observed that until the ban in the way of the clearing of the forest was removed, and the land was made free from it, no further development such as laying out plan, carving out plots etc. was possible to be done; it seemed that the respondent had not undertaken construction of any building or house; the business of the Company was to make the land fit for building purposes, carving out plots, constructing roads, selling the plots to various allottees or intending purchasers who had to build their own houses on the plots; the question of taking sanction under the Act arose only after the clearing of the jungle; the act of clearing the forest, by felling the trees from the land and some other acts done by the Company before September 1, 1969, were only such acts which were possible to be done in order to make the land useful for the purpose of the housing scheme; the land had been actually utilized in execution of a housing scheme; since the Collector, Dehradun, by his order dated 22.03.1970, held that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the land, the respondent could not take permission under the Act from the prescribed authority, nor could any further act, for fully implementing the housing scheme, be done; the felling of the trees was complete within the time allowed; and, therefore, actual utilization of the land in the process of the housing scheme was made, in the sense of utilizing the land to the extent it was possible to utilize it. 5. The Supreme Court further held that the High Court was right in holding that the land in question was not covered by the Notification dated September 1, 1969, and in quashing the order of the Collector dated 22.03.1970; and, if the housing scheme was not fully implemented within a reasonable time from the date of the order, and actual utilization of the land by full and complete implementation of the housing scheme was unnecessarily delayed, it would then be open to the Government to take further steps for the application of the provisions of the Act to the land in question, or any portion thereof, in accordance with law. 6. 6. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 11.11.1975, the Forest Settlement Officer upheld the objections of the respondents herein. In his order dated 21.03.2013, the Forest Settlement Officer held that the Supreme Court, in its order dated 11.11.1975, had accepted that the respondent had constructed roads for the housing colony; the construction of roads was treated as construction for the housing colony, in the amendment to Section 2(2) of the 1950 Act; hence, Section 2(2) was not applicable to the land of the respondent; the property, in question, did not vest in the State Government legally; the Supreme Court had quashed Notification No. 4968/14-2-96-4(1)-96, and the consequential order of the District Collector dated 26.03.1970, as illegal; under Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 only land, controlled and owned by the State Government, could be declared as forest land; it was clear that the land in question was not the land owned by the State Government; and, hence, it could not be declared as a reserve forest. Aggrieved by the order of the Forest Settlement Officer, the State of Uttarakhand carried the matter in Appeal to the District Judge, Dehradun who dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition. 7. A feeble attempt was initially made before us by the learned Additional Advocate General to submit that in the light of the validation clause, notwithstanding the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 11.11.1975, the Notification dated September 1, 1969 continued to remain in force. Evidently because we were not impressed with the submission, a Notification has now been issued by the Government of Uttarakhand on 11.02.2019 exercising its powers, under Section 2(2) of the Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Adaption and Modification Order, 2001), declaring that 1155.14 Acres covered land, of the respondent-Angolia Housing Pvt. Ltd. Basanj Kunj, New Delhi, within Mauja Galjawadi Pargana Kendriya Doon of District and Tehsil Dehradun held at dated 07.07.1949, and all such other areas, on which the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Adaption and Modification Order, 2001) were applicable, shall be transferred and vested in the State free from all encumbrances, except as regards the arrangement done under the said Act from the date of vesting with the Government on such date. 8. 8. In the light of the Notification dated 11.02.2019, now having been issued by the State Government in the exercise of its powers under Section 2(2) of the Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978 as adopted under the Adaption and Modification Order, 2001, it is only if this Notification is subjected to challenge, and is set aside in appropriate legal proceedings, would the subject land cease to vest in the Government. 9. Sri B.C. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, would submit that the respondents would question the validity of the said Notification in independent legal proceedings. 10. Leaving it open to them to do so and as, in the light of the Notification now issued by the Government of Uttarakhand dated 11.02.2019, the cause in the writ petition no longer survives, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.