JUDGMENT Anand Pathak, J. - Instant petition is preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India being crestfallen by order dated 18-10- 2004 (Annexure P/1) passed by Court of Collector (Urban Land Ceiling), District Gwalior whereby the proceedings of the case of the petitioners stand abated in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act 1999'). 2. Precisely pleaded facts of the case are that an area admeasuring 5.956 hectare of land consisting of 14 survey numbers as pleaded in the petition at village Mahu District Gwalior was entered into the name of Mattu Singh, who was the original holder of the aforesaid pieces of land. He was survived by two sons namely, Laxman Singh and Sitaram. Present petitioners are legal representatives of Laxman Singh. 3. Vide order dated 10-10-1979 Additional Tahsildar, Tahsil and District Gwalior recorded the partition of aforesaid land which took place between Laxman Singh and his brother Sitaram by which land belonging to six survey numbers fall to the share of Laxman Singh and 50% share in the land belonging to other survey number vide 721, 722, 732 min and 733 in those survey numbers, land were also held by Laxman Singh. Rest of the 6 survey numbers fell to the share of Sitaram with 50% share in the above land in which Laxman Singh was having share. 4. After the amalgamation of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1976'), proceedings were drawn in respect of the land referred above and notice under Section 6(2) of the Act of 1976 given to Laxman Singh and Sitaram on 26-05-1981 and they filed their respective returns. Along with Laxman Singh, present petitioners (since Laxman Singh deceased has represented through his legal representatives) also filed return separately on 24-06-1981. Separate cases were registered but they were considered analogously and it was found that land is of joint holdings relating to one family and therefore, draft order dated 29-05-1982 vide Annexure P/2 was issued supposing 8612.40 sq. meters of land in surplus with Laxman Singh and 3556.20 sq. meters of land in surplus of four brothers/petitioners. 5. Separate cases were registered but they were considered analogously and it was found that land is of joint holdings relating to one family and therefore, draft order dated 29-05-1982 vide Annexure P/2 was issued supposing 8612.40 sq. meters of land in surplus with Laxman Singh and 3556.20 sq. meters of land in surplus of four brothers/petitioners. 5. Laxman Singh (since deceased) and present petitioners filed the objections on 19-06-1982 but same were not acceded to by the authorities and final order dated 29-04-1983 was passed in case of Laxman Singh whereby 28794.94 sq. land was declared surplus. 6. It appears that in pursuance thereof, under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act 1976 due procedure for publication in Government gazette regarding vesting of land and due service on Laxman Singh for handing over of possession, ex-parte possession of the land was taken on 17-01-1984 by Tahsildar Nazool and it further appears that necessary entry in Khasra was made vide order dated 19-01-1984 for the year 1983-84 (Vikram Samvat 2024). 7. Against the order dated 29-04-1983, it further appears that petitioners and Laxman Singh preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was registered as appeal No.149/1983-84 and vide order dated 10-02-1986 case was remanded. On remand, case was reconsidered and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, again final order dated 05- 01-1990 (vide Annexure P/3) was passed in which Ramchandra Singh s/o Laxman Singh was found to be major and therefore, additional land of 1500 sq. meters were deducted from the total land coming under the purview of Ceiling Act and after deduction, total 27294.94 sq. meters land was declared surplus. No further deduction was allowed in respect of other three petitioners as they were found minor. 8. After passing of final order, notice dated 02-02-1990 was passed under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1976 which was published in Government gazette dated 30-03-1990 at page No.346 (Vide Annexure R/5). Similarly notice dated 20-04-1990 under Section 10(3) was issued and published in Government gazette dated 18- 05-1991 (Vide Annexure R/6) and land vested in State Government free from all encumbrances. 9. Against the order dated 05-01-1990 petitioners again filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner vide appeal No.150/1989-90 and vide order dated 30-01-1992 the said appeal was dismissed. The said order is on record vide Annexure R/1. 9. Against the order dated 05-01-1990 petitioners again filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner vide appeal No.150/1989-90 and vide order dated 30-01-1992 the said appeal was dismissed. The said order is on record vide Annexure R/1. Consequent upon rejection of appeal by the Additional Commissioner, notice dated 17-07-1992 under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was issued to the petitioners (as well as to Tahsildar for taking possession) and in compliance thereof, possession of the land was taken and thereafter necessary entry in Khasra Panchshala was made for the year 1994-95 to 1996- 97. Said notice dated 17-07-1992 and Khasra Panchshala are on record vide Annexure R/8 and R/9 respectively. 10. It further appears from the pleadings and documents of the parties that after taking possession of the disputed land, proceedings for payment of compensation of declared surplus land under Section 11 of the Act of 1976 were instituted and proceedings for assessment of compensation was in progress when the things came to stand still because of the Repeal Act, 1999. 11. At the same time against the order dated 05-01-1990 of competent authority and order dated 30-01-1992 of Additional Commissioner, petitioners preferred Miscellaneous Petition No.255/1993 and vide order dated 28-05-1995 (vide Annexure P/4) this Court allowed the petition and remanded back the matter to the authorities with a direction to reconsider the case of petitioners. From record, it appears that after remand order of High Court, case was pending consideration and meanwhile Repeal Act, 1999 came into being and in consequent thereof, adoption of the Repeal Act, 1999 by State Government on 17- 02-2000 took place under Article 252(2) of Constitution and since according to respondents land was already vested with the State under Section 10(3) of the Principal Act therefore, by impugned order dated 18-10-2004 (Annexure P/1) respondent No.2/competent authority closed the case, having no jurisdiction. During pendency of proceedings before the competent authority Laxman Singh died on 28-04-1997, therefore, petitioners are before this Court. 12. It is the submission of learned senior counsel Shri N.K. Gupta and Shri J.D. Suryavanshi that the impugned order Annexure P/1 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and passed without application of mind, therefore, deserves to be set aside. During pendency of proceedings before the competent authority Laxman Singh died on 28-04-1997, therefore, petitioners are before this Court. 12. It is the submission of learned senior counsel Shri N.K. Gupta and Shri J.D. Suryavanshi that the impugned order Annexure P/1 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and passed without application of mind, therefore, deserves to be set aside. Respondent No.2 erred in holding that repeal of the Act of 1976 does not affect illegal acquisition of the land of petitioners ignoring the fact that once the Writ Court remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, then the earlier order came to an end. Therefore, proceedings pending before respondent No.2 would be deemed to be pending proceedings within the meaning of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 and therefore, all the proceedings abated as per Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. Once the proceedings abated, earlier orders under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1976 could not be revised by respondent No.6. 13. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 erred in not considering the legal position that the saving clause under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 saves only those acquisitions which were finalized as per Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976. In the instant case, after the remand order of this Court, all the earlier orders and proceedings, came to an end and matter was to be considered afresh. Since no notification as per Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 existed hence the saving clause of the Repeal Act, 1999 will not apply. Even if there were any notification under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 then also that notification stood abrogated automatically by the effect of the order of the Court. 14. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners also vehemently put forward the arguments regarding possession of the land. According to them, State Government has never taken possession from the petitioners and they are still in possession of the land. Even if the possession had been taken away then also it would not have affected the rights of the petitioners as there is no notification under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976. Learned senior counsel relied upon Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. Even if the possession had been taken away then also it would not have affected the rights of the petitioners as there is no notification under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976. Learned senior counsel relied upon Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, (1993) 2 SCC 546 and submits that at the time of commencement of the Act of 1976 there was no master plan in existence bringing the land under urban area or for non agriculture purposes, then the master plan subsequently implemented cannot be given any meaning under explanation (c) of Section 2(o) of the Act of 1976. In the instant case, master plan came into existence on 12-12-1980 i.e. 6 years after commencement of the Act in 1976, hence the land could not be held to be either urban land or vacant land. 15. On the other hand, learned Government counsel matched the vehemence and raised preliminary objection as well as objection on merits. 16. According to Government counsel an area 5.956 hectare of the land consisting of 14 survey numbers as referred in reply situate at village Mahu Tahsila and District Gwalior entered into the name of Mattu, who was the original holder of the aforesaid land. He was survived by two sons namely, Laxman Singh and Sitaram. By order dated 10-10-1979 of Additional Tahsildar, partition of aforesaid land took place between Laxman Singh and Sitaram and land belonging to survey No.720, 723, 728, 729, 741, 458 min fell to the share of Laxman Singh and 50% share in the land belonging to survey No.721, 722, 742 min and 733 was also held by Laxman Singh. Rest of survey numbers 725, 730, 732 min, 734, 735 and 758 min fell to the share of Sitaram with 50% share in the above land in which Laxman Singh was having share. 17. The Act of 1976 came into being in 1976 and in pursuance thereof notices under Section 6(2) of the Act of 1976 were issued to Laxman Singh and Sitaram and both filed their returns separately on 24-06-1981. Case No.224/80-81/Section 6(2) was registered in respect of Laxman Singh S/o Mattu Singh, Case No.225/80-81/Section 6(2) Ramcharan Singh S/o Laxman, Case No.226/80-81/Section 6(2) Narayan S/o Laxman, Case No.228/80-81/Section 6(2) Darshan Singh S/o Laxman Singh, Case No.229/80-81/Section 6(2) Ghanshyam S/o Laxman Singh. Case No.224/80-81/Section 6(2) was registered in respect of Laxman Singh S/o Mattu Singh, Case No.225/80-81/Section 6(2) Ramcharan Singh S/o Laxman, Case No.226/80-81/Section 6(2) Narayan S/o Laxman, Case No.228/80-81/Section 6(2) Darshan Singh S/o Laxman Singh, Case No.229/80-81/Section 6(2) Ghanshyam S/o Laxman Singh. All the cases were taken up collectively because of joint holdings relating to one family and after considering all the aspects of the matter, draft order dated 29-05-1982 (Annexure P/2) was issued which was duly served on Laxman on 02-06- 1982 supposing 8612.40 sq. meters of land in surplus with Laxman Singh and 3556.20 sq. meters each of land in surplus with each of four brothers/petitioners. Objections were filed by them but final order dated 29-04-1983 was passed in the case of Laxman Singh whereby in all 28794.94 land was declared surplus and said order was served over Laxman Singh on 01-06- 1983. In respect of Laxman Singh, notice dated 02-06-1983 under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1976 was issued and published in Government gazette dated 01-07-1983 at page No.1750 even then no objections were filed by the petitioners and thereafter, notice under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 was issued on 18- 07-1983 which was published in Government gazette dated 07- 10-1983 at page No.2731 and thereafter notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was issued on 27-10-1983 which was received by Laxman Singh on 01-11-1983. In spite of that when possession was not given by Laxman Singh then ex-parte possession of the land was taken on 17-01-1984 by Tahsildar Nazool and necessary entry in Khasra was made by order dated 19-01-1984 for the year 1983-84 (Vikram Samvat 2040). Copy of possession receipt dated 17-01-1984 and Khasra entries for the year 1983-84 are submitted with the return and marked as Annexure R/1 and R/2. 18. According to learned counsel for the respondent/State when under provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 surplus land was already vested in State Government and after service of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 when possession was not given by Laxman Singh then ex-parte possession was taken by the competent authority. As per Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999, the land had been vested in the State Government. 19. As per Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999, the land had been vested in the State Government. 19. Not only that after taking over possession of disputed land, for payment of compensation of declared surplus land, proceedings for assessment of compensation under Section 11 of the Act of 1976 were instituted and notice dated 12-06-1985 was sent to Laxman Singh which was duly served on him on 25-06-1985. Thereafter again notice dated 28-12-1991 was sent but the same was refused to receive. Again notice dated 14-07-1992 was issued which was served on 17-07-1992 and amount of Rs.14,397.50 was assessed. Notice dated 12-06-1985, 14-07- 1992 are on record vide Annexure R/3 and R/4 filed with the return. Therefore, according to the respondents, disputed land was already vested with the State Government and all subsequent proceedings held nowhere taken away the possession from the State Government and possession was always with the State Government throughout. Therefore, by the effect of the Repeal Act, 1999 and its provisions, when proceedings under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act of 1976 were complete and possession was taken which is reflected from the Khasra entries then it is clear that petitioners has initiated the proceedings during the pendency of the Act of 1976 as well as thereafter were just a futile attempt to extract some benefit on wrong pretext. 20. It is submitted by learned Government counsel that even after final order dated 29-04-1983 when petitioners and Laxman Sing preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner vide Appeal No.149/1983-84 and vide order dated 10-02-1986 case was remanded even thereafter opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and Laxman Singh and thereafter final order dated 05-01-1990 (Annexure P/3) was passed and 1500 sq. meters of the land treating the land of Ramcharan Singh being major son as his legitimate property, that area of land deducted from the total area and thereafter 27294.94 sq. meters land was declared surplus. Therefore, appellate authority also considered facts and legal position in detail. 21. meters of the land treating the land of Ramcharan Singh being major son as his legitimate property, that area of land deducted from the total area and thereafter 27294.94 sq. meters land was declared surplus. Therefore, appellate authority also considered facts and legal position in detail. 21. Even thereafter, vide order dated 02-02-1990 notification under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1976 was published in Government gazette on 30-03-1990 at page No.346 (Annexure R/5) and notification dated 20-04-1990 under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 which was published in Government gazette on 18-05- 1991 (vide Annexure R/6) and thereafter the land was declared surplus and consequent upon rejection of appeal by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 30-01-1992 (Annexure R/7) a notice dated 17-07-1992 under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was issued to the petitioners and Tahsildar for taking possession and in compliance thereof, possession of surplus land was taken and thereafter necessary entries in Khasra Panchshala was made for the year 1994-95 to 1996-97 (Vide Annexure R/8 and R/9 respectively). Therefore, all surplus land was taken into possession of State Government and proceedings under Section 11 of the Act of 1976 for compensation were also instituted. 22. Since the disputed land is also vested in State Government and possession is also taken as such prior to the Repeal Act, 1999 therefore as per the provisions of the Repeal Act, 1999 no case for interference is made out. 23. Even otherwise as submitted, the present petition is under Article 227 of Constitution of India and scope of petition is very limited. No procedural irregularity, impropriety or jurisdictional error has been made by the competent authority while passing the impugned order. Respondents prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 24. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused documents appended with petition. 25. In the case in hand, it is the submissions of petitioners that with the promulgation of the Repeal Act, 1999 all proceedings relating to land in question pending immediately before the commencement of this Act before revenue authority shall abate. Reliance has been placed over Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. 25. In the case in hand, it is the submissions of petitioners that with the promulgation of the Repeal Act, 1999 all proceedings relating to land in question pending immediately before the commencement of this Act before revenue authority shall abate. Reliance has been placed over Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. On close scrutiny, it appears that proceedings under the Act of 1976 were initiated in 1981 with the issuance of notice under Section 6(2) of the Principal Act and after considering the objections, final order was passed in April, 1983 and 28794.94 sq. land was declared in surplus. The final order dated 29-04-1983 was served on Laxman Singh on 01-06-1983. Thereafter, notice dated 02-06-1983 under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1976 was issued and published in Government gazette dated 01-07-1983 (on page No.1750), when no objections were filed by the petitioners, thereafter notice under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 was issued on 18-07-1983 which was published in Government gazette dated 07-10-1983 (page No.2371) and thereafter notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was issued on 27-10-1983 which was duly received by Laxman Singh on 01-11-1983. 26. Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 mandates the owner or possessor of the property to surrender or deliver possession within 30 days and on his refusal, operation of Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 comes into play whereby competent authority may take possession. Therefore, after receiving notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 by Laxman Singh on dated 01- 11-1983, possession was not handed over by him then ex parte possession of the land was taken on 17-01-1984 by Tahsildar Nazool, meaning thereby possession has been taken after more than 60 days of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976. 27. Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 materially affects the respective rights of the parties and same is reproduced for ready reference: "10(3). 27. Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 materially affects the respective rights of the parties and same is reproduced for ready reference: "10(3). At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified." 28. After publication of notification under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 in official gazette of the State, deemed acquisition and vesting accrue in favour of State and the vesting is free from all encumbrances w.e.f. the date so specified. Here, vesting of land took place on publication in Government gazette dated 07-10- 1983 thereafter, possession was procedural and that too taken by the State Government which is reflected from Kabja receipt dated 17-01-1984 (Annexure R/1). Not only this, Khasra entries were made in the Khasra Panchshala vide Annexure R/2 and according to Section 117 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') all entries made in the land record shall be presumed to be correct until contrary is proved. When a presumption is raised in favour of State Government by operation of Section 117 of the Code, then it was the duty/obligation of the petitioners to rebut it but same has not been done. 29. Not only this, proceedings under Section 11 of the Act of 1976 for payment of compensation for declared surplus land were instituted and notices were sent to Laxman Singh in 1985, thereafter again in 1991 but the same were refused to receive and notice dated 14-07-1992 was issued again which was served on Laxman Singh on 17-07-1992 and an amount of Rs.14,397.50 was assessed. Same is available on record by way of documents in reply filed by the State Government. Therefore, proceedings came to the conclusion; full and final. 30. Same is available on record by way of documents in reply filed by the State Government. Therefore, proceedings came to the conclusion; full and final. 30. Although against the final order dated 29-04-1983 petitioners and Laxman Singh preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner and matter meandered through appeal, then remand, then reconsideration and then grant of rebate of 1500 sq. meters land to Ramcharan Singh being major son of Laxman Singh. Thereafter, again notice dated 10(1) of the Act of 1976 was issued and published in Government gazette dated 30-03-1990 and notice under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 was issued and published in Government gazette dated 18-05- 1991 and thereafter possession of surplus land was taken after following procedure under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 (Vide notice dated 17-07-1992) and thereafter possession of surplus land was taken and Khasra entries made for the year 1994-95 onwards. In sum and substance, proceedings under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 whereby the land vested finally in the State Government and proceedings under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976 were concluded therefore nothing remains to be adjudicated upon and by the effect of Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and proceedings pending before the competent authority after being remanded from High Court (in Miscellaneous Petition No.255/1993), stand abated. Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 are reproduced for ready reference: "3. Saving.- (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 the State Government or any person duly authorised 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. 4. Abatement of legal proceedings.- All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate: Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, 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." 31. Perusal of above provisions, make the factual scenario luculently clear about the rival submissions and it is clear that possession has already been taken by the State Government after land being vested into it by the effect of Sections 10(3) and 10(6) of the Principal Act and Sections 3&4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. All documents are placed by the respondents/State to reach to such conclusion. 32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune Municipal Transport and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 467 held as under: "10. The Scheme of the Act, 1976 provides that the prescribed authority shall make an order declaring the surplus land. The land would be acquired by the State and tenure-holder is entitled to have an amount of compensation. Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act, provides that after acquisition and publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the 1976 Act, "the land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified". 12. The provisions of Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act are analogous to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'the 1894 Act'). 12. The provisions of Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act are analogous to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'the 1894 Act'). Acquisition proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned in exercise of the powers under Section 48 of the 1894 Act or Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 once the possession of the land has been taken. (Vide State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma & Ors., (1966) AIR SC 1593 , LT. Governor of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Avinash Sharma, (1970) AIR SC 1576 , Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 SCC 1 , Mandir Shree Sita Ramji Vs. Collector (L.A.), (2005) AIR SC 3581 , Bangalore Development Authority Vs. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508 and Hari Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 621 ). 13. The meaning of the word 'vesting' has been considered by this Court time and again. In Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union Vs. Delhi Improvement Trust, (1957) AIR SC 344 , this Court held that the meaning of word "vesting" varies as per the context of the statute in which the property vests. While considering the case under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act 1894, the Court held as under:- "19....the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any condition or limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration." (emphasis added). 14. "Encumbrance" actually means the burden caused by an act or omission of man and not that created by nature. It means a burden or charge upon property or a claim or lien on the land. It means a legal liability on property. Thus, it constitutes a burden on the title which diminishes the value of the land. It may be a mortgage or a deed of trust or a lien of an easement. An encumbrance, thus, must be a charge on the property. It must run with the property. (Vide Collector of Bombay Vs. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri, (1955) AIR SC 298 , H.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shiv K. Sharma, (2005) AIR SC 954 , and AI Champdany Industries Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator, (2009) 4 SCC 486 ). 16. Thus, "free from encumbrances" means vesting of land in the State without any charge or burden in it. (Vide Collector of Bombay Vs. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri, (1955) AIR SC 298 , H.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shiv K. Sharma, (2005) AIR SC 954 , and AI Champdany Industries Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator, (2009) 4 SCC 486 ). 16. Thus, "free from encumbrances" means vesting of land in the State without any charge or burden in it. Thus, State has absolute title/ownership over it. 22. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that once the land is acquired, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the landowner how his land is used and whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to get compensation only for the same. The person interested cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any ground, whatsoever." 33. The decision in Sulochana Chandrakant Galande (supra) was later followed in Omprakash and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 13 SCC 158 wherein it is held that: "53. Once vesting takes place under Section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act, the State has absolute title and ownership over it. The owner has no further say in respect of the land that has vested in the State....." 34. Later on, Apex Court reiterated the said principle in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Adarsh Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited, (2016) 12 SCC 493 as well in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Surendra Pratap and others, (2016) 12 SCC 497 . Therefore, reliance placed by the petitioners of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sohan Singh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2008) 3 MPJR 42 as well as Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Bhadoria Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2015 RN 120 are of no help to the petitioners because of factual asymmetry and difference of factual contours. In the present case vesting had been made absolute and possession had been taken. 35. So far as other grounds mainly promulgation of Principal Act vis-a-vis master plan is concerned, same is answered by the Apex Court in the matter of State of A.P. and another Vs. In the present case vesting had been made absolute and possession had been taken. 35. So far as other grounds mainly promulgation of Principal Act vis-a-vis master plan is concerned, same is answered by the Apex Court in the matter of State of A.P. and another Vs. N. Audikesva Reddy and others, (2002) 1 SCC 227 but since the said point is not germane for conclusion of the controversy, therefore, it is not discussed in detail but on this point also petitioners have no legal foundation to stand. 36. In the considered opinion of this Court, petitioners could not make out their case when the possession had been taken way back in 1984 and thereafter in 1992 regarding surplus land; then petitioners had no occasion to file the petition in 2005 almost 5 years after the ratification of State legislature on 17-02-2000 of the Repeal Act. After Repeal Act, 1999 being notified by the State legislature on 17-02-2000, petition has been filed on 10- 01-2005 after delay of 5 years and interestingly after matter being remanded back by this Court in December, 1995 no action had been taken by the petitioners to press the proceedings before the competent authority. 37. Petitioners nowhere pleaded that possession has been taken back by them after the remand and no Rejoinder to this effect has been filed by them to rebut the claim of the respondents/State about vesting of the land and taking of possession which has been pleaded specifically by State Government in their return so filed. In absence of any such pleadings in the petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, it is conclusively established that possession was with the State Government when the Repeal Act, 1999 was passed and duly ratified by the State Government. 38. One PUD dated 02-09-1999 is also attached in the file by way of letter sent by one Dharmveer, resident of Mahu District Gwalior and addressed to Principal Registrar of this Court in which it has been averred that Government land (land in question) has been tried to be encroached by some encroachers and no action has been taken by the police against them. It is further averred in the letter that some miscreants have sold this Government land to different persons. It is further averred in the letter that some miscreants have sold this Government land to different persons. Although this fact has no material bearing in this case and this Court has not based its conclusion upon such PUD but it certainly reflects the state of affairs. 39. In the considered opinion of this Court, after deep slumber petitioners (or on their behalf some vested interests) tried to take a chance and make an attempt to reclaim the Government land but failed on facts and law both. 40. Resultantly, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. No costs.