Eventhough it is contended by the Learned counsel for the appellants that when the land owner himself had declared that there was excess vacant land and available it would not be open to his legal heirs to challenge the land ceiling proceedings. We are unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Even assuming the land owner had admitted that there was an excess vacant land and had filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the principal Act (Act of 21 of 1978), as long as physical possession had not been taken over by the State, in furtherance to proceedings initiated under Section 9, 10 and 11, it is not open to the State to contend that they would continue to have the power and exercise the available rights under the repealed Act (Act 21 of 1978). As long as the proceedings were not concluded, with the coming into force of Act 20 of 1999, repealing the principal Act (Act 21 of 1978), all such proceedings abate when it is shown that physical possession continued to remain with the land owners and had not been taken over by the State authorities. Therefore, the petitioners, as legal heirs of the deceased original land owner, were certainly well within their right to maintain the writ petition and seek for the relief as the proceedings had abated and no further steps could be taken or continued by the appellants.
