Unwithdrawn urban land exemption survives repeal, blocking reliance on old ceiling restrictions to deny land-use permission.

An exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 that was not withdrawn before the Repeal Act, 1999 took effect in Andhra Pradesh remained preserved by the saving provision, and the State could not rely on the repealed ceiling restrictions to refuse a no-objection certificate for change of land use. Because no withdrawal order had been passed and possession had not been taken, the land was not treated as having vested in the Government, and the old Chapter III conditions could not be enforced to deny permission. The refusal of the request for change of land use was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether land exempted under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 continued to remain exempt and outside the operation of the Act after the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into force, so as to entitle the petitioner to a no-objection certificate for change of land use.

Analysis: The exemption granted under Section 20(1)(a) of the 1976 Act remained in force and had not been withdrawn under Section 20(2) before the repeal took effect in Andhra Pradesh. The saving provisions in Section 3 of the Repeal Act preserved exemption orders, but the repeal did not revive the unwithdrawn ceiling restrictions or enable the State to insist upon compliance with Chapter III conditions as a basis for refusing permission. Since no order withdrawing the exemption had been passed before the repeal, and possession of the land had not been taken by the State, the land could not be treated as having vested in the Government so as to justify refusal of NOC on the footing that the exemption conditions survived as enforceable restrictions. The earlier coordinate Bench view on the effect of repeal on unwithdrawn exemptions supported this conclusion.

Conclusion: The rejection of the request for change of land use was unsustainable. The impugned proceedings were set aside and the authority was directed to reconsider the request for grant of NOC afresh in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: An exemption granted under Section 20(1)(a) that was not withdrawn before repeal could not be treated as defeated by post-repeal insistence on the old ceiling restrictions, where possession had not been taken by the State.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption under Section 20(1) of the ceiling law is not withdrawn before the repeal comes into force and possession of the land has not been taken by the State, the land is not treated as continuing to be governed by the repealed ceiling restrictions for the purpose of refusing subsequent permission or NOC.

---