ORDER :

1. Applications for substitution of State of Jharkhand in place of State of Bihar are allowed.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In these appeals which relate to the interpretation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the admitted position is that possession of the surplus land belonging to the appellant has not been taken by the respondent – State of Jharkhand.

4. There are several decisions of this Court which make it clear that in case possession of the surplus land is not taken, the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) would abate. We may refer to Ritesh Tewari and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2010) 10 SCC 677], Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar Vs. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Others [(2012) 4 SCC 718] and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280].

5. In view of these decisions, there is no doubt that the proceedings initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the Act stand abated.

6. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submits that there were no proceedings pending before the Repeal Act was adopted by a