By the Court.—Heard Sri Madhu Sudan Dixit, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Prashant Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution, petitioners are seeking relief for issue of writ of mandamus directing respondents not to interfere with their possession in pursuance of ceiling proceedings that had taken place in respect of land in question.

3. Petitioner’s claim that inspite of land being declared ‘surplus’ under U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1976”) actual physical possession thereof was not taken and in the meantime U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Repeal Act, 1999”) intervened abating all ceiling proceedings. Thus petitioners claim benefit of Repeal Act, 1999.

4. The case set up by the petitioners in the writ petition is that proceedings under Act, 1976 were initiated and tenure-holder Natthu, father of petitioners filed return under Section 6 (1) of Act, 1976. Aforesaid proceedings culminate