Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.- Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel. The petitioners have sought a mandate to the Revenue Authorities to delete the name of the State in the revenue record with regard to the disputed land and record the name of the petitioners as the rightful owners in view of the fact that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has since been repealed w.e.f. 18.3.1999 in view of Act No. 15 of 1999. The petitioners claim to be the owner in possession of Gata No. 107-A and 107-B i.e. measuring about 2 bigha and 17 biswa situated in village Dahtura, Tehsil Sadar, Agra which fell within the Nagar Nigam. Proceedings under U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were initiated and 359.637 square meter land was declared surplus and though notification under Section 10(3) was issued in 1993, no proceedings under Section 10(5) or 10(6) were completed and the actual physical possession remained with the petitioners. It is also stated that in view of repealed Act, as the physical possession had not been taken under Section 10(5) or 10(6), the ceiling proceedings had abated and the land stood restored to the petitioner but yet the Revenue Authorities are not entering his name. In the counter affidavit though it is stated that a notification under Section 10(5) was issued, however, neither the date of possession has been disclosed nor any possession memo appears to have been executed. There is nothing on record to show that the possession even under Section 10(6) was ever taken. The petitioners have annexed a copy of the reply under the Right to Information Act dated 26.11.2009 issued by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Agra showing that the actual physical possession remains with the petitioners and in fact no legal possession memo was ever executed with regard to the disputed land. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioners are still in possession of the disputed land. The Repeal Act of 1999 envisages that all action, subject to the provision made in that Act itself, shall abate. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioners are still in possession of the disputed land. The Repeal Act of 1999 envisages that all action, subject to the provision made in that Act itself, shall abate. It is provided under Section 3 that even if a notification under Section 10(3) has been issued vesting the vacant land in the State Government and also compensation has been paid, but if the possession has not been taken, the land would be restored to the land holder, however, subject to return of the compensation if received. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that compensation has been paid and they have miserably failed that the possession was ever taken in accordance to the provision of the repealed Act. For the reasons above, this petition stands allowed and the Authorities are directed to delete the name of the State from the revenue record and record the name of the owner of the disputed land in accordance to law, if possible, within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.