JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for a mandate to the respondents not to dispossess him from the disputed land and to abate all proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. 3. Proceedings under the Ceiling Act were initiated against the father of the petitioner for lands situated in village Katka, Tehsil Phulpur district Allahabad, but before possession could be taken, he died and no proceedings under Section 10 (5) or under Section 10(6) was taken, but despite that the respondents are trying to take possession over the disputed land allegedly on the ground that it has been declared surplus. 4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that after the enforcement of the Repeal Act w.e.f. 18th March 1999, all proceedings would abate except those where possession has been taken. 5. There is specific allegation in the writ petition that proceedings either under Section 10(5) or under Section 10(6) of the Act was never taken. In the counter affidavit this specific allegation has not been denied and it is stated that notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued. From the record it appears that the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued against a dead person as the father of the petitioner had already died prior to 26th September 1996. Thus, in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram & others [2005 (60) ALR 535], all proceedings would abate. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land and the revenue record be corrected accordingly.