Pankaj Naqvi, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being finally decided. Learned counsel has also produced the original records in pursuance of earlier order passed in the writ petition. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take possession from the petitioner in pursuance of G.O. dated 8.5.2009; ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to abate the proceeding in case no.55/1976 (State v. Mahaveer) in respect of plot no.125, area 10 Biswa under Repeal Act, 1999; iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to correct the Revenue Records in the name of the petitioner of the land in question; iv) to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of writ as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper; and v) to award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. The proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were initiated. The petitioner filed his return under Section 6 (1) of the Act, on which Case No.55 of 1976 (State v. Mahaveer) was registered. The order under Section 8 (4) of the Act was passed on 20.3.1980 declaring 8490.89 sq. mts. land, as surplus. A notice dated 12.1.1998 under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued to the petitioner stating that the land of four plots having an area 8490.89 sq. mts. has vested in the State and the possession be handed over within thirty days. The petitioner's ground in the writ petition is that no notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was served on him, nor the possession was ever taken by the State. It is stated that the petitioner has never surrendered his land in favour of the State. The petitioner's ground in the writ petition is that no notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was served on him, nor the possession was ever taken by the State. It is stated that the petitioner has never surrendered his land in favour of the State. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short the ' Repeal Act'), the possession having not been taken, the petitioner is entitled to be continued with the possession of land and the revenue records be directed to be corrected, since his name was expunged from there. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in which it is pleaded that under Section 10 (5) of the Act a notice was issued on 12.1.1998 for taking possession. However, there is no averment in the counter affidavit as regards service of notice or that any proceedings under Section 10 (6) of the Act was undertaken. Learned standing counsel has produced the original record before us, which contains the copy of the notice dated 12.1.1998 under Section 10 (5) of the Act. However, neither there is any material to indicate that the said notice was served upon the petitioner, nor any material to indicate that the possession was handed over to the State by the petitioner, or any proceedings under Section 10 (6) of the Act were undertaken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and others, 2012 (2) AWC 2123 (SC) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chandrma v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (5) ADJ 638 (DB). In Chandrma (supra) this Court has laid down that there being no proof of taking of physical possession of the surplus land in accordance with the procedure prescribed, the petitioner was entitled for issue of a writ of mandamus. It is useful to quote paragraphs 13 to 16 as under: - "13. In this case as found above from the pleadings there is no assertion by the State, that the possession was actually handed over by petitioner's grand father in pursuance to the notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act, or that any proceedings were taken under Section 10 (6) of the Act for taking over possession. In this case as found above from the pleadings there is no assertion by the State, that the possession was actually handed over by petitioner's grand father in pursuance to the notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act, or that any proceedings were taken under Section 10 (6) of the Act for taking over possession. There are no pleadings of service of the notice under Section 10 (5) and preparation of Dakhalnama (possession memo) and the entries in Form No. C.L.C. III (Register for land of which possession has been taken under Section 10 (5) or 10 (6)), in proof of taking over physical possession of the surplus land. 14. In absence of any pleadings or assertion by the State that the possession of the land was given in response to Section 10 (5) of the Act, or that proceedings under Section 10 (6) was taken and any Dakhalnama (possession memo) was prepared and entries were made in Form No. U.L.C. III, we find that the petitioner is still in possession of the land. 15. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that on the enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the proceedings undertaken under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of declaration of surplus land in the hands of petitioner's grand father of which a share has been inherited by the petitioner, through his father, have abated under the Repeal Act, 1999. 16. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents not to take possession of the disputed land in respect of surplus land in Case No. K-255/1976 (State vs. Nankoo). The revenue record will be corrected accordingly treating the proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 initiated against late Shri Nankoo son of Tejai, to have abated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999." In the present case, there is no material to prove that the actual physical possession was taken by the State in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, the petitioner is clearly entitled for the reliefs prayed in the writ petition. We further direct respondent no.1 to correct the revenue record, accordingly. The writ petition is allowed. _____________