JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Jyoti Prakash for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 26.12.2015 passed in the proceeding under Section 27 (4) of UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. It has been stated by the petitioners that they were grated patta of plot no. 30 by the Sub Divisional Officer on 14.9.2005 and on the basis of allotment, their names were mutated in the revenue records. The land in dispute was declared as surplus with Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, respondent-3 in the proceeding under the Act by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) by order dated 25.7.2005. Thereafter proceeding for cancellation of patta (registered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 2007-08) under Section 27 (4) of the Act was started on the complaint of Ramesh Chandra Tiwari in which the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner cancelling the patta of the petitioners. The Additional Commissioner found that the order of Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) dated 25.7.2005 was challenged in Appeal. The Appeal was dismissed on 28.9.2005 thereafter writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 57 (Ceiling) 2005 was filed in which the High Court had granted interim order dated 7.10.2005. Thus allotment of land to the petitioners on 14.9.2005 was illegal and was liable to be set aside. On this finding the patta of the petitioners has been cancelled. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the records. 5. Admittedly, the surplus land was declared by the order dated 25.7.2005 and patta was granted to the petitioners on 14.9.2005. In the meantime Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, respondent-3 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was dismissed by the order dated 28.9.2005. Thus the orders were challenged by Ramesh Chandra Tiwari in writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 57 (Ceiling) 2005 in which interim order has been granted by this Court on 7.10.2005 which is still continuing. According to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, possession over the surplus land cannot be taken during pendency of the appeal. Thus the State Government has not taken possession according to the procedure established under the law. Mere declaration of surplus land is not sufficient to grant patta to the petitioners. According to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, possession over the surplus land cannot be taken during pendency of the appeal. Thus the State Government has not taken possession according to the procedure established under the law. Mere declaration of surplus land is not sufficient to grant patta to the petitioners. So long as the Collector is not taking possession over the surplus land, it is not vested in State of UP under the provisions of the Act. Thus allotment made to the petitioner on 14.9.2005 during pendency of the appeal without taking possession over the surplus land according to the procedure prescribed under the law, was illegal and had rightly been cancelled by the Additional Commissioner. 6. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.