ORDER : 1. Applications for substitution of State of Jharkhand in place of State of Bihar are allowed. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In these appeals which relate to the interpretation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the admitted position is that possession of the surplus land belonging to the appellant has not been taken by the respondent – State of Jharkhand. 4. There are several decisions of this Court which make it clear that in case possession of the surplus land is not taken, the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) would abate. We may refer to Ritesh Tewari and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ (2010) 10 SCC 677 ], Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar Vs. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Others [ (2012) 4 SCC 718 ] and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram [ (2013) 4 SCC 280 ]. 5. In view of these decisions, there is no doubt that the proceedings initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the Act stand abated. 6. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submits that there were no proceedings pending before the Repeal Act was adopted by a Resolution of the State Assembly on 24th January, 2011. 7. On a reading of the decision rendered by the High Court, it is clear that the respondent – State of Jharkhand was required to take proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, but those proceedings were never concluded and are still pending today. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act could not be concluded in view of the interim order passed by this Court. We have seen the interim order passed by this Court on 09.08.2004 and that order relates only to maintaining status quo with regard to possession of the surplus land. There was no prohibition on the State of Jharkhand from continuing the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. It is, therefore, not correct to say that nothing was pending before the State of Jharkhand when the Repeal Act came into force. 8. In view of the several decisions rendered by this Court, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and hold that the proceedings pending against the appellant under the Act stand abated. 9. It is, therefore, not correct to say that nothing was pending before the State of Jharkhand when the Repeal Act came into force. 8. In view of the several decisions rendered by this Court, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and hold that the proceedings pending against the appellant under the Act stand abated. 9. The appeals are disposed of. 10. Application for Intervention is dismissed. 11. Other pending applications are disposed of.