As per case facts, the petitioners sought a mandamus declaring urban land ceiling proceedings against them abated under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. They asserted continued ... physical possession of the land, non-receipt of compensation, and the State's failure to establish actual or forcible possession as required by the principal Act. The State contended that due process was followed, possession was taken before the Repeal Act, and the land was subsequently transferred to the Development Authority. The question arose as to whether the ceiling proceedings against the petitioners stood abated under the Repeal Act, given the dispute over the State's claim of having taken actual physical possession of the land. Finally, the court reiterated that mere vesting of land under the principal Act does not confer de facto possession unless there was voluntary surrender or forcible dispossession explicitly as per sections of the principal Act. Since the State failed to establish that actual physical possession was taken from the petitioners, or that the possession memo bore signatures of the tenure holder or witnesses, the court held that the entire ceiling proceedings stood abated, entitling the petitioners to the benefit of the Repeal Act.