5. However, even after the dismissal of the appeal and ceiling proceedings have become final, the question remains as to whether actual physical possession of the land was taken from the petitioner's father or from the petitioners or not. In the record as we do not find any notice ever issued either under Section 10(5) or 10(6) of the Ceiling Act, 1976, we further notice that even the Ceiling Land Record Register does not contain any details about any such notice ever issued to the petitioners or their father. We have already noticed that possession memo is not available in the record so as to come to the conclusion that any such exercise was ever undertaken by the Ceiling Authority to take actual physical possession of the land in question. In the absence of any notice under Section 10(5), it cannot be presumed that land holder was asked to voluntarily surrender possession on account of land being declared as surplus in the ceiling proceedings and so the question of forceful possession does not arise and that too in absence of any notice under Section 10(6) and execution of possession memo. So now it can be very safely presumed that there was no delivery of possession to wit de facto possession in favour of the Ceiling Authorities. Thus, in the above backdrop of facts the argument to the effect that petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999, holds merit. In the case of State Vs. Hari Ram, 2013 (4) SCC 280 vide paragraph Nos.33-39, it has been held thus:-
