Mr.Chandrasekar v. The Principal Commissionerand Commissioner of LandReforms & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 23-01-2009Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDRENW.P.No.8284 of 20031.Mr.Chandrasekar2.Sri Annamalai3.Smt.Valliammal4.Sri Sathyanarayana.. Petitioners.Versus1.The Principal Commissionerand Commissioner of LandReforms, Chepauk, Chennai-5.2.The Assistant Commissioner,Competent Authority,Urban Land Ceiling,No.5, Sannadhi Street,2nd Floor, Poonamallee,Chennai-600 056... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records of the respondents, especially the proceedingsof the second respondent in his proceedings, dated 20.10.1994, inNa.Ka.762/92 S.R, 28.2.1995 vide ref.D/134/95 (Case No.D/Rc.134/95)and 15.10.1997 in respect of land in S.No.82/3 of Noombal villagemeasuring an extent of 10,350 Sq.Mts. And quash the same in terms ofSection 4 of Act 20 of 1999. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar Government Advocate O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and thelearned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioners are the owners or theerstwhile owners of the property, which is the subject matter of thewrit petition. It has been stated that one Egathammal was the owner of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the property, which was bearing S.No.49/11 and 49/14, corresponding toS.No.82/3 of Vellappan Savadi Village, measuring a total extent of1.56 acres. She had obtained the property by means of a sale deed,dated 10.3.1959, vide Document No.713/1959. The said property had beenpurchased pursuant to a Court decree, in O.S.No.8 of 1955. By virtueof another sale deed, dated 14.9.56, Egathammal had purchased anadditional extent of 99 cents of agricultural land, in S.No.49/3 and49/4, corresponding to S.No.82/3. The total holding of Egathammal wasabout 2.55 acres. Egathammal had settled her property in favour ofSagunthala, Krishnamoorthy and Kanniyappan, by way of a sale deed,dated 5.9.85. An extent of about 50 cents of agricultural land inS.No.49/14, had been settled in favour of Sagunthala and an extent ofabout 42 cents in S.No.49/3 and an extent of 57 cents in S.No.49/4,had been settled in favour of Krishnamoorthy. Similarly, an extent of87 cents in S.No.49/11 and an extent of 19 cents in S.No.49/14, hadbeen settled in favour of Kanniyappa Naicker, father of the firstpetitioner herein. Thus, the entire extent of 2.55 acres of land hadbeen settled by Egathammal in favour of three different persons. 3. It has been further stated that Krishnamoorthy had sold theland in S.No.49/4, measuring an extent of 42 cents, by a registeredsale deed, dated 20.1.1996, vide Document No.1795/1997, to the thirdpetitioner. Similarly, an extent of 47 cents of S.No.49/3 had beensold to the second petitioner, by a sale deed, dated 20.2.96, videDocument No.1796/1997. The second and third petitioners had in turnsold the land purchased by them, by way of five sale deeds, dated9.4.2001, to six different persons. The second and the thirdpetitioners, while selling the land in question, have undertaken toclear the defects, if any, in the title conveyed to third parties.4. Similarly, Sagunthala, by a sale deed, dated 4.9.96, videDocument No.1797/1997, had sold 50 cents, in S.No.49/14A toSathyanarayana and two others. What was sold, during the year, 1996,are only agricultural lands and none of them had converted the landsfor any non-agricultural purposes. While the matter stood thus,proceedings had been initiated by the respondents in the name ofEgathammal, without reference to the settlement deed, executed by herin the year, 1985 and sale deeds had been executed thereafter. Byvirtue of the settlement deed Sagunthala, Krishnamoorthy andKanniyappan became the absolute owners of the property. The land waspurely agricultural in character and it was in the possession andenjoyment of Egathammal. Thereafter, it was in the hands of thesettlees. The settlement deed had been acted upon, as the settleeswere dealing with the properties in their own right. By virtue of theproceedings under the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) the AssistantCommissioner/Competent Authority, by an order, dated 20.10.94, haddeclared an extent of about 9850 Sq.Mts, as excess vacant land, inS.No.82/3, after allowing an extent of about 500 Sq.Mts. towards thefamily entitlement of Egathammal. The said order was followed by a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ final statement, under Section 10(1) and a notice, under Section 11(5), dated 15.10.97. The first petitioner and the other settlees hadquestioned the acquisition before the first respondent, by way of anappeal filed, on 26.12.97, under Section 33 of the Act. No orders hadbeen passed in the appeal until the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Repeal Act, 1999, had come into force, with effect from16.6.99. 5. It has been further stated that the erstwhile land owners hadquestioned the acquisition proceedings, mainly on the ground thatEgathammal was not the owner of the property and that, by virtue ofthe settlement deed, which had been acted upon, they had become theabsolute owners of the property. Further, the land sought to beacquired by the respondents is an agricultural land and therefore, theprovisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, would not be applicable to the said land. Even before theappeal, filed by the petitioners before the first respondent, had beendecided, Act 24 of 1978, had been repealed, with effect from 16.6.99,by Act 20 of 1999. Thus, the acquisition proceedings, which werepending, had abated, in accordance with Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999. 6. It has been stated that the land in S.Nos.49/11 and 49/14etc., corresponding to S.No.82/3, is the subject matter of thesettlement deed executed by Egathammal of Noombal Village. Pursuant tothe settlement deed, the beneficiaries of the settlement deed are inpossession and enjoyment of the land. Thus, the land had never vestedwith the respondents. None of the notices, contemplated under thevarious provisions of Act 24 of 1978, were served on the petitionersor on the previous land owners of the settlees. Therefore, neither thepetitioners nor the settlees could object to the same. In fact, thenotice, under Section 11(5) of the Act, had not been served even onEgathammal. The said notice had been served only by affixture.Affixture is not the proper mode of service, under Rule 8 of theTamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978. Accordingto the said Rule, all notices shall be served on the land owner or theoccupier of the land by registered post, with acknowledgment due. Whenthe notices had not been served on the land owners, it shall beconstrued as though the land had never vested with the Government andthat the land had continued to be in the possession of its owners oroccupiers. If the possession of the land was with its owners, theacquisition proceedings shall abate, under Section 4 of Act 20 of1999. Since the appeal filed by the petitioners, under Section 33 ofAct 24 of 1978, was pending at the time when the Repeal Act, Act 20 of1999, had come into force, the acquisition proceedings, with regard tothe land in question, had abated. 7. It has been further stated that unless actual physicalpossession had been taken by the respondents, the mere recording thatpossession had been taken, cannot take away the rights of thepetitioners in the land sought to be acquired by the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Unless the respondents had acquired the land in question, inaccordance with the procedures established by law, the acquisitionproceedings initiated by the respondents would be infringing Article300-A of the Constitution of India.8. It has been further stated that Section 11(5) of the Actcontemplates issuance of notice for the voluntary surrender of theland. If the land owner or the person in possession of the land failsto surrender the same, the respondents would invoke the powerconferred on them, under Section 11(6) of the Act, to take possessionof the land by use of force. The petitioners had not been served withany notice, under Section 11(5). No proceedings had been drawn up,under Section 11(6) of the Act. Thus, the possession of the land inquestion continued to be with the petitioners till the date of thecoming into force of Act 20 of 1999 and even thereafter. 9. It has been further stated that the notice, under Section 11(5) of the Act, appears to have been served, on 28.10.97, byaffixture, and the appeal had been filed by the petitioners, underSection 33 of Act 24 of 1978, on 26.12.97. The delay in filing theappeal had been condoned by the first respondent. Since the appeal waspending before the first respondent at the time when Act 20 of 1999had come into force, the land acquisition proceedings, initiated bythe respondents, had abated, in terms of Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999.In such circumstances, the petitioners have been constrained to filethe present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents,the averments made by the petitioners have been denied. It has beenstated that one Egathammal of Noombal Village was the owner of theUrban Land in Survey No.82/3, measuring an extent of 10,350 Sq.Mts. ofNoombal Village, as per the revenue records. She had not filed thestatement, under Section 7(1) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act, 1978. Therefore, a notice, under Section 7(2) hadbeen issued, on 1.12.98. The notice had been received by her son, on23.2.93. Since no objections were received, a notice, under Section 9(4), along with the draft statement, under Section 9(1) of the Act,had been sent, in S.R.No.762/92, dated 4.4.94, calling for objections,if any, for the proposed acquisition of the excess vacant land,measuring an extent of 9850 Sq.Mts., in S.No.82/3 of Noombal Village,after allowing an extent of 500 Sq.Mts. towards family entitlement. Itwas served on her grand son, on 12.5.94. The urban land owner has notfiled any objections. Hence, orders were passed in S.R.No.762/92,dated 20.10.94, to acquire the excess vacant land, measuring an extentof 9850 Sq.mts. in Survey No.82/3A of Noombal Village, under Section 9(5) of the Act. The said order had been served on Egathammal ofNoombal Village. The final statement, under Section 10(1) had beenissued, on 28.2.95 and it was served on her son, on 9.5.95. Thenotification, under Section 11(1), had been published in the Tamilnadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Gazette, dated 25.10.95, and the notification, underSection 11(3), vesting the excess vacant land in the Government, waspublished in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, on 7.2.96. 11. It has been further stated that the notice, under Section 11(5) had been been issued, in Rc.134/95(D), dated 15.10.97, requestingEgathammal to hand over possession of the excess vacant land. Sinceshe had refused to receive the said notice, it was served byaffixture, on 28.10.97. The possession of the excess vacant land hadbeen taken over, on 8.6.99. The petitioners had filed an appeal beforethe first respondent, under Section 33 of the Act, on 24.12.97.Meanwhile, the Act had been repealed, on 16.6.99. The secondrespondent, in his letter No.J1/34347/97, dated 22.1.2000, hadinstructed to proceed further, since Symbolic possession had beentaken prior to the introduction of the Repeal Act. Hence, thepossession of the excess vacant land was handed over to the revenueauthorities, on 9.1.2003, after making necessary changes in thevillage accounts, on 16.5.2002. 12. It has been further stated that acquisition proceedings hadbeen initiated against Egathammal for the excess vacant land held byher. A notice, under Section 7(2) had been issued, on 1.12.92 and itwas served on her son, on 23.3.93. Since no objections had beenreceived from her, a notice, under Section 9(4), along with a draftstatement, under Section 9(1), had been issued, on 4.4.94. The saidnotice had been served on Egathammal, on 12.5.94. Thereafter, anorder, under Section 9(5) had been passed, on 20.10.94, and it hadbeen served on her. The Urban Land owner had not filed her objections,even after the receipt of the above notices and the subsequent order.The settlement said to have been made in the year, 1985, cannot beconsidered to be valid, in view of Section 6 of the Act. It has beenfurther stated that the contention of the petitioners, that they arein possession and enjoyment of the land in question, cannot beaccepted. After the publication of the notification, under Section 11(3) of the Act, the land shall be deemed to have vested, absolutely,in the Government, free from all encumbrances, with effect from thedate specified in the notification. The notification, under Section 11(3) of the Act, had been published in the Tamilnadu GovernmentGazette, dated 25.10.95, and the land stood vested in the Government,with effect from 1.2.96. The possession of the acquired land was takenover, on 8.6.99. Thereafter, both Egathammal and the others claimingthrough her cannot have any right in the land in question. Hence, thewrit petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. The main contentions raised by the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioners are that actual physical possession of the land inquestion had not been taken by the respondents, as per the provisionsof Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Further,no compensation had been paid to the petitioners by the respondents.The land in question is an agricultural land and it does not come https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under the category of Urban Land. Therefore, the question of acquiringthe said land, by invoking the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, does not arise. Even though theland in question had been settled by Egathammal to various persons, byway of a settlement deed, dated 5.9.85, the land acquisitionproceedings had commenced only in the year, 1995. The notice regardingthe acquisition proceedings had been served on Egathammal, her husbandand her son. The order, under Section 9(5) of the Act, dated 20.10.94,had been issued in a printed form. Thus, it shows the non-applicationof mind by the competent authority. Even if no reply was received fromthe land owner a second opportunity ought to have been provided to theland owner to put forth her case. The notice issued, under Section 9(4) of the Act, along with the draft statement and the order, underSection 9(5), are important stages of the acquisition proceedings.Unless the procedures contemplated under the said provisions had beenstrictly followed, the land acquisition proceedings cannot be held tobe valid. Even though the respondents had claimed that the necessarynotices had been served on Egathammal, her husband and her son, thereis nothing shown by the respondents as to why only 500 Sq.mts. havebeen exempted from the acquisition proceedings as their entitlement,in stead of 1500 Sq.Mts., as provided, under Section 5 of theTamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, read withClause (f) of Section 3 of the Act. Further, according to Section 11(5) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, anotice, in writing, should have been issued to the person inpossession of the land, asking him or her to surrender or deliverpossession thereof, to the State Government or to any person dulyauthorised by the State Government, within 30 days of the service ofthe notice. Thereafter, if any person refuses or fails to comply withan order made, under Sub-section 5 of Section 11, the competentauthority could take possession of the vacant land or cause it to begiven to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by theState Government, by use of such force, as may be necessary. In fact,none of the procedures contemplated by the Act had been followed bythe respondents.14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionershad pointed out, from the original records produced before this Court,that the notice, under Section 7(2) of the Act, addressed toEgathammal, had been served on one Alagiri and there is nothing toshow as to who Alagiri was. In the draft statement, under Section 9(1)of the Act, Egathammal's address is not given. The notice, underSection 9(4) of the Act, dated 4.4.94, had been served on the grandsonof Egathammal. The original Section 9(5) order is in a printed formshowing non-application of mind by the authority concerned. From theadangal extract for fasli 1403, for the years 1993-1994, ending on30.6.94, the land is shown to be fallow. The final statement preparedby the competent authority, under Section 10(1) of the Act, is shownto have been served on Kanniyappan, Son of Egathammal, clearly showingthe existence of another member of the family. However, only an extent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of 500 Sq.mts. has been allowed towards the family entitlement ofEgathammal, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. It hasbeen pointed out from the original records produced on behalf of therespondents that Section 11(5) notice was refused and therefore, itwas served by affixture. However, it does not say as to who hadrefused to receive the said notice. The learned counsel for thepetitioners had also submitted that the proceedings, under Section 6stops with the issuing of Section 11(1) notice. Thereafter, Section 11(5) notice should be served on the land owner.15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionershad submitted that an appeal had been filed by the petitioners in theyear, 1997, before the Commissioner of Land Reforms. All the recordsrelating to the land acquisition proceedings were with theCommissioner of land Reforms, from the time of the filing of theappeal, till 16.6.1999, when the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act, 1978, had been repealed by Act 20 of 1999. From theofficial communication, dated 17.8.2000, with referenceNo.Na.Ka.134/95/C, sent to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner,Land Reforms, Chennai, it is found that the possession of the land inquestion had not been handed over to the Revenue Department. Eventhough it has been recorded in the land delivery receipt, dated8.6.99, that symbolic possession of the land had been taken over, on8.6.99, independent witnesses have not attested the land deliveryreceipt, dated 8.6.99, as required. From the land delivery receiptsRc.No.134/95 8A No.1642/1, it has been shown that changes have beenmade in the village accounts, on 6.5.2002. However, it has been signedonly on 9.1.2003, as if the land has been taken over by the RevenueInspector, Maduravoyal Firka, Ambattur Taluk, Tirvallur District. 16. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioners that, with regard to the same acquisitionproceedings in respect of the adjacent lands, this Court, by an order,dated 21.7.2006, made in W.P.No.20699 of 2004 (batch), the landacquisition proceedings had been quashed and the said order has becomefinal, since no appeal had been filed by the respondents therein. 17. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted that the acquisition proceedings, initiated in respectof the urban land in question, was in accordance with law. All theprocedures contemplated by the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been followed by theauthorities concerned. The land sought to be acquired by therespondents was in the name of Egathammal of Noombal Village. Theurban land in Survey No.82/3, measuring an extent of 10,350 Sq.Mts.was in the name of Egathammal of Noombal village, as per the revenuerecords. Therefore, since she had not filed the statement, underSection 7(1) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1978, a notice, under Section 7(2) had been issued to her, on1.12.98. The notice had been received by her son, on 23.2.93. Since no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ objections were received, a notice , under Section 9(4), along withthe draft statement, under Section 9(1) of the Act, had been sent, inS.R.No.762/92, dated 4.4.94, calling for objections, if any, for theproposed acquisition of the excess vacant land, after allowing anextent of 500 Sq.Mts. towards family entitlement. It was served onher grand son, on 12.5.94. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents had further submittedthat in spite of the necessary notices having been served the urbanland owner had not filed any objection. Therefore, an order, underSection 9(5) of the Act was passed, in S.R.No.762/92, dated 20.10.94,to acquire the excess vacant land, measuring 9850 Sq.Mts.,in SurveyNo.82/3A of Noombal Village. After the said orders had been served onEgathammal, the final statement, under Section 10(1) had been issued,on 28.2.95, and it was served on her son, on 9.5.95. The notification,under Section 11(1) had been published in the Tamilnadu GovernmentGazette, dated 25.10.95, and the notification, under 11(3) of the Act,vesting the excess vacant land in the Government, had been publishedin the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, on 7.2.96. The notice, underSection 11(5) had been issued, in Rc.134/95(D), dated 15.10.97,requesting the urban land owner to hand over the possession of theexcess vacant land. She had refused to receive the said notice andtherefore, it was served by affixture, on 28.10.97. The possession ofthe excess vacant land had been taken over, on 8.6.99. After necessarychanges had been made in the village accounts ,on 16.5.2002, thepossession of the excess vacant land had been handed over to therevenue authorities, on 9.1.2003. In such circumstances, the writpetition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 19. The averments made on behalf of the petitioners, in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition and the averments made onbehalf of the respondents, in the counter affidavit filed on theirbehalf and the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearingfor the parties concerned have been carefully considered. The originalrecords produced before this Court by the learned Government Advocate,appearing on behalf of the respondents, have been perused. 20. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondentsit has been stated that the notice, under Section 7(2) of theTamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had beenissued on 1.12.98, in respect of the Urban land, in Survey No.82/3, ofNoombal Village. The notice had been served on the son of Egathammal,on 23.2.93. Since no objections were received, a notice, under Section9(4), along with the draft statement, under Section 9(1) of the Act,calling for objections, if any, with regard to the proposedacquisition of the excess vacant land, had been served on the grandsonof Egathammal, on 12.5.94. Thereafter, orders, under Section 9(5),dated 20.10.94, had been passed, to acquire the excess vacant land,measuring an extent of 9850 Sq.Mts., in Survey No.82/3 of NoombalVillage. The final statement, under Section 10(1) of the Act, is said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to have been issued, on 28.2.95, and it had been served onEgathammal's son, on 9.5.95. The notification, under Section 11(1),had been published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, dated25.10.95, and the notification, under Section 11(3), vesting theexcess vacant land in the Government, had been published in theTamilnadu Government Gazette, on 7.2.96. It has been further statedthat the notice, under Section 11(5) of the Act, issued in Rc.134/95(D), dated 15.10.97, had been served by affixture, on 28.10.97, sincethe urban land owner Egathammal had refused to receive the saidnotice. The possession of the excess vacant land had been taken over,on 8.6.99. The possession of the excess vacant land had been handedover to the revenue authorities, on 9.1.2003, after making necessarychanges in the village accounts, on 16.5.2002. 21. The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners isthat the possession of the land in question had not been taken over bythe respondents, as per the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, and that no compensation had beenpaid to the petitioners, in respect of the acquired land. The land inquestion is only an agricultural land and not an urban land, asclaimed by the respondents. The relevant provisions of the TamilnaduUrban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1978, and the rules madethereunder, have not been followed by the respondents, while acquiringthe land in question. Notices required to be served on the land owner,in accordance with the Act, have not been served by following theprocedures prescribed, under Rule 8 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had reliedon the decisions of this Court in V.Somasundaram and others Vs. TheSecretary to Government, Revenue Department and Others (2007(2)L.W.109) and the decision of this Court in Om Prakash and others Vs.The Government of Tamil Nadu and others (MANU/TN/9871/2007), whereinit has been held that the land acquisition proceedings would standabated, since the notice, under Section 11(5) of the Act, had beenissued to the erstwhile owner of the property and not to those whowere the real owners at the time of the taking over of the possession.23. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of thisCourt, reported in Saraswathi and another V. The PrincipalCommissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms (2007(4) CTC 714),wherein it had been held that the land acquisition proceedings wouldstand abated, if the respondents are not in a position to show thatactual physical possession of the land in question had been taken overby the respondents and due compensation had been paid to the urbanland owner concerned. 24. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had alsorelied on the decision of this Court in Allind Metal Fabricators Pvt.Ltd., Vs. The Secretary to The Government (2002 CTC 716), wherein this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court, following the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court inAngoori Devi Vs. State of U.P. (JT 2000 Supp 1 (SC) 295), had heldthat if the possession of the land had not been taken prior to therepeal, such possession cannot be taken thereafter, no proceedings canbe initiated under the repealed enactment. In the present case, sincethe actual physical possession had not been taken by the respondents,the acquisition proceedings stood abated. Further, according toSection 3(2) of the Repeal Act, even if a land was deemed to have beenvested in the State Government, if possession had not been taken overby the State Government, such land would not be affected, underSection 3(2) of the Repeal Act. 25. On a perusal of the original records placed before thisCourt, it is clear that the respondents had attempted to serve thenotices, as contemplated under the Act, on one Egathammal, who is saidto be the Urban Land owner. The land in question is said to have beensettled in favour of the petitioners, by a settlement deed, dated5.9.85. Even if the contention of the respondents that the land inquestion had belonged to Egathammal of Noombal Village, it has to beshown that the necessary notices and orders, issued in the course ofthe acquisition proceedings, had been served on her, in accordancewith the procedures prescribed for such service. The draft statement,as regards the vacant lands, shall be served only in the mannerprescribed, under Rule 8 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Rules, 1978. In fact the draft statement, together withthe notice referred to in sub section (4) of section 9, ought to havebeen served on the holder of the vacant land, as well as on all otherpersons, who have or are likely to have any claim or interest in theownership or possession of the land in question. The respondents havenot shown that such procedures had been followed. Further, it has beenaccepted by the respondents that the notice, under Section 7(2) of theAct issued, on 1.12.98, had been served on the son of Egathammal, on23.2.93, even though Egathammal is said to be the erstwhile owner ofthe land sought to be acquired by the respondents. The notice, underSection 9(4) of the Act, along with the draft statement, under Section9(1) of the Act, had been served on the grand son of Egathammal, on12.5.94, and the final statement, under Section 10(1) of the Act,issued on 28.2.95, had been served on the son of Egathammal, on9.5.95.26. It is also seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf ofthe respondents that the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1978, had been repealed on 16.6.99, by the Tamilnadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The possession of theexcess vacant land had been handed over to the revenue authoritiesonly on 9.1.2003. In the meantime the petitioners and some others hadfiled an appeal before the first respondent, under Section 33 of theTamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, on 24.12.97,and it was pending on the file of the first respondent till the Act 24of 1978, had been repealed, on 16.6.99. Further, the respondents have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not stated that the compensation for the acquired land had been paidto the land owner, in accordance with the provisions of law. Further,various discrepancies could be noted from the original recordsrelating to the acquisition proceedings, as pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner. If actual possession had not been takenfrom the land owner before the 1978 Act had been repealed, the landacquisition proceedings would be deemed to have abated, in view ofSection 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. Even though the original owner ofthe land, Egathammal, had not come before this Court, the persons whowere said to be the owners of the land in question, have preferred thepresent writ petition, as persons interested in the said land, sincethey are said to be the beneficiaries, in accordance with thesettlement deed, dated 5.9.85. 27. In such circumstances, in view of the reasons stated aboveand in view of the decided cases cited before this Court, the landacquisition proceedings, initiated by the respondents, in respect ofthe land in the possession of the petitioners, cannot be sustained inthe eye of law. Even otherwise, in view of the coming into force ofthe Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999,the proceedings would stand abated. Hence, the writ petition standsallowed. No costs.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.Registrarcsh1.The Principal Commissionerand Commissioner of LandReforms, Chepauk, Chennai-5.2.The Assistant Commissioner,Competent Authority,Urban Land Ceiling,No.5, Sannadhi Street,2nd Floor, Poonamallee,Chennai-600 056.+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader,SR.3579+ 1 CC to Mr.V.Ramesh,Advocate,SR.3037W.P.No.8284 of 2003SA(CO)EM/12.2.09