N.S.Jaya v. The Secretary,Department of Revenue,Government of Tamilnadu,Secretariat, Fort St. George,Chennai-600 009 & Ors.

6. From the records available with the petitioner, it is seenthat the said amount represents the 11th and 12th instalments. Eventhough the fourth respondent had not mentioned the number ofinstalments covered by the Payment of the said amount, in view ofSection 3 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) RepealAct, 1999, the lands in question, said to have been acquired by theState Government, would continue to vest in the petitioner, sincephysical possession had not been taken over by the respondents. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents,the allegations made by the petitioner, in his affidavit, filed insupport of the writ petition, have been denied. It has been statedthat the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978,came into force in the urban agglomerations of the State of TamilNadu, on 3.8.76. N.S.Ramaswami, the brother of the petitioner hadowned 1161 Sq.Mts. of land in S.No.214/2 of Thiruvanmiyur Village,having purchased the same, as per Document No.2125/1961, dated19.8.61. He had filed the return, under Section 6(1) of the said Act,on 23.12.76. He had applied for exemption, under Section 21(1) (b) ofthe Act. However, it was rejected by a Government Letter No.685-A/T2/77-6, dated 17.3.77. 8. As the land owner was a bachelor, he was entitled to hold 500Sq.mts. of vacant land. Therefore, the competent authority, Alandur,had computed 661 Sq.Mts. as excess vacant land and he had issued adraft statement, under Section 9(1), with notice, under Section 9(4)of the Act. The land owner had received it on, 4.5.79 and the appealhad been filed to the Government for the grant of exemption, for theexcess vacant land. The Government had once again rejected hisrequest, vide Letter No.42728/T1/79, dated 17.4.80. 9. On the basis of the Government order, the competent authority,Alandur, had proceeded and passed orders, under Section 9(5) of theAct, declaring 661 Sq.Mts. as excess vacant land, on 10.2.81, and itwas sent to the urban Land owner, on 17.2.81. A final statement, underSection 10(1) of the Act, was issued, on 27.3.81, and served on theurban Land owner, on 4.4.81. A notification, under section 11(1) ofthe Act, was published in VI(1)/922/81, dated 22.7.81, and anotification, under Section 11(3), was published in VI(1)/1103/81,dated 24.8.81, of the Government Gazette. A Notice, under Section 11(5) of the Act, was served on the urban land owner, on 5.12.81. Theurban land owner had sent a consent letter for acquiring 661 Sq.Mts.and had requested for the compensation amount. Notice under Section 12(7) of the Act, was sent, on 18.12.81. An order, under Section 12(6)of the Act, fixing the amount and to receive 25% of the total amount,was issued, on 18.12.81. The urban land owner had himself surrenderedthe surplus land to the Revenue Inspector, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk,on 23.2.82 and the amount of Rs.1,625/-, being 25% of the amountpayable, under Section 12 of the Act, had been received by the landowner, vide Cheque No.149557, dated 1.3.82. The land owner had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ received four instalments and the remaining 11 instalments werereceived by his sister, N.S.Jaya, the petitioner herein. The acquiredland of 661 Sq.Mts., taken as 650 Sq.Mts, had been allotted to AllIndia Service Officers Co-operative Housing Society, videG.O.Ms.No.26, Revenue, dated 8.1.93. 10. It has been further stated that all the necessaryproceedings, under Sections 11(3), 11(5), 12(7) and 12(6) of the TamilNadu Act 24 of 1978, were issued and the amount which was fixed, asper Section 12(6) of the said Act and 25% of the said amount, had beenreceived by the urban land owner in the year, 1982, itself. The urbanland owner had himself given consent for the surrender of the excessland and he himself had surrendered the land to the revenueauthorities. 11. It has been further stated that, as per the notification,under Section 11(3) of the Act, published in the Government Gazette,dated 16.9.81, the excess vacant land had vested with the Government,with effect from 23.9.81. The urban land owner had himself handed overpossession of the excess vacant land, on 23.2.82. He had received 25%of the amount, payable, under Section 12(6) of the Act, on 1.3.82. Theexcess vacant land, which had been acquired, was also allotted to theAll India Service Officers Co-operative Housing Society, videG.O.Ms.No.26, Revenue, dated 8.1.93. When the Principal Act wasrepealed by the Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999, a saving clause wasprovided, under Section 3(1) of the Repeal Act, in respect of thelands, where possession had been taken over by the Government. In thepresent case, since the possession of the excess vacant land washanded over by the urban land owner, on 23.2.82, it would not beaffected by the Repeal Act 20 of 1999. In such circumstances, thepetitioner has no locus standi to make a claim for getting back thepossession of the land in question. 12. The saving clause provided under the Repeal Act 20 of 1999,protected the lands in respect of which the possession had been takenover by the Government, as per the procedures laid down in the Act.Moreover, the full amount of compensation, for the surplus landacquired under the Act, had been paid. The last payment had been made,vide Cheque No.897199, dated 6.11.96, on 24.1.97 and the said amounthad been received by the petitioner.13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadsubmitted that the claim of the respondents that the urban land inquestion, acquired by the State Government, had vested with theGovernment and the entire amount of compensation for the land had beenreceived by the petitioner, is not correct. Though the respondentsseem to have taken possession of the land, on paper, there was noactual taking over of physical possession of the land in question, bythe respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get theprotection, under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. 14. The claim of the respondents that they have taken possessionof the land in question, cannot be accepted. Further, the allegedallotment of the land to All India Service Officers Co-operativeHousing Society, Chennai, had lapsed. As seen from the thirdrespondent's letter, dated 16.2.2001, the repeated representationsmade by the petitioner, pointing out that the land acquisitionproceedings, initiated by the respondents would be deemed to haveabated, in view of the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceilingand Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, as it had come into force, on17.6.99, have been rejected by the respondents, without properconsideration. Further, it is seen from the records that the land inquestion stands in the name of the petitioner's brother, as on28.1.2002. Since the entire proceedings, with regard to the urban landin question, have not been completed, the said proceedings wouldabate, as per the provisions of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999. 15. As seen from the records, relating to the land in question,available with respondents, it is clear that the vesting of the landwith the Government was on 23.9.81. On 22.10.81, Section 11(5) noticehad been issued to the owner of the property. On 23.2.82, the FirkaRevenue Inspector is said to have taken possession of the land.However, on a careful perusal of the particulars available, it wouldbe clear that the physical possession of the land had not been takenover by the Assistant Commissioner, the fourth respondent herein.16. The learned counsel had also submitted that the Firka RevenueInspector is not the competent authority to take over the possessionof the land acquired by the State Government, under the Tamil NaduUrban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. As per Rule 23(6) ofthe Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Rules, 1978, theCollector shall be the authority competent to take possession of thevacant land acquired by the Government. Further, the claim of therespondents that the land in question had already been allotted to theAll India Service Officers Co-operative Housing Society, Chennai,cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the said society hadrefused to receive the land, on the ground that the possession of theland in question is not with the State Government.17. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted that the excess vacant land of 661 Sq.Mts., belonging toN.S.Ramaswami, in S.No.214/2 of Thiruvanmiyur Village, had beenacquired by the State Government, after it had been declared asexcess, on 10.2.81. After the notice, under Section 11(5) of the TamilNadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, was served on theUrban land owner, on 5.2.91, he had sent a consent letter foracquiring 661 Sq.Mts of excess land and he had requested forcompensation for the said land. Thereafter, the urban land owner hadvoluntarily surrendered the surplus land to the Revenue Inspector, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mylapore and Triplicane Taluk, on 23.2.92 and he had receivedRs.1625/-, being 25% of the amount payable, under Section 12 of theAct. He had also received four instalments of the balance amount andthe remaining 11 instalments were received by his sister, who is thepetitioner in the present writ petition. The acquired land of 661Sq.Mts., was allotted to All India Service Officers CooperativeHousing Society, vide G.O.Ms.No.26, Revenue, dated 8.1.93. In suchcircumstances, the request of the petitioner to restore the land,under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Repeal Act, 1999, cannot be accepted. Since the excessvacant land, belonging to N.S.Ramaswami, had been acquired by theState Government, following the procedures prescribed under the TamilNadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and since physicalpossession of the land in question had been taken over by therespondents and full compensation having been paid in respect of thesaid land, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 18. The main contentions of the learned counsel for thepetitioner are that the reason assigned by the respondents that thepossession of the land, which had been acquired, had been taken,cannot be accepted, since the full compensation for the propertyconcerned had not been paid to the petitioner. The taking over ofpossession of the land is only on paper and the actual physicalpossession had not been taken by the respondents. The petitioner isentitled to get protection, under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu UrbanLand (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The claim of therespondents that the possession of the land had been taken and thatthe said land had been allotted to the All India Service Officers Co-operative Housing Society, Chennai , has not been substantiated byrecords. The allotment said to have been made by the respondents tothe All India Service Officers Co-operative Housing Society, Chennai,had lapsed, as seen from the third respondent's letter, dated16.2.2001. As the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Repeal Act, 1999, does not provide for a saving clause the petitioneris entitled to have the benefits, under Section 3(2) of the Tamil NaduUrban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The rejection ofthe claim made by the petitioner to restore the acquired vacant landsto the original land owners, in terms of Section 3(2) of the TamilNadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, isarbitrary in nature. Since the proceedings, with regard to the land inquestion, had not been over, such proceedings would abate, in view ofthe Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs, asprayed for in the above writ petitions. 19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadrelied on the following decisions in support of his contentions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.1. In Smt.Angoori Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others (JT 2000(Suppl.I) SC 295, the Supreme Court had held as follows:"2. These cases relate to the interpretation ofdifferent provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act. During the pendency of these appeals inthis Court, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act hasbeen repealed by Act 15 of 1999 and the State of U.P. alsohas adopted the same by a Resolution. In view of theprovisions contained in Section 3 of the Repealing Act andthe fact that the possession of the vacant land has not beentaken over by the State Government, which is asserted by theCounsel appearing for the appellants and is also apparentfrom the interim orders passed by this Court, the questionfor consideration no longer survives.3. Further, under Section 4 of the Repealing Act allproceedings under the Act must be held to have abated. Inthat view of the matter, we do not think it necessary toproceed with this matter. These appeals stand disposed ofaccordingly."19.2. In PT.Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust V.State of U.P (2000 (6) SCC 325), the Supreme Court had held asfollows:"3. Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Repeal Act, 1999, provides as under:"4.Abatement of legal proceedings.-- All proceedingsrelating to any order made or purported to be made under theprincipal Act pending immediately before the commencement ofthis Act, before any Court, Tribunal or other authorityshall abate;Provided that this Section shall not apply to theproceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of thePrincipal Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable tothe land, possession of which has been taken over by theState Government or any person duly authorised by the StateGovernment in this behalf or by the competent authority."4. In the counter-affidavit not a word has been saidabout the possession of the surplus land. In fact, it ismaintained by the appellant that the possession is stillwith the appellant who was also granted an interim orderregarding "status quo".5. Since there is nothing on record to indicate thatthe State had taken possession over the surplus land, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present proceedings have to be abated and are hereby abatedunder Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Repeal Act, 1999. 19.3. In Mukarram Ali Khan V. State of U.P and Others (2007-4-L.W. 797), the Supreme Court had held as follows:"In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant towhich no objection has been filed, undisputed position isthat the State had not taken the possession over the surplusland. Therefore, the proceedings have to be treated to haveabated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Appeal from thejudgment of HIgh Court of Allahabad allowed." 19.4. In Special Officer and Competent authority, Urban LandCeiling, Hyderabad v. P.S.Rao (2000 (II) M.L.J. 101 S.C.), the SupremeCourt had held as follows:"We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention ofthe learned counsel for the State that an application forexemption can be maintained only before the excess isdetermined under Section 10. In our view, the scheme of theact is to the contrary. The view taken by the Courtfollowing the decision of this Court in T.R.Thandur V. Unionof India, (1996) 3 S.C.C. 690: A.I.R. 1996 S.C.W. 700:A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1643, Darothi Clare Parrriara (Smt.) V.State of Maharashtra, (1996) 9 S.C.C. 633: A.I.R. 1996S.C.W. 3179: A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2553 and State of A.P. V.Valluru Venkateswara Rao (1997) 3 An.L.T. 417 does not callfor any interference." 19.5. In The Special Commissioner, Revenue Secretary toGovernment, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 V. N.Kannan(W.A.No.1133 of 2002) , a Division Bench of this Court had held asfollows:"This writ appeal is directed against the order of thelearned Single Judge arising out of Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act, 1978. The said Act has been repealed later,and there is no saving clause as is contained in somelegislative statutes. In fact, Section 4 saves only suchaction by which the excess land holder has been deprived ofhis possession and vested the property with the Government.But in so far as the proceedings before anyAuthority/Tribunal etc., arising under the Act, thelegislative policy expressly states that such proceedingsshall abate. Such abatement will ensure to the benefit ofthe party, who has filed a declaration and as such, thequestion of the appellate authority hearing appeal does notarise at all, as the order holding the first respondent as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ excess landholder under the Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act had become non-est in law. In thecircumstances, this writ appeal is dismissed......"19.6. In V.Somasundaram and 2 others V. The Secretary toGovernment and 2 others (2007-2-L.W. 109), a Division Bench of thisCourt had held as follows:"The main contention urged by the learned counsel forthe appellants is that the appellants are interested personsas they have purchased the lands from the third respondentand are in possession of their respective extent of land andhence the second respondent ought to have issued notice tothe appellants, who are the real owners and therefore theaction of the respondents are in violation of Sections 9(4),10(1) and 11(2) of the Act. The learned counsel ultimatelyargued that the vesting of the lands in question with theGovernment cannot be accepted in view of the non-complianceof the specific provisions contained in Section 11(5) .From the perusal of the file it is clear thatproceedings were initiated against the third respondent, whois the erstwhile owner of the lands in question, in respectof transfer of this land to the appellants herein. Section11(5) notice was also issued to the third respondent, whowas not the real owner. As per Section 11(5) of the Act, thecompetent authority is bound to issue notice in writing toany person, who may be in possession of the land, tosurrender and delivery possession thereof, to the StateGovernment or to any person duly authorised by the StateGovernment, within thirty days time. No notice having beenissued against the appellants, who are in possession of thelands as stated supra, taking possession of lands, on30.4.1999, by the second respondent is non-est. It is to benoted that due to the repealing of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, with effect from16.9.1999, it is not open to the authorities to proceedagainst the appellants at this stage to rectify the non-compliance of Section 11(5) of the Act.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for theappellants, the appellants were not entitled to file appealdue to enactment of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Repeal Act, 1999, from 16.9.1999. Hence, thewrit petition filed without availing the alternate remedy offiling of filing appeal under Section 33 of the Tamil NaduUrban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, ismaintainable." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.7. In Allind Metal Fabricators Pvt. Limited Vs. The Secretaryto Government, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.Geroge, Madras. (2002 (2) CTC 716), a learned Single Judge of thisCourt had held as follows:"The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Acthas been repealed by the repealing Act (Act 20 of 1999) andall pending proceedings also having been declared to haveabated. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of AngooriDevi V. State of U.P., JT 2000 Supp 1(SC) 295, a decision bya Constitution Bench, if the possession of the land had notbeen taken prior to the repeal, such possession cannot betaken thereafter and no proceedings can be thereafterinitiated under the repealed enactment. During the pendencyof this writ petition the petitioner had the benefit of aninterim order protecting his possession. It is also not thecase of the respondents that they have taken possession."19.8. In C.V.Narasimhan V. The Government of Tamilnadu, etc & 2others (2002-2-L.W. 764), this Court had held as follows:"A perusal of the impugned order reveals that thepetitioner's revision was dismissed on the ground that theTamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 had been repealed. When the caseof the peitioner is that the possession of the land stillcontinues to be with him and the petitioner did not receiveany compensation in respect of the land acquired by theGovernment, it is for the first respondent to consider theclaim of the petitioner and to give a finding on thataspect, which is essential to decide as to whether therepealing of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 abates theproceedings pending before the first respondent. It is clear that the repealed Act gives certain rightto the owners of the land where the physical possession ofsuch land continues to be with the owner. The statutoryvesting is of no relevance. In the case on hand, thepetitioner claims to be in possession of the disputed land.When sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the repealed Actspecifically makes a provision to refund the compensationand retain possession if possession remain with the landowner. Hence, it is for the first respondent to consider thequestion of physical possession and decide the issue.Virtually, the first respondent has failed to consider thisvital factor. This Court is of the view that the nonconsideration of this vital factor by the first respondentwill amount to an error apparent on the face of the record,as well as the impugned order suffers from non applicationof mind with regard to the legal implications of therepealed Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It is also contended by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the land did not fall within the purview ofthe Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 and if that is so, evenassuming that the petitioner had voluntarily submitted thereturn, the same cannot be taken as an estoppel by conductas there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Whenthe land did not fall within the purview of the Tamil NaduAct 24 of 1978, then the authorities have no jurisdiction toproceed with the acquisition of the said land. If any actionwas taken in respect of the land which did not fall withinthe purview of the repealed Act, then the said action of theauthorities is non est in law, as the petitioner cannot bedeprived of the land under a proceeding which is contrary tothe statute."19.9. In Mothi S.Rajamma and 2 others Vs. The Sectretary toGovernment, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and 2others (W .P.Nos.16898 to 16900 of 1999) , this Court had held asfollows:"12. In the case on hand, nowhere it is stated by therespondents that the compensation has been paid to thepetitioners especially when the petitioner plead that theyhave not received any compensation. Hence, where thepossession has not been taken over by the Government suchlands are also attracted the amending Act 20 of 1999 andconsequently, the Government cannot claim any right oversuch lands.13. As already held when the petitioners are inpossession of the land, even assuming that they havereceived the compensation it is open to them to refund thename and claim the restoration of the property with them.Only in view of the amending provision the petitioners filedbefore the State Government and the State Government hadreturned proceeding to lapse. When that so, now appealscannot be entertained and it is unnecessary to go into thequestion because actually when it is found that thepossession has not been taken over by the State Governmentand the compensation also has not been paid to the landowners the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of theamending Act 20 of 1999 and consequently the entireproceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978would lapse it is found that the possession has not beentaken over by the State Government and the compensation alsohas not been paid to the land owners, the petitioners areentitled for the benefit of the amending Act 20 of 1999 andconsequently the entire proceedings initiated under theTamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 would lapse." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.10. In Mrs.Ayesha Haque V. State of Tamil Nadu and others(2003 Writ L.R. 193) , this Court had held as follows:"A perusal of the above quoted sections 3 and 4 (of Act20 of 1999 which has repealed the Tamil Nadu Urban LandCeiling Regulations Act) makes it clear that the repealshall not affect only the cases where the vesting of theland has taken place in favour of the Government underSection 11(3) and possession having been taken by the StateGovernment. In this case, though orders have been passed,declaring the land as excess, there are two facts whichwould militate against the continued applicability of theCeiling Act. Firstly, the possession remains with thepetitioner and therefore, no complete vesting has takenplace in favour of the State Government. Secondly, asagainst the order passed by the third respondent, an appealhas been filed before the Principal Commissioner, the secondrespondent herein, and therefore the proceedings declaringthe excess land cannot be stated to have become final.Therefore, I am inclined to hold that Section 3 of Act 20 of1999 cannot apply and in terms of Section 4, the proceedingshave to be held as abated"19.11. In Ganesan Chettiar Vs. The Commissioner (competentauthority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978),Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai (W.P.No.34546 of 2002), this Court hadheld as follows:"Mrs.Bagyalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in2002(2) CTC 716 ( Allind Metal Fabricators Pvt Ltd.,) rep.by its Managing Director Vs. The Secretary to Government,Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Madras, wherein it was held thus:-"1. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act has been repealed by the repealing Act (Act 20 of 1999)and all pending proceedings also having been declared tohave abated. As held by the Supreme Court in the case ofAngoori Devi Vs. State of U.P. (JT 2000 Supp 1 (SC) 295, adecision by a Constitution Bench, If the possession of theland had not been taken prior to the repeal, such possessioncannot be taken thereafter and no proceedings can bethereafter initiated under the repealed enactment. Duringthe pendency of this writ petition the petitioner had thebenefit of an interim order protecting his possession. It isalso not the case of the respondents that they have takenpossession.2. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The W.P.M.Pis closed." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Relying on the above decision, the learned counselappearing for the petitioner submitted that the decision ofthis Court cited supra squarely applicable to the case onhand and prayed for granting the relief sought for in thiswrit petition......"19.12. In G.Ramasamy V. The District Collector, Villupuram andanother (2004-4-L.W.207), this Court had held as follows:"On perusal, the aforesaid provision, it is clear thatthe decision to acquire the land is to be taken by theDistrict Collector and not by any other Officer or authorityincluding the District Revenue Officer.The power under Section 4 is a statutory powerconferred by the Act and there is no provision in thestatute which authorises the Collector to delegate suchpower to any other authority.The delegation contemplated in Section 16 relates tothe delegation of any power or duty imposed on theGovernment and it does not contemplate delegation of anypower or function of the Collector. The explanationindicates that for the purpose of this section (meaningthereby Section 16) the expression Collector includesDistrict Revenue Officer."19.13. In A.Joseph Louis and another V. State of Tamilnadu and 3others (2004-3- L.W. 208), this Court had held as follows:"A combined reading of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of theRepealing Act makes it clear that unless possession hadalready been taken after payment of entire compensation, theState Government would not have jurisdiction to retain theland. On the other hand, if the compensation had been paidby the Government the person is allowed to take possessionof the land provided to refund the amount received. Since inthe present case neither possession had been taken norcompensation had been paid, there is no jurisdiction for theState Government or for any authority to pass impugnedorder.In the present case, the possession of the land had notbeen taken over by the State at any time. On the other hand,exemption had been granted. The impugned order indicatesthat the authority wanted to take action on the ground thatthe order of exemption has been violated by the petitionersand requested the Special Commissioner of Land Reforms totake appropriate action to acquire the land by giving properinstructions to the Assistant Commissioner. This clearly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ indicates that possession had not been taken and theauthority wanted to proceed further for acquisition of theland under the Act. Since such Act had been repealed, thereis no jurisdiction vested with the authorities to proceedfurther.In this context the provision containing Section 3(2)of the Repealing Act makes it clear that if possession hasnot been taken over by the State Government or any personduly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or bycompetent authority; and any amount has been paid by theState Government with respect to such land, then such landshall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, hasbeen refunded to the State Government."19.14. In K.Vijayakumar and 5 others V. The PrincipalCommissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-5(W.P.No.22553 of 2003), this Court had held as follows:"14. In this case, the proceedings are totally vitiatedfor the following reasons:-(a) Service has not been effected on the petitioners atthe last known correct address which is found in therecords.(b) When Tmt.Nagalakshmi Ammal, the mother of thepetitioners, had given the names of her major sons who areobviously interested persons, notice was not served on them;the entire proceedings had taken place behind their back.(c) The Assistant Commissioner, who recommended thatthe excess land being a very small area can be ignored, alsofailed to take note that the excess land should becalculated taking into account the three major sons ofTmt.Nagalakshmi Ammal. This recommendation only refers toTmt.Nagalakshmi Ammal and her minor unmarried daughters.(d) Rule 8(2) has been violated. As per the said Rule,service has not been sent to the correct address byregistered post and when the returns under Section 7(1)clearly refer to the residential address, service ought tohave been sent to that address. Affixture on the land willnot be proper service.(e) The appellate authority has also dismissed theproceedings as abated. The order does not say that sincepossession has been taken, the proviso to Section 4 willcome into effect. On the other hand, even the appellateauthority appears to have been aware of the fact that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proviso to section 4 of the Repeal Act will come into play.(f) The notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was signedon 15.6.1989, but served one day earlier, i.e., on14.6.1989.(g) The records do not show that possession of thelands was actually taken. (h) In any event, right from the commencement of theproceedings, there has been total violation of the statutoryprovisions relating to service of notice and notice tointerested parties.(i) The entire proceedings having been vitiated, nopossession could have been taken lawfully by the authoritiesand even indeed, in fact, it was not taken. In fact,photographs have been produced to show that no possessionwas taken.15. In the result, the order of the second respondent,dated 15.3.1990 is quashed and since the proceedings havenot attained a finality by the authorities takingpossession, Section 4 of the Repeal Act will come intooperation and all proceedings will abate. The writ petitionis ordered accordingly........"19.15. In S.Ramasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its RevenueSecretary to Government, Fort St. George, Madras-8. (W.P.No.6641 of1997), this Court had held as follows:"9. In the case on hand, though from the availablematerials on record it transpired that use third respondentproceeded against the petitioner upto the notification underSection 11(5) of the Act there is nothing on record tosuggest taking over of the physical possession under sub-Section 6 of Section 11 from the petitioner, in order tomake the act of acquisition complete in all respects. Eventhough the order of the second respondent, dated 10.8.1996,would state that the possession was really taken on30.10.1991, there is absolutely material to support the saidposition.10. On a perusal of the counter affidavit filed onbehalf of the respondents also there is no special avermentto the effect as to how the physical possession of the landwas taken, on 30.10.1991, by following the procedureprescribed under the provisions of the Act in suchcircumstances, it will have to be necessarily held thatthough the declaration under Section 11(3) of the Act came https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to be issued on 07.03.1991, the possession after issuance of11(5) notice had not been validly taken as contemplatedunder the provisions of the Act.11. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to thedecision of S.Jagadeesan, in the judgment reported inC.Narasimhan rep. by His Power Agent Smt. Jayalakshmi,No.12, Bishop Garden, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28 Vs. 1)The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, RevenueDepartment, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2) The SpecialCommissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk,Chennai-5, 3) The Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling,Alandur (2002-2- L.W. 764), wherein the learned Judge hasclearly stated that so long as the physical possession ofthe land continues to be with the owner, even the statutoryvesting of the land will be of no consequence.12. In the above said background, when the applicationof Act 20/1999 in considered, it will have to be held thatthere s no scope to hold that the respondents could beentitled to invoke Section 3(1)(a) of Act 30/1999. In asmuch as the physical possession of the land has never beentaken over by the State Government of any person dulyauthorised by the State Government in this behalf or bycompetent authority, automatically the application underSection of the said Act, comes into play and all theproceedings including the proceedings impugned in this writpetition should abate without anything more.13. In result, the writ petition succeeds and theorders impugned in the writ petition are set aside." 19.16. In B.Pratap and 3 others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George,Chennai-600 009 (W.P.No.40847 of 2002), this Court had held asfollows:"2. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of thewrit petition is covered by the decision of the Apex Courtas well as this Court in a batch of cases. The learnedGovernment Advocate has not disputed the legal position.3. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court inAngoori Devi Vs. State of U.P. (JT 2000 Supp 1 (SC) 295),consequent to the repealing Act, viz., Act 20 of 1999repealing Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this writpetition." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.17. In Sukumar Ramanan Vs. The Competent Authority of UrbanLand Ceiling and Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, T.Nagar atNo.84 Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024 (W.P.No.27432 of 2004),this Court had held as follows:"2. According to the petitioner, in the light of theTamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) amendment Act20 of 1999 and since the petitioner continue to remain inpossession of the land in question, the acquisitionproceedings automatically abates and therefore, thepossession of the petitioner cannot be interfered with. 3. On hearing the learned Special Government Pleaderand also on perusing the records produced before this Court,I find the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Urban LandCeiling), dated 7.4.2004, which confirms that the above saidland which was allotted to the Housing Board was not used bythe Housing board and that the land remains vacant. It isalso stated that the land is also covered by compound wallson all sides. This also confirms the stand of the petitionerthat the land continue to remain in the possession of thepetitioner.4. In such circumstances, since there is no otheracceptable material documents on record to show that thepossession of the land in question was taken by the UrbanLand Ceiling Authorities or the Department to which it wasallotted, the claim of the petitioner that he continues toremain in possession of the land cannot be doubted.5. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed andany proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, gets abated by virtue ofthe subsequent amendment Act 20 of 1999......"19.18. In K.R.Kothandaraman V. The Special Commissioner andCommissioner for Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax and another(2005-4-L.W. 299), it has been held as follows:"5. ........... The fact that the petitioner iscontinuing in physical possession is also not challenged inany manner in the counter. The contention of the respondentto the effect that even symbolical delivery of possessionmust be taken as the possession of the respondent, can havebe of no assistance in the peculiar facts and circumstancesof the present case.'6. The proceedings had been initiated against a deadperson and the persons in possession of the land areobviously not bound by the so called symbolical delivery of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ possession, particularly when notice had not been served onthem. Nothing has been produced in this Court to indicatethat possession had been taken from the present petitionerwho apparently was in possession of the disputed land fromthe date of the registered deed of partition. In such viewof the matter, it must be taken that the possessioncontinued with the petitioner and since the urban landceiling proceedings were void having been initiated andcontinued against a dead person, the proceedings must betaken to have abated in view of the repeal of the Act. 7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition isallowed and it is declared that the petitioner is the ownerin possession of the land and the respondents are notentitled to interfere with his right over the land. Therewill be no order as to costs."19.19. In Sosamma Thampy Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ULT) cumCompetent Authority (ULC) and another (2006-3-L.W 50), this Court hadheld as follows:"The learned Government Advocate appearing for therespondents, was not in a position to show from the recordsthat the actual possession of the lands in question had beentaken by the Government or that any compensation was paid tothe petitioner for the lands sought to be acquired. In thesecircumstances, it is clear that the proceedings initiated bythe respondents for acquiring the lands of the petitioner,under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1978, stood abated on the passing of the Repealing Act20 of 1999 and therefore, the lands in question continues tobe vested in the petitioner and neither the State Governmentnor the land Ceiling Authorities had any lien over the saidproperties of the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedingsinitiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act, 1978, in R.C.No.254/87A, dated 31.8.1989,read with R.C.No.5633/93A, dated 25.2.1994, by the firstrespondent, will stand abated on the promulgation of Act 20of 1999. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. 19.20. In Jayaseelan and another V. The Government of Tamil Naduand others (2006-3-L.W. 440), this Court had held as follows:"Proceedings initiated under the 1978 Act were notproceeded against the petitioners who were shown to be inactual possession of the lands in question. On coming intoforce of Act, 20 of 1999, the acquisition proceedings standabated in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. Order of thethird respondent, dated 15.12.1995, in respect of the landsbelonging to the petitioner, set aside." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.21. In S.Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by theSecretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. (2006-3-L.W. 445), this Court had held asfollows:"From the facts, it is found that all the proceedingsunder the Act, had been proceeded against a dead person. Only forthe purpose of claiming payment for Urban Land Tax from fasli1410, the authorities have addressed proceedings to thepetitioner, which is a clear admission on the part of therespondents that physical possession and ownership continued withthe petitioner. Land Ceiling proceedings initiated against thepetitioner stand abated."19.22. In C.N.Chandran V. Government of Tamil Nadu (2006(3)M.L.J. 1050), this Court had held as follows:"Section 3 of the Repeal Act should not be read inisolation, but, it should be read with Section 4 of theRepeal Act. Section 4 of the Repeal Act contemplates thatall proceedings relating to any order made or purported tobe made under the Principal Act pending immediately beforethe commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal orany authority shall abate, which means that any orderspassed by the authorities including the impugnednotifications issued under Section 11(3) of the Act, againstwhich any proceedings is pending before any Court, Tribunalor any authority shall abate. It means that if thepossession has not been taken over by the Government, evenafter an order is passed under Section 11(3) of th Act,theproceedings must be held to have abated. The possession ofthe petitioners is asserted by the learned senior counselfor the petitioners and it is also apparent from thedocuments mentioned above and also from the interim orderspassed by this Court. It is also not in dispute that nocompensation was paid to the petitioners. This Court is theconsidered view that the petitioners proved that they are incontinuous possession of the lands in dispute upto date,notwithstanding the impugned proceedings initiated by therespondents under the Act and that they are entitled to thebenefits of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999." 19.23. In V.Foundation (P) Ltd. V. Principal Commissioner andCommissioner of Land Reforms (2006(4) M.L.J. 676), this Court had heldas follows:"Proceedings for acquisition of excess urban land underthe Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, initiated against the erstwhile owner and not againstthe real owner who had purchased the lands from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ erstwhile owner will not be binding on the real owner."19.24. In Simpson and General Finance Company Limited V. TheState of Tamil Nadu and another (2006 -4-L.W. 787), this Court hadheld as follows:"In the case on hand, during the period the Act 1978was in force, the petitioner's possession of vacant land wasfound excess, possession of which was not taken over by theState Government, but granted exemption. The case of thepetitioner is that after the Repeal Act no action can beinitiated to withdraw the exemption on the ground of non-compliance of conditions, since, Section 21(2) is not savedby Repeal Act.A joint reading of Section 3(1) of Section 3(2) ofRepeal Act would reveal that the compensation must have beenpaid and possession been taken pursuant to that. Section 3(2)(b) also provides "then such land shall not be restoredunless the amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to theState Government" which makes it clear that even in caseswhere compensation is paid by the Government, the owner isallowed to take possession of the land, but that can be doneonly after the amount is refunded to the State Government."Saving clause" is used to preserve from destructioncertain rights, remedies or privileges already existing notthat it gives any new right. The assumption is thatlegislature enact laws with complete knowledge of existinglaws pertaining to the same subject. The failure to addsaving clause indicates that the intent was not to save theexisting legislature. In this case, Section 21(2) was notsaved in the repeal Act. In view of the fact that no actionhas been taken by the State Government for the allegedviolation of conditions imposed while granting exemptionprior to the repeal Act and also the fact that Section 21(2)is not saved, it is not even open to the State Government totake any action for the alleged violation of conditions,even if any. The impugned notice is issued only by thesecond respondent, which is admittedly after the Repeal Actcame into force. It is also a fact that neither compensationis paid to the petitioner nor the lands were taken prior tothe Repeal Act. In view of the same, either the firstrespondent or the second respondent has jurisdiction toinitiate any action against the petitioner's lands, hence, Ihold that the impugned communication is illegal and withoutany authority of law and the same is quashed accordingly."19.25. In M/s.Sri Vittal Combines V. The Commissioner andSecretary (Revenue) and 2 others (2007-4-L.W.349), this Court had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ held as follows:"Court is of the considered view that once it is foundthat the actual possession of the land in question had notbeen taken over by the State Government or by any personauthorised by the State Government, the possession wouldcontinue to vest with the petitioner, even if a finaldecision had not been taken, under Section 21 of the 1978Act. Decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court are tothe effect that if the actual possession of the land inquestion has not been taken over by the Government or by theconcerned authority, and if the due compensation had notbeen paid, all pending proceedings with regard to the landin question would abate and the land in question wouldcontinue to vest with the owner."19.26. In V.Gurunathan V. Assistant Commissioner of Urban LandTax and Ceiling (2007 (5) MLJ 103), this Court has held as follows:"Mere vesting of the land in the Government is notsufficient. Taking actual possession of the land and paymentof compensation therefor to the land owner, are crucialfactors which, if not done prior to the coming into force ofthe Repeal Act of 1999, proceedings initiated under theTamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978,would abate."19.27. In C.Ram Mohan and others V. The Government of Tamil Naduand 2 others (2008 Writ L.R. 93), this Court had held as follows:"No valid evidence is produced by the respondents toshow that the Draft Statement was served on the petitioners,as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit bythem. Plea of respondents was that Final Statement was alsoserved on the petitioner by affixture, which is contrary toRule 8. Without sending it by Registered post ascontemplated under Section 10 read with Rule 8, it wasallegedly affixed, hence, it is not a valid service -Moreover, this Court also verified the affixture proceduresfollowed by the respondents, which is also not satisfactory.Respondents have not complied with the mandatoryprovisions of serving notice. Final statement and deliveryof possession, and failed to give opportunity to thepetitioners to file their objections. There is no discussionin the order about the suitability of the lands forconstruction of houses as the said lands admittedly usedonly for the purpose of manufacturing bricks as well asagricultural purpose. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Alleged take over of possession is not proved by anyvalid evidence - As petitioners are in continuous possessionof the lands in dispute all along even prior to the RepealAct and after the Repeal Act, the petitioners possession isprotected by this Court during the pendency of this writpetition by granting interim order, the prayer as sought forin this writ petition is to be granted."19.28. In Saraswathi V. Principal Commissioner and Commissionerof Land Reforms (2007 (5) MLJ 540), this Court had held as follows:"I. As per Section 10 of 1978 Act read with Rule 8 ofthe Rules, mandatory on part of authorities under the act,to send all notices in respect of taking over possession ofexcess vacant land, by registered post, acknowledgment due."II. "The criterion for taking over excess vacant landis its suitability for building purposes. If land unfit forbuilding purposes is taken over by Government, such takeover is liable to be challenged on that ground."19.29. In Sivaparamam and 2 others V. The State of Tamil Nadu and4 others (2007-4-L.W. 361), this Court had held as follows: "A combined reading of the sections will make it clearthat action under the old Act would abate except in respectof cases where possession has already been taken over by theGovernment or in respect of cases where possession has notbeen taken over but deemed to have vested under Section 11(3) with the State Government and the Government paid theamount for the value of the land and the same has not beenrefunded. That is relating to deemed possession underSection 11(3) of the Principal Act.Petitioners have categorically stated that they are inphysical possession of the properties and have also producedvarious certificates including urban land tax receipts,certificates issued by the village karnam, patta issued bythe Tahsildar etc. to show that the petitioners continue tobe in physical possession of the properties in dispute."19.30. In Tessy John Vs. Principal Commissioner and Commissionerof Land Reforms (2008 (1) MLJ 838), this Court had held as follows:"I. "When the acquisition proceedings were notinitiated against the real land owner and the real owner wasnot served with proper notices in terms of the Tamil NaduUrban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, the entireexercise of acquisition is an exercise in futility and itwould also amount to deprivation of property of real owner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by misusing the power vested under the Act."II. "When the physical possession of the propertyacquired has not been taken over from the land owner and shecontinues to be in possession and enjoyment of the saidproperty, she is entitled to have the benefit of Section 4of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) RepealAct, 20 of 1999."19.31. In Gannon Dunkerley and Company (Madras) Limited V. TheGovernment of Tamil Nadu and others (1999-I-L.W. 621), this Court hadheld as follows:"Power of Government to exempt any vacant land inpublic interest and to avoid undue hardship to any person isa power coupled with a duty. The discretion must be usedwhen the facts so warrant or exist and the authority cannotrefuse to exercise the power of discretion where debts andliabilities of a company in liquidation can be cleared offonly by sale of vacant land in question." 19.32. In Saraswathi and another V. The Principal Commissionerand Commissioner of Land Reforms (2007(4) CTC 714), this Court hadheld that the land acquisition proceedings would stand abated, if therespondents are not in a position to show that actual physicalpossession of the land in question had been taken over by therespondents and due compensation had been paid to the urban land ownerconcerned. 20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad stated that one N.S.Ramaswami, was owning 1161 Sq.Mts. of land inS.No.214/2 of Thiruvanmiyur Village, having purchased the same, as perDocument No.2125/61, dated 19.8.61. He had filed a return, underSection 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1978, dated 23.12.76. He had applied for exemption, under Section21(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978. The Government in its Lr.No.685-A/T2/77-6, dated 17.3.77, hadrejected the request. As the land owner was a bachelor, he wasentitled to hold 500 Sq.Mts. of vacant land. Therefore, with regard tothe excess vacant land of 661 Sq.Mts. the competent authority,Alandur, had issued the draft statement, under Section 9(1), alongwith the notice, under Section 9(4) of the Act. The urban land ownerhad received the same, on 4.5.79, and he had filed an appeal to theGovernment for the grant of exemption of the excess vacant land. TheGovernment had once again rejected his request, videLr.No.42728/T1/79, dated 17.4.1980. 21. Thereafter, the competent authority, Alandur, had proceededwith the acquisition proceedings and orders had been passed, underSection 9(5) of the Act, declaring 661 Sq.Mts. as excess vacant land, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 10.2.81. The final statement, under Section 10(1) of the Act, hadbeen issued, on 27.3.81, and served on the urban land owner, on4.4.81. The notification, under Section 11(1) of the Act, had beenpublished, on 22.7.81, and the notification, under Section 11(3) hadbeen published in the Government Gazette, dated 24.8.81. Notice, underSection 11(5) of the Act, had been served on the urban land owner, on5.12.81. The urban land owner had sent a consent letter for theacquisition of 661 Sq.Mts. of excess vacant land and he had requestedfor the payment of compensation for the acquired land.22. It has been further stated that a notice under Section 12(7)of the Act, had been sent, on 18.12.81. Orders, under Section 12(6) ofthe Act, fixing the amount of compensation to be paid, had been issuedasking the urban land owner to receive 25% of the total amount. Theurban land owner had surrendered the surplus land to the RevenueInspector, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, on 23.2.82, and he had receivedRs.1,625/-, payable under Section 12 of the Act, vide ChequeNo.149557, dated 1.3.82. He had received 4 installments of theremaining amount and the balance of 11 installments were received byhis sister N.S.Jaya, who is the petitioner in the present writpetition. The acquired land of 661 Sq.Mts. had been allotted to theAll India Service Officers Co-operative Housing Society, videG.O.Ms.No.26, Revenue, dated 8.1.93. Further, it has been stated thatthe procedures prescribed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu UrbanLand (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, had been followed bythe respondents in acquiring the land in question. The possession ofthe land had been taken by the respondents and the compensation hadalso been paid. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable tobe dismissed, as devoid of merits. 23. The following decision has been relied on by the learnedcounsel for the respondent in support of his contention:In Maria Joseph Roy V. The Competent Authority (2008(1)CTC 211),this Court had held as follows:"25. Admittedly the petitioner has received a portionof the compensation determined by the department nomaterials have been placed before this Court to prove thatthe petitioner has objected to the determination of thequantum of compensation nor he had denied that thepossession was taken by the competent authority before thereceipt of compensation.26. It is seen from the records that Cheque No.96454,dated 1.10.1985 for Rs.2,456.80 and Cheque No.559753, dated28.1.1987 for Rs.2,368/- was received by the petitioner asfifth and sixth installments without any protest. No wherein the payment receipts, the petitioner has raised anyobjection as regards acquisition of the lands in dispute or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ determination of the compensation. Having received thecompensation as a person interested in the year 1985 andthereafter, for the land which acquired under Section 11 ofthe Act, it is not open to him to contend, after 21 yearsthat possession is still with him and therefore, therespondents should be restrained from interfering with thepossession. Further, it is apparent that the petitioner hasdeliberately concealed the fact of receipt of compensationand he has not approached this Court with clean hands. 27. Section 12 of the Act would come into operationonly when the land is deemed to have been acquired underSection 11(3) of the Act and the determination of payment ofcompensation under Section 12 of the Act, arises only afterpossession is taken over. Right to receive compensationarises only when possession is parted with the Government.Unless possession is taken over, the Government would notventure to disburse compensation to the person or personshaving any interest in the property. When the petitioner hasclaimed that physical possession of the land is stillretained by him and not disturbed since 1980, it is for himto prove with material documents and satisfy and that he isentitled to claim the benefit under the saving clause in theRepeal Act. It is hard to believe that a person, who claimsto own valuable property in the heart of the city will allowunknown persons to put up huts and occupy the lands since1980. No revenue records have been produced before the Courtto prove that he is in continuous possession of theproperty."24. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of thepetitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the decisionscited and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that theland acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in respectof the lands measuring an extent of 650 Sq.Mts. comprised in SurveyNos.214/2 A1, A1, A3 of Thiruvanmiyur village, said to be belonging tothe petitioner, had abated, in view of the coming into force the TamilNadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Though thepetitioner had claimed that the respondents had not taken actualphysical possession of the land in question and that the compensationpayable to the petitioner for the land, said to have been acquired bythe respondents, had not been paid to the petitioner, in full, thelearned counsel for the respondents has not been in a position torefute the claims made by the petitioner with the support of theoriginal records. It is well settled by the various decisions citedsupra that the land acquisition proceedings, initiated under the TamilNadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, would abate, inview of the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceilingand Regulation) Repeal, Act, 1999, with effect from 16.6.99. As such,the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ regard to the lands in question, said to be belonging to thepetitioner would be deemed to have abated, as claimed by thepetitioner. Even though the respondents had claimed that possession ofthe land had been taken and the land had been allotted to the AllIndia Service Officers Co-operative Housing Society, by way of aGovernment Order, in G.O.Ms.No.26, Revenue, dated 8.1.93, therespondents had not been in a position to substantiate the said claim.When actual physical possession had not been taken and thecompensation payable to the petitioner had not been paid, the landacquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, with regard tothe land in question, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 25. 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 petitioner, are unsustainable in theeye of law. Even otherwise, in view of the coming into force of theTamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, theproceedings would stand abated. Accordingly, the writ petitions areallowed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.cshTo1.The Secretary,Department of Revenue,Government of Tamilnadu,Secretariat, Fort St. George,Chennai-600 009.2.The Principal Commissioner andCommissioner of Land Reforms,Ezhilagam, Kamarajar Salai,Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.3.The Commissioner (ULC) andDirector (ULT), Ezhilagam,Chennai-600 005.4.The Assistant Commissioner,Mylapore, 345, Arcot Road,Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.+ 1 CC to Government Pleader, SR.NO.5303W.P.No.39713 and39714 of 2002CK(CO)EM/13.2.09