Judgment :- As the issues involved and the respondents in all these writ petitions are one and the same, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. Heard both sides. 2. The facts involved in these writ petitions are as follows: The petitioners are related to each other and originally they owned lands jointly comprised in S.No.268 in Tarnbaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalput MGR District and the same was partitioned by them on 7.11.1979 and that in the said partition, they were allotted 56 cents of lands each comprised in S.Nos.268/4, 268/3A and 268/2 and 268/5 towards their respective shares and that as the respondents felt that the lands in the possession of the petitioners exceeded the ceiling limit, they initiated proceedings by issuing notifications under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in C.Nos.4301/94-C, 4300/94-C and 4299/94-C published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 30.9.1998 and hence, for quashing the said notifications dated 30.9.1998, these writ petitions have been filed. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that nevertheless the proceedings initiated under the said Act, the petitioners retained possession continuously up to date, in other words, they have not parted with the same, at any point of time to any one and hence, they are entitled to the benefits of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 dated 16.6.1999. 4. In view of the above said submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this Court files that it is not necessary to go into the details of the proceedings initiated under the Act. 5. 4. In view of the above said submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this Court files that it is not necessary to go into the details of the proceedings initiated under the Act. 5. The learned senior counsel for the peti­tioners has further contended that though the respondents claimed that possession of the lands in dispute was taken on 28.4.1999 by them, the documents produced by the petition­ers viz., Chittaadangal for the Fasli years from 1405 to 1409, the property tax receipts for the years from 1997-98 to 2nd Half 2005­ 2006 and the electricity consumption cards, which stand in the name of the petitioners, relating to the electricity service connections installed at the lands in dispute, for the period from 30.3.2001 to 25.11.2005, are valid evi­dence to show that the possession of the lands in dispute are not parted with by the petitioners at any point of time and that further the said claim of the respondents that the possession was taken as early as on 28.4.1999 by the respondents is not at all supported by any valid evidence. 6. In support of the said contention, the learned senior counsel brought to the notice of this Court the two inconsistent dates mentioned in the counter affidavits filed in W.P.No.20577/01 and W.P.No. 20578, viz. 1.9.1998 and 1.3.1999 respectively, but whereas, admittedly, proceedings in all the three cases, under various Sections were initiated on the same date and that the contention of the respondents is that the possession of the lands in dispute was taken by them on 28.4.1999 in all three cases and hence, the said inconsistency in mentioning the dates, on which the proceedings initiated, disproves the said contention of the respondents. 7. 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that even the respondents are not able to point out from the records as to the correct date, on which the possession was taken from the petitioners and that on the contrary, the petitioners proved that they are in continuous possession of the lands in dispute, by producing the above said documents and hence, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 dated 16.6.1999 and that Section 3 of he Repeal Act 20 of 1999 should not be read in isolation and it should be read along with Section 4 of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 and that on such a combined reading of Sections 3 and 4, the only conclusion to be arrived at is that if the possession is retained by the land owners, notwithstanding the proceedings initiated by the respondents, they are entitled to the benefits of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents has submitted that though there are some discrepancies in respect of the date on which the possession of the lands in dispute was taken by the respondents, in the counter affidavits filed in W.P.Nos.20577 and 20578 of 2001, the fact remains that the possession was taken over by the respondents from the petitioners and the possession of the lands was vested with the Government from the date of the impugned notifications dated 30.9.1998 issued under Section 11(3) of the Act and that the respondents, after the issuance of the notifications under Section 11(3) of the Act, issued notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, calling upon the petitioners to deliver possession of the lands in dispute to the State Government and that ultimately possession was taken on 28.4.1999 by the respondents and hence, prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. 9. Now, the question to be considered and decided is as to whether the possession is retained by the petitioners, notwithstanding the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Act or the possession was parted with by the petitioners on 28.4.1999 as alleged by the respondents? 10. 9. Now, the question to be considered and decided is as to whether the possession is retained by the petitioners, notwithstanding the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Act or the possession was parted with by the petitioners on 28.4.1999 as alleged by the respondents? 10. Since, the electricity consumption cards, which stand in the name of the petitioners, relating to the electricity service connections installed at the lands in dispute, are relating to the period from 30.3.2001 to 25.11.2005, the said documents deserve to be considered, as it is alleged by the respondents that possession was taken on 28.4.1999 and that the other two documents viz. Chittaadangal for the Fasli years from 1405 to 1409 and the property tax receipts for the years from 1997-98 to 2nd Half 2005-2006 are valid evidence and sufficient to prove that the possession is with the petitioners continuously till date. 11. After coming to know about the proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners made a representation to the respondents to issue a certified copy of the notifications issued under Section 11(3) of the Act on 27.6.2000 and thereafter, the petitioners sent representation to the Government on 23.8.2000, which was rejected on 13.3.2000. It is also relevant to mention that this Court, after admitting these writ petitions on 30.10.2001, granted an order of interim stay on 16.11.2001 and the said interim stay order was made absolute on 16.9.2003. 12. The above said facts are crystal clear to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in dispute continuously up to date and that there is no valid document to prove the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the possession was taken by them on 28.4.1999. 13. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 was repealed by the Repeal Act 20 of 1999. Section 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 read as under: "3(1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect: (a) The vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 11, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; (b) The validity of any order granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 21 or any action taken there under. (2) Where; (a) Any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and (b) Any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land, then such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government. 4. All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal or any authority shall abate: Provided that this Section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 15-B and 16 of the Principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.” 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Section 3 of the Repeal Act should not be read in isolation, but, it should be read with Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Section 4 of the Repeal Act contemplates that all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal or any authority shall abate, which means that any orders passed by the authorities including the impugned notifications issued under Section 11(3) of the Act, against which any proceeding is pending before any Court, Tribunal or any authority shall abate. It means that if the possession has not been taken over by the Government, even after an order is passed under Section 11(3) of the Act, the proceedings must be held to have abated. The possession of the petitioners is asserted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and it is also apparent from the document mentioned above and also from the interim orders passed by this Court. It is also not in dispute that no compensation was paid to the petitioners. 15. The possession of the petitioners is asserted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and it is also apparent from the document mentioned above and also from the interim orders passed by this Court. It is also not in dispute that no compensation was paid to the petitioners. 15. In view of the above said discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners proved that they are in continuous possession of the lands in dispute up to date, not with standing the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Act and that they are entitled to the benefits of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999. 16. These writ petitions are allowed accordingly. No costs.