ORDER The petitioner is the owner of an Urban Land of an extent of 22526 sq. metres in Survey No. 1553/1 Mylapore Village, which comprises of buildings also. After the advent of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’), an order was passed by the Competent Authority (the third respondent herein) on 31.5.1990, declaring a portion of the land as an excess vacant land. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the second respondent passed an order dated 30.11.1990, setting aside the order of the third respondent and remitting the matter back to the third respondent for passing fresh orders under Section 9(5) of the Act. 2. Thereafter, the respondent passed a fresh order on 27.2.1991 under Section 9(5) of the said Act, declaring 1360 sq. metres of land as excess vacant land. 3. In view of such declaration, the petitioner approached the Government for an exemption and the Government granted the exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 364, Revenue Department, dated 18.4.1996, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. However, after about three years of the grant of such exemption, the Government issued a show-cause notice dated 16.2.1999, calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the exemption granted earlier, should not be withdrawn and the land acquired as a surplus land. The petitioner resubmitted a reply to the said show-cause notice on 10.3.1999. 4. In the meantime, the Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999 was passed, repealing Act 24 of 1978 with effect from 16.6.1999. After 3½ years of the passing of the Repealing Act, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 533, Revenue (ULC 2(2)) Department, dated 12.12.2002, withdrawing the exemption granted to the petitioner in the year 1996 and directing the acquisition of the excess vacant land of 1360 sq. metres. Challenging the said Government Order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 5. In view of the fact that the issue raised in the writ petition lies in a narrow campus and also in view of the fact that it is covered by several orders of this Court, I have taken up the main writ petition itself for final disposal, with the consent of both the parties. 6. I have heard Mr. V. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Subramanian, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 7. 6. I have heard Mr. V. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Subramanian, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 7. It is an undisputed legal position that by virtue of Section 4 of the Repealing Act No. 20 of 1999, all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of the Repealing Act, before any Court, Tribunal or any Authority shall abate. It cannot also be disputed that once the possession of the lands in question had not been taken over by the Government as on the date of coming into effect of the Repealing Act, it cannot be taken over thereafter by the Government. 8. But the only difference sought to be made out by the respondents is that the petitioner was earlier granted exemption on certain conditions and that those conditions were violated by him and that therefore the case of the petitioner would fall under Section 3(1)(b) of the Repealing Act. However, I am unable to countenance the said stand taken by the respondent for three reasons viz.: a) that the proceedings for withdrawal of the exemption were initiated by the Government by a show-cause notice dated 16.2.1999 and those proceedings for the withdrawal of the exemption were pending as on the date of coming into force of the Repealing Act viz., 16.6.1999. Therefore, by virtue of Section 4 of the Act, the proceedings for withdrawal of exemption actually abated. b) Admittedly, in this case also, the possession of the land has never been taken over by the Government and it has so far remained only with the petitioner. c) The same issue relating to the applicability of the benefit of the Repealing Act to cases of persons who have violated the conditions of exemption, came up for consideration in A. Joseph Louis and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and three Others A. Joseph Louis and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and three Others A. Joseph Louis and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and three Others 2004 (3) LW 208 . The same stand taken by the Government was rejected by this Court in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment as follows: “ 4. The learned counsel for the State relied upon Section 3(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act. The same stand taken by the Government was rejected by this Court in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment as follows: “ 4. The learned counsel for the State relied upon Section 3(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act. The same has been already extracted above. In the present case, the possession of the land had not been taken over by the State at any time. On the other hand, exemption had been granted. The impugned order indicates that the Authority wanted to take action on the ground that the order of exemption has been violated by the petitioners and requested the Special Commissioner of Land Reforms to take appropriate action to acquire the land by giving proper instructions to the Assistant Commissioner. This clearly indicates that possession had not been taken and the Authority wanted to proceed further for acquisition of the land under the Act. Since such Act had been repealed, there is no jurisdiction vested with the authorities to proceed further. 5. In this context the provision containing 3(2) of the Repealing Act makes it clear that if possession has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised, by the State Government in this behalf or by competent Authority; and 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. A combined reading of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Repealing Act make it clear that unless possession had already been taken after payment of entire compensation, the State Government would not have jurisdiction to retain the land. On the other hand, if the compensation had been paid by the Government, the person is allowed to take possession of the land provided he refunds the amount received. Since in the present case neither possession had been taken nor compensation had been paid, there is no jurisdiction for the State Government or for any Authority to pass impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 9. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. No costs. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 9. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. No costs. The connected W.P.M.P. is closed. Writ petition allowed.