Judgment :- The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2731/96-A under Section 9(5) and proceedings dated 9. 1998 in Na.Ka.No.2731/96-A under Sec.11(5) and that of the first respondent in A.T.M. 4603/2000 dated 23. 2000, quash the same . 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the land of an extent of 54.5 cents comprised in Survey No.41/1C-1 of Seevaram Village, which is an agricultural land and does not come within the purview of urban land as defined in the Tamil Nadu Urban land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978. According to the petitioner, it appears that the second respondent herein initiated proceedings in respect of the subject land by treating the same as urban land. The petitioner was not served with any notice of any proceedings. However, on coming to know that some proceedings were initiated, the petitioner submitted a petition dated 12. 2000 to the second respondent herein requesting him to furnish copies of the proceedings if any initiated in respect of the said land. The second respondent furnished copy of the proceedings under Section 9(5) and Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceilings Regulation Act, 1978 on 13. 2000. Only thereafter the petitioner came to now that the proceedings were initiated by the respondents. After obtaining the copy of the proceedings the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent on 13. 2000. By order dated 23. 2000, the first respondent returned the said appeal on the ground that Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act 1978 has been repealed and as such Section 33 of the Act has become redundant. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the facts submitted that no notice at any stage of the proceedings was served on the petitioner prior to issuance of the proceedings under Section 9(5) or Section 11(5) of the Act. 4. However, the factual allegation has been totally denied by the respondent by filing counter in which it is clearly averred that the land in Survey No.41/1C1 measuring 4350 sq. Mts. of Seevaram Village was inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar and found that it was converted into urban land. 4. However, the factual allegation has been totally denied by the respondent by filing counter in which it is clearly averred that the land in Survey No.41/1C1 measuring 4350 sq. Mts. of Seevaram Village was inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar and found that it was converted into urban land. Notice under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 was issued on 27. 1995. Notice under Section 9(4) and draft statement under Section 9(1) was issued on 11. 1996 and served by affixture on 25. 1997, since the address of the urban land owner was not known. The Assistant Commissioner has inspected the land on 23. 1997 and found that the land was vacant. As there was no reply from the urban land owner, order under Section 9(5) of the Act declaring 3850 sq.mts as excess vacant land after allowing 500 sq. Mts. towards entitlement in Proc.A/2731/96 dated 20.5.97 was passed. This 9(5) order was also served by affixture on 16. 1997 in the presence of Village Administrative Officer, Perungudi. The final statement under Section 10(1) was issued on 30.6.1997. It has been recorded in the file that the urban land owner has refused to receive this 10(1) statement. So it was served by affixture in the presence of Village Administrative Officer. After the publication of the acquisition proceedings under Section 11(1) and 11(3) of the Act, notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued on 9. 1998, which notice was also refused to be received by the petitioner. Hence the same was served by affixture. Thereafter the possession of the excess vacant land measuring 3850 sq.mts in S.No.41/1C1A was handed over to the Revenue Department on 13. 1999. 5. Thus, the details of the allegations which are made against the respondent in passing the order under the provisions of the Act has been clearly demonstrated as incorrect. Admittedly the Repealing Act came into force with effect from 16. 1999 onwards. Thereupon the petitioner thought it fit to obtain the copy of the order passed under Section 9(5) of the Act dated 20.5.1997 which has already become final and possession has already been handed over to the Revenue department on 13. 1999 and filed an appeal on 13. 2000 against that order before the first respondent, who by virtue of the Repealing Act refused to entertain the appeal. 1999 and filed an appeal on 13. 2000 against that order before the first respondent, who by virtue of the Repealing Act refused to entertain the appeal. Hence I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the first respondent so as to set aside the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.