Judgment : This writ petition has been filed to quash the orders of the third respondent under Section 9(5) r Order in SR 1002/96/D dated 13.3.1997 and 11(5) dated 10.5.1998 vide ref. Rc.SR 1002/96D in respect of lands in Survey No. 45/1 and 46/2 of Amadurmedu village, Poonamallee Taluk measuring 4100 sq. mtrs and treat the proceedings as abated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act 20/99. 2. The brief facts as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as under: The petitioners are the sons and daughter of one Thulakanam who passed away on 6.4.1998. The said Thulakanam was the owner of the land in S.Mo.45/1 Measuring 46 cents and in S. No. 46 measuring 57 cents of Amadurmedu village. After the petitioners fathers death they approached the Village Administrative Officer to incorporate their name in the revenue records. The Village Administrative Officer informed them that the lands have been acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban land (Ceiling end Regulation) Act. Immediately, they contacted the third respondent and applied for certified copies of various orders passed by the third respondent under the various provisions of the Act. After receiving the certified copies, they have filed the above writ petition to quash the order of the third respondent dated 13.3.1997 and dated 10.5.1998 as the entire proceedings are abated under Section 4 of Repeal Act. 3. It is contended by the writ petitioner that the lands are agricultural lands, that the service affected by the third respondent is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and that they are still in possession of the land and therefore the order of acquisition shall abate under Section 4 of the Repeal Act. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was issued on 2.7.1996 as the land owner did not file any return under Section 7(1) of the Act. The notice dated 2.7.1996 was served on Tmt. Desammal, the daughter-in-law of the land owner on 20.9.1996. Since, no reply was received, a notice under Section 9(4) along with a statement under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued on 29.10.1996 calling for objection for the proposed acquisition of 3600 sq.mtrs of excess vacant land out of the total extent of 4100 sq.mtrs. Desammal, the daughter-in-law of the land owner on 20.9.1996. Since, no reply was received, a notice under Section 9(4) along with a statement under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued on 29.10.1996 calling for objection for the proposed acquisition of 3600 sq.mtrs of excess vacant land out of the total extent of 4100 sq.mtrs. after allowing 500 sq.metrs as entitlement. The notice dated 29.10.1996 was served on the son of the land owner on 9.1.1997. As no objection was received, the Dy. Tahsildar inspected the land on 14.2.1997 and found the land vacant with bushes. Hence, order under Section 9(5) of the Act was passed on 13.3.1997 and the order was served on R.Minnala, a relative of the land owner. The final notification under Section 10(1) was issued on 30.6.1997 and served on the land owner on 2.8.1997. The notification under Section 11(1) of the act was issued on 15.10.1997 and published in the Tamil Nadu Govt. Gazette dated 24.12.1997. The notification under Section 11(3) vesting the land with the Government with effect from 15.3.1998 was issued on 29.1.1998 and published in the Gazette dated 1.4.1998. 5. It is admitted in the counter that notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued on 10.5.1998 and served by affixture since the land owner refused to receive it. It is also admitted in the counter that the land owner has not handed over the possession of the acquired land and the possession was taken over and handed over to Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Poonamallee on 11.8.1998 by signing a land delivery receipt. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Geetha, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents and judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments contained in the petition submitted that the notices under Section 9(4) and the draft statement under Section 9(1) were affixed in the land and it was not served on the land owner by R.P.A.D. as per Rule 8 of the Rules. The learned counsel further contended that the entire acquisition stands abated as the petitioners are still in possession of the land. The learned counsel relied on two unreported judgments of this Court in support of his submissions. 8. The learned counsel further contended that the entire acquisition stands abated as the petitioners are still in possession of the land. The learned counsel relied on two unreported judgments of this Court in support of his submissions. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the notices were received by the relatives of the land owners and therefore it cannot be said that the service is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. She further submitted that the possession of the lands by the petitioners is only an encroachment as the possession was taken over by signing the land delivery receipt. 9. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citations. 10. In the order dated 19.10.2006 made in W.P. No. 29081 of 2003 ( Sudandarakkani v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Others), this Court held that the mode of affixture cannot be resorted as a matter of course and attempt should have been made to send the notice by R.P.A.D. as contemplated under the rules. It was further held by this Court, physical possession is required and the same is mandatory under the provisions of the Act and noting in the file that symbolic possession is taken cannot be accepted as taking of physical possession. 11. In the judgment dated 25.9.2007 made in W.P. No. 7060 of 2003 (Subramaniam Engg. Ltd. v. Special Commissioner and Others ), I have held that taking possession means taking physical possession with the signature of the land owner, evidencing voluntary delivery of the lands and mere recording of possession by the authorities would not amount to actually taking over possession. 12. In the present case, it has been admitted by the respondents that notice under Section 7(2) was served on the daughter-in-law and the notice under Section 9(4) of the Act with the statement under Section 9(1) of the Act was served on the son of the land owner. Similarly, the notice under Section 11(5) was served by affixture. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the respondents failed to serve the notices as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. When valuable lands are sought to be taken over by a statutory enactment, a duty is cast on the authorities to meticulously stick to the rules prescribed therein. 13. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the respondents failed to serve the notices as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. When valuable lands are sought to be taken over by a statutory enactment, a duty is cast on the authorities to meticulously stick to the rules prescribed therein. 13. It is also admitted by the respondents that land owner has not handed over the possession and the possession was taken over by signing a land delivery receipt. Thus, obviously this is not actually taking physical possession with the signature of the land owner, evidencing voluntary delivery of lands. By claiming that they have taken possession by signing a land delivery receipt, the respondents have clearly admitted that they have not taken actual physical possession. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the physical possession of the land has not been taken and the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefit conferred under Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Hence, I am inclined to allow the writ petition and accordingly, the same is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 20719 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. No. 2333 of 2007 are closed and W.V.M.P. No. 1637 of 2006 is dismissed.