Judgment : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the respondents especially the order of the third respondent dated 31.03.96, under Section 9(5) vide ref.Na.Ka.3583/94/A2 and notice under Section 11(5) dated 33. 98 vide ref.Rc.3583/94/A2 in respect of land in Survey No.53/1 measuring 2850 square metres of Patravakkam village, Ambattur Taluk, and quash the same and further direct the respondents to treat the proceedings as abated under Section 4 of Act 20/99. The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the respondents especially the order of the third respondent dated 31.03.96, under Section 9(5) vide ref.Na.Ka.3583/94/A2 and notice under Section 11(5) dated 33. 98 vide ref.Rc.3583/94/A2 in respect of land in Survey No.53/1 measuring 2850 square metres of Patravakkam village, Ambattur Taluk, and quash the same and further direct the respondents to treat the proceedings as abated under Section 4 of Act 20/99. 2. Petitioner claims that the family owned the ancestral property to an extent of 71 cents. In respect of the above said land as co-owner, petitioner has been communicating with the Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax), Ambattur, 248, E.V.R. Periyar High Road, Chennai-29 with regard to levy of urban land tax and the manner in which the property has been divided between the family members. From the very same office, the Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 by issuance of notice in terms of Section 7(2) of the said Act on 30.4.1987. Draft statement under Section 9(1) and notice under Section 9(4) of the said Act was issued on 30.9.1991. The details of the same are contained in the counter-affidavit in para 2 as follows:- "2. Draft statement under Section 9(1) and notice under Section 9(4) of the said Act was issued on 30.9.1991. The details of the same are contained in the counter-affidavit in para 2 as follows:- "2. It is submitted that for the failure to file the statement under section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978) (hereafter referred to as the said Act) notice under section 7(2) of the said Act was issued by the then Competent Authority in SR.No.136/87 of Patravakkam village on 30.4.1987 to Tvl.(1) Nataraja Naicker, (2) Balaraman, the petitioners herein and (3) Kamalakannan, sons of Adimoola Naicker of Karukku village, Ambattur directing to file necessary statement under section 7(1) of the said Act for the land measuring 0.71 acres corresponding to 2850 sq. mts., in S.No.53/1 of Patravakkam village. Since, they refused to receive this notice and failed to file necessary records, draft statement under section 9(1) and notice under section 9(4) of the said Act were issued in 3rd respondents office SR.No.197/91, Patravakkam dated 30.9.1991 allowing them 1500 sq. mts., as their entitlement area as per section 5(1)(1) of the said Act (i.e., at the rate of 500 sq. mts., each person) and the excess vacant land was arrived as 1350 sq. mts., directing them to file objections, if any against the proposed acquisition within 30 days from the date of receipt. As they refused to receive the draft statement under section 9 (1) and the notice issued under section 9(4) of the said Act, these were served by affixture on 24. 1992. In the absence of their co-operation in attending enquiry and producing necessary records, it had created essentially to issue orders under section 9 (5) of the said Act as ex parte. Accordingly, orders under section 9(5) of the said Act were issued in 3rd respondents office proceedings in Rc.No.3583/94 (A2), dated 33. 1996 determining the excess vacant land as 1350 sq. mts., after allowing them 1500 sq. mts., as their entitlement in S.No.53/1 of Patravakkam village and to this continuance, final statement under section 10(1) of the said Act was issued on 12. 1997. As the urban land owners ignored even to receive, notification under section 11(1) of the said Act was issued on 28. 1997 and got published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 10. mts., as their entitlement in S.No.53/1 of Patravakkam village and to this continuance, final statement under section 10(1) of the said Act was issued on 12. 1997. As the urban land owners ignored even to receive, notification under section 11(1) of the said Act was issued on 28. 1997 and got published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 10. 1997 and then final notification under section 11(3) of the said Act issued on 12. 1997 was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 12. 1998. Finally, notice under section 11(5) of the said Act was issued on 33. 1998 and served by affixture. The possession of excess vacant land of 1350 sq.mts., as noted above, was handed over to Revenue Department on 10. 1998. At this stage, the petitioner has filed this writ petition." 3. According to the petitioner, none of the above proceedings referred to in the counter-affidavit was to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner has built the house in the property mentioned above and he is in the enjoyment of the said property. Since there was some confusion over the title to the land and based on revenue records, the petitioner came to know that the land in question is claimed to be taken over by the Competent Authority under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Stating that the petitioner is still in possession of the property and in view of the repeal Act 20 of 1999, the present writ petition has been filed to set aside all the proceedings of the Competent Authority under the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978. .4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order under Section 9(5) of the Act issued by the third respondent dated 33. 1996. In the said order it has been clearly specified that the notice under Section 9(4) and the draft statement under section 9(1) was served by way of affixure, whereas in the counter-affidavit, it has been specifically pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner refused to receive the draft statement under Section 9(1) and the notice under Section 9(4) of the Act and therefore, it was served by affixure on 24. 1992. On the face of the document dated 33. 1996, there is no material to show that service was refused by the petitioner. 1992. On the face of the document dated 33. 1996, there is no material to show that service was refused by the petitioner. Further, Rule 8, Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978 provides for service for the statement and notice by way of registered post to the persons concerned to the last known address. In this case, admittedly, there is no material filed by the respondents to show that the Rule 8 has been scrupulously followed and complied. This becomes relevant on the face of the document, viz., the letter written by the petitioner on 111. 1993 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Ambattur, Chennai-600 029 with regard to the very same property. To the knowledge of the respondents, the address of the petitioner is available. Whereas the proceedings under section 9(5) of the Act was issued showing the address as village Karukku only. The address is not very clear. Further, on 7. 1987 itself, petitioner has informed the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Ambattur about the ownership of the property jointly held by the other co-owners. Therefore, the proceedings by the Competent Authority should be against all the co-owners and not against the petitioner alone. Therefore, there is total non-application of mind by the authority concerned. Even in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that possession of the excess land was taken on 10. 1998. Except statement on affidavit no material is produced by the respondents to show that actual possession was taken over in the manner prescribed. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 6. On perusing the records, viz., the order issued under Section 9(5) of the Act and on going through the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the respondents have not followed the provision of Rule 8 in serving the draft statement of 9(1) and notice under Section 9(4) in the manner prescribed under rule 8. Further, the question of affixure does not arise unless and until the notice is issued by way of a Registered Post to the person concerned. In this case, there is no material to show that registered notice was in fact issued and refused by the persons concerned. The possession in this case has not been shown to have been taken in the manner prescribed except stating so in the counter-affidavit. This stand cannot be accepted. .7. In this case, there is no material to show that registered notice was in fact issued and refused by the persons concerned. The possession in this case has not been shown to have been taken in the manner prescribed except stating so in the counter-affidavit. This stand cannot be accepted. .7. Further, one other issue has to be considered in the present case is that the petitioner has already put the respondents on notice that houses have been built by several persons as co-owners and there appears to be no proceedings against them. Without proper notice as contemplated under the rules, the impugned proceedings has been passed and that cannot be accepted. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that possession of excess vacant land of 1350 square meters was handed over to Revenue Department. A mere statement cannot be accepted as valid handing over of possession in the eye of law. 8. In the result, the impugned proceedings are set aside. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.