Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that an extent of about 12 cents of agricultural land, in Survey No.34/1 of Menambedu Village, Ambattur Taluk, had been purchased by him by means of a sale deed, dated 11. 1959, vide Document No.3193/59, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sembium. The said property had been sold to the petitioner by one Murugappa Reddiar and his son, Munuswamy. From the date of its purchase, the land in question had been in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. However, it was learnt that the land in Survey No.34/1 of Menambedu Village , had been acquired by the third respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner had come to know about the acquisition only when the revenue officials inspected the land in the month of September, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner had contacted the office of the third respondent to apply for the certified copies of the orders passed, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (Act 24 of 1978). After the receipt of the orders the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the land acquisition proceedings had been initiated and continued against the person who is not the owner of the land sought to be acquired. Thus, it is seen that the third respondent had not made any enquiry, as contemplated under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind. 5. It has also been stated that the land, which has been used for agricultural purposes, cannot be acquired. The land was used only for agricultural purposes till fasli 1411. On the date of the acquisition, the land was agricultural in character and therefore, the order of acquisition is bad in law. From the certified copy of the order of acquisition furnished by the third respondent, it is seen that notices, under the various provisions of the Act, were served by affixture. On the date of the acquisition, the land was agricultural in character and therefore, the order of acquisition is bad in law. From the certified copy of the order of acquisition furnished by the third respondent, it is seen that notices, under the various provisions of the Act, were served by affixture. Service of notice by `affixture is not the proper mode of service, as Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978, stipulates that all notices shall be served by registered post, with acknowledgment due, by the office of the third respondent. Entrustment of the notices, to the Village Administrative Officer concerned, for effecting service of notices, is against the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 6. It has been further contended that the constitutional right of the petitioner, enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, had been infringed, as the said Article mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property without following the due process of law. The acquisition proceedings initiated and continued against C. Murugappa Reddiar, who is not the owner of the land in question, from the year, 1959, when it had been sold to the petitioner, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Even though the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land, the notice, under Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had not been served on him. Even before such notice could be served on the petitioner the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been repealed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, with effect from 16. 99. The possession of the land is still with the petitioner, as seen from the entries contained in the adangal extract. Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents shall stand abated, in accordance with Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999. 7. It has been further stated that the respondents had not taken actual physical possession of the land sought to be acquired by the respondents, as it is still with the petitioner. There is no record available for the respondents to prove that the possession of the land had been taken after preparing a panchanama or a memorandum, signed by the witnesses. There is no record available for the respondents to prove that the possession of the land had been taken after preparing a panchanama or a memorandum, signed by the witnesses. The petitioner had not surrendered the land, under Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, nor was it taken by the use of force, under Section 11(6) of the Act. In such circumstances, the land acquisition proceedings would stand abated, as held by the various decisions of the Courts of law. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents had stated that since the name of C. Murugappa Reddiar was found in the revenue records as the owner of the urban land sought to be acquired, the notices contemplated, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been issued in his name, as the owner of the property in question. Since the said C. Murugappa Reddiar had refused to receive the notices, the notices had been served by affixture. The possession of the land had been taken and it has been recorded. However, there is nothing on record to show that the compensation had been paid to the urban land owner. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied on the decisions of this Court in V. Somasundaram and others Vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and Others (2007(2) L.W.109) and the decision of this Court in Om Prakash and others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others (MANU/TN/9871/2007), wherein it has been held that the land acquisition proceedings would stand abated, since the notice, under Section 11(5) of the Act, had been issued to the erstwhile owner of the property and not to those who were the real owners at the time of the taking over of the possession. 10. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of this Court, reported in Saraswathi and another V. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms ( 2007(4) CTC 714 ), wherein it had been held that the land acquisition proceedings would stand abated, if the respondents are not in a position to show that actual physical possession of the land in question had been taken over by the respondents and due compensation had been paid to the urban land owner concerned. 11. 11. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the respondents had initiated the land acquisition proceedings against the erstwhile owner of the land in question, which is said to have been purchased by the petitioner in the year, 1959, by way of a registered sale deed. It is also clear that the petitioner has not been issued with the notices, as required under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to show that actual physical possession of the land had been taken by the respondents, pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings initiated by them. Further, it has not been shown that the compensation for the land in question had been paid to the petitioner. In such circumstances, in view of the reasons stated above and in view of the decided cases cited before this Court, the land acquisition proceedings, in respect of the land in question, said to be belonging to the petitioner, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Even otherwise, in view of the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the proceedings would stand abated. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.