Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner is a Matriculation School represented by its Founder and Director. They have come forward to challenge the proceedings initiated by the Third Respondent Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax), Adambakkam issued under Section 9(5) dated 13.03.1992, declaring the excess vacant land in S.No.13/8C2 and 13/8C3 of Hasthinapuram village, measuring to an extent of 0.04.5 hectares and 0.09.0 hectares respectively and the subsequent notice issued under Section 11(5) of the Act vide proceedings dated 7.8.1995 and seeks to set aside the same and also to declare all the proceedings initiated by the Third Respondent for acquiring the excess vacant land as deemed to be abated in terms of Section 4 of the Repealing Act T.N. Act 20 of 1999 as the possession was continued to be maintained by the Petitioner. 2. It is claimed by the Petitioner that they were unaware of the proceedings initiated under Section 11(5) of the Act. When they came to know about the same, they applied for a certified copy of the said order which was given to them only on January 2003. 3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 10.7.2003. Pending the Writ Petition, an interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, when the matter came up 11.9.2003, the interim injunction granted earlier was made absolute. This was despite the fact that the Respondents contended that they have taken over possession of the excess vacant land. 4. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit dated 12.11.2009 was filed by the Third Respondent. The original records were also circulated for perusal by this Court. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that she is the Founder Director of N.S.N. Matriculation School. She purchased two grounds from one S. Ramachandran by a sale deed dated 17.10.1973 in Paimash No.257/1A correlated to S.No.13/8 of Hasthinapuram Village. The purchase was made on 16.5.1981 for the purpose of putting up a school. Patta was granted by the 4th Respondent-Tahsildar on 9.8.1990. The property was shown as the property of the School and necessary approval was given by the CMDA. When the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short Act) came to be enacted, the Petitioner School did not file any return under Section 7(1) of the Act as the school did not possess Urban Land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. When the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short Act) came to be enacted, the Petitioner School did not file any return under Section 7(1) of the Act as the school did not possess Urban Land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. The school has only 4 grounds in 1979 & 4947 sq.ft. in 1981. 6. In the meanwhile, the Competent Authority issued a notice under Section 7(2) of the Act by putting up a notice on a pole erected in the land in the name of the erstwhile owner and continuously passing orders including under Section 9(5) dated 13.3.1992. In all the proceedings, it was stated that since the address of the land owner was not known, the Affixture procedure, was carried on. Finally, a notice dated 7.8.1995 under Section 11(5) was issued directing them to surrender possession. It is only when the school wanted to raise funds and applied for a loan for which the Village Administrative Officer was contacted to get extract of Patta, Chitta and Adangal, they were informed about the proceedings initiated by the Respondents. After obtaining the copies of the proceedings. It was found that neither the school nor the vendor was issued with any notice. The school has been functioning in the said land. It was contended that even if the stand of the Respondents that the erstwhile owner was given notice in the manner known to law, in the light of the fact that possession being in the hands of the Petitioner, they are eligible for benefit under Section 4 of T.N. Act 20 of 1999. Therefore, challenging the same, the Writ Petition came to be filed. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the Third Respondent, these facts were admitted. It was claimed that after issuing notice to the erstwhile owner, possession of the excess vacant land totaling 2650 sq.mts was taken over and handed over to the Firka Revenue Inspector, Alandur on 29.2.1996 with structures (N.S.N. School Buildings). In the land delivery receipt found at Page 161 of the original file, the structures were described as building and thatched shed, lay out road and N.S.N. School in the four survey numbers. In the land delivery receipt found at Page 161 of the original file, the structures were described as building and thatched shed, lay out road and N.S.N. School in the four survey numbers. It is not clear as to how the Respondents could have taken over the school building when the school was continuously functioning in the said school and the school buildings were in existence at the time of preparation of the land delivery receipt. The contention that notice was served by Affixture by putting notice on a pole erected in the vacant land is a doubtful statement since in the land in question, the school is already in existence right from 1992. The contention that they are not aware of the address of the original owner cannot be accepted. They ought to have made enquiries regarding the last known address of the erstwhile land owner Ramachandra Iyer. A note in the pages 8 & 9 of the original records showed that as they had failed to serve notice on the owner, the Revenue Inspector was directed to gather the address from the Sub-Registrar about the correct postal address. Accordingly, they obtained information showing that the address of the erstwhile owner as Ramachandra Iyer, Ayyapillai Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5. The Revenue Inspector one Thirunavukkarasu, was requested to serve statement under Section 9(1) and notice under Section 9(4) of the Act. In fact the endorsement made in Page 65 of the original records showed that the Deputy Tahsildar II was requested to serve notice on the new address of Ramachandra Iyer. But on the contrary, no such notice was sent. But the document in Page 67 showed that the Village Administrative Officer once again served the notice by Affixture. He made an endorsement that the lands have been plotted as house sites and neither Ramachandra Iyer nor his legal heirs was found and, therefore, by erecting a pole, notice was pasted in the land. 8. This attitude of the Respondents is clearly an abuse of process of law and clear perversion of the procedure prescribed under the Act. This can never be taken as a notice in terms of law. Even assuming that there was no mutation of the records by the subsequent purchaser, that does not absolve the Respondents from carrying out the procedure under law. This can never be taken as a notice in terms of law. Even assuming that there was no mutation of the records by the subsequent purchaser, that does not absolve the Respondents from carrying out the procedure under law. In the present case, the subsequent purchaser have also obtained Patta and the inspection of the laid showed that there are houses and house sites in the land. The conduct of the Respondents cannot be absolved by this Court especially it involves the valuable right of the Petitioner who are running a recognised matriculation school in the said property. 9. In the light of these material facts, this Court is obliged to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed. Further, it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner are in possession of the property. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner’s building was sealed and taken over by the Government. The Petitioner is entitled to retain the property without any further interference from the Respondents. However, there will be no order as to costs.