Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed to quash the order of the 2nd respondent under Section 9(5) dated 23.7.1997 vide C.Pa.33/96 C and notice under Section 11 (5) dated 30.4.99 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, in respect of the land in survey No.6/1A4 of Puthur village, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District measuring an extent of 4250 sq.meters and to direct the respondents to treat the proceedings referred to above as abated under Section 4 of Tamil nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999. 2. The brief facts relevant for consideration herein are as follows: The land in question which is agricultural in nature belonged to one C.Nirmala and the petitioners herein have purchased the property in question from the said Nirmala by registered sale deed dated 11.11.1982 and the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and have been using the same for agricultural purpose. While so, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has been extended to Puthur Village, where the property is situated, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.679 Revenue dated 17.7.1995 with effect from 9.8.1995 which is much after the purchase of the land by the petitioners herein. Thereafter, the proceeding has been initiated during 1996 for declaring the land belonging to Nirmala as surplus. The second respondent who is the competent authority has issued notification under section 11(2) thereby calling upon Nirmala who was the erstwhile owner to file the statement under Section 7 (1) of the Act. Admittedly there was no response from Nirmala for the notice given under section 7(2). It is equally admitted that the competent authority has not made any further efforts to obtain necessary information relating to the ownership of the land in question as contemplated under section 7(5) of the Act. However the second respondent/competent authority has proceeded to pass an order under section 9 thereby preparing a draft statement and caused the service of draft statement and the same was followed by an order under section 9(5). Thereafter the competent authority has passed the final order under section 10(1) thereby making final statement regarding the extent of the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit. Thereafter the competent authority has passed the final order under section 10(1) thereby making final statement regarding the extent of the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit. The same is followed by notification under Section 11(1) and then show cause notice under section 11(5) calling upon the holder of the excess land to surrender the possession of such excess land to the state Government. It is not in dispute that all the notice and order issued under sections 7(2), 9(1), 10(1) and 11(5) are caused to be sent to the original owner i.e. Nirmala that too by adopting the mode of service by affixure. 3. The core issue that arises for consideration herein is as to whether such notices also contain all the particulars under the relevant provision of law; as to whether the mode of service by affixure is proper and is in compliance of the statutory requirement and as to whether the order passed under sections 9(5), 10(1) and 11(5) pursuant to such mode of service of notice by affixure amounts to giving effective opportunity to the erstwhile land owner or present occupier. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to Section 7(5) and to Rule 8 in support of his contention that in the event of failure on the part of the land owner to file any statement as called for under section 7(2), it is the duty of the competent authority to obtain necessary information regarding the name and address of the land owner and about the land in question and thereafter to proceed to pass further orders and to serve notice to such addressee in the manner as contemplated under Rule 8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mode of service contemplated under Rule 8 is by registered Post to the person concerned to the address given in the statement and when the same mode of service through registered post was not successful, only thereafter by affixing the copies of the same in a conspicuous place in the office of the competent authority and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the holder of the vacant land or as the case may be, the other person is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain. 5. 5. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as the notice under section 11(5) for surrender and delivery of the possession of the property in question, the same shall be handed over to the owner and/or the occupier in the same manner as under Rule 8. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case, the competent authority has failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under section 7(5) and the failure to serve notice in the manner as contemplated under Rule 8 renders the entire proceedings to be vitiated. 6. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even assuming it to be true that the orders passed under sections 9(5), 10(1) and 11(5) are in accordance with the procedure, no record is made available to show that the actual possession had been taken over from the petitioners and in the absence of any record to show the actual taking over the possession of the property, cl.4 of Repeal Act 20/1999 gets attracted and the whole proceedings get abated. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would seriously argue that the mode of service by way of affixture is adopted only after taking all efforts to serve notice through registered post and hence, there is no irregularity and illegality committed by the authority concerned in passing the orders under sections 9(5), 10(1) and 11(5) and the property is held to be surrendered by the erstwhile land owner and though the purchase of the property by the petitioners is subject to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act during 1995, there was no mutation in the revenue records till the proceedings are initiated as such the competent authority had no knowledge about the purchase of the land in question by the petitioners and in that event, notices served on the erstwhile owner at different stage is to be treated as proper service and the petitioners cannot be now permitted to raise any grievance regarding the mode of service of notice on the erstwhile owner and want of issuance of notice to the petitioners herein. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that all the notices issued under sections 9(5), 10(1) and 11(5) are caused to be sent to the erstwhile owner viz., Nirmala that too by way of affixure. Regarding the mode of services, the impugned order which is enclosed at page 22 of the typed set of papers would say as if the mode of service through registered Post sent to the last known address in the village is returned un-served as addressee left and the mode of service by affixture is thereafter adopted. 10. It is noteworthy to mention that the address of the erstwhile owner as per the document found at page 24 of the typed set is Nirmala, Puthur Village and Post, Chengalpet Taluk and the same is according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, true, proper and complete address to which the notice issued at various stages ought to have been sent and only after the same is unsuccessful, the mode of service by affixture ought to have been adopted and failure to follow the same renders the mode of service by affixture to be not proper service and in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act and Rules. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners have in support of his contention, cited number of authorities reported in (i) 2008 (3) MLJ 252 in T.Audikesavan and others v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai and others (ii) 2006(4) LW 159 in M/s.Vijay Foundation (P) Ltd rep. by its Director R.Thiagarajan v. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai (iii) 2007 (1) MLJ 750 in V.Somasundaram and others v. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and others and unreported judgments viz. (i) W.P.No.29081 of 2003 dated 19.10.2006 in Sudandarakkani v. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai-9 and two others (ii) W.P.No.19673 of 2001 dated 7.8.2009 in S.Santhanam v. The Special Commissioner and Revenue Secretary to Government, Chennai-9 and two others, (iii) W.P.No.3749 of 2001 dated 7.8.2009 (Division bench of our High Court) in G.krishnamoorthy and four others v. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu rep. of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai-9 and two others (ii) W.P.No.19673 of 2001 dated 7.8.2009 in S.Santhanam v. The Special Commissioner and Revenue Secretary to Government, Chennai-9 and two others, (iii) W.P.No.3749 of 2001 dated 7.8.2009 (Division bench of our High Court) in G.krishnamoorthy and four others v. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai9 and three others and (iv)W.P.No.19845 of 2006 dated 31.7.2006 in S.Antony and two others v. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai and two others. 12. In all those cases, the learned Single Judge as well as the Honble Division Bench of our High Court have dealt with identical issue in respect of mode of service by affixture and have held that as the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provisions in respect of mode of service of notice and taking over of possession, the entire proceeding is vitiated. 13. As a matter of fact, our High court has in the judgment reported in (2008) 3 MLJ 252 (T.Audikesavan and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai and others) clearly held that when valuable lands are sought to be taken over by statutory enactment, duty is cast on the authorities to meticulously stick to the rules prescribed therein and failure to do so will vitiate the entire proceedings. The factual and legal aspects discussed above would only compel this Court to hold that the mandatory requirement in respect of mode of service of all notices and orders made under this Act to the erstwhile and current owner cum occupier of the land are not complied with which renders the entire proceedings to be vitiated and nullified. 14. With regard to taking over of the possession, the same is according to the respondents on 12.6.1999. It is stated at para 10 of the counter that notice under section 11(5) was issued on 30.4.1999 and possession of the excess vacant land was taken over on 12.6.1999. 14. With regard to taking over of the possession, the same is according to the respondents on 12.6.1999. It is stated at para 10 of the counter that notice under section 11(5) was issued on 30.4.1999 and possession of the excess vacant land was taken over on 12.6.1999. when admittedly the lands were sold to the petitioners during 1988 much before the proceedings were initiated under Section 6 of the Act, it is no where stated as to whether notice under section 11 (5) was issued either to the erstwhile owner or the petitioners who have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and as to whether taking over of the possession was due to voluntary surrender of the possession or by forceable eviction from the occupier of the land as contemplated under section 11 (6) of the Act. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners as the petitioners have not been served with due notice under section 11(5) taking over the possession on 12.6.1999 can be only through paper and no actual taking over of possession took place? Though it is sought to be argued by the learned Additional Government Pleader that as there was no mutation, the question of issuing any notice under Section 11(5) to the petitioners for surrendering the possession does not at all arise, the same is answered by our High court in the case reported in 2006(4) LW 159 in M/s.Vijay Foundation (P) Ltd rep. by its Director R.Thiagarajan v. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai and others, wherein, our High court has observed that if no notice is received by the land owner, the possession taken by the respondents is vitiated. by its Director R.Thiagarajan v. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai and others, wherein, our High court has observed that if no notice is received by the land owner, the possession taken by the respondents is vitiated. It is rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that had any efforts been taken by the competent authority to obtain necessary information regarding the owner and occupier of the land and about the land in question through the revenue officials, it would have revealed the fact that possession and enjoyment of the property is with the petitioners and the same could have enabled the competent authority to issue due notice to deliver or surrender the possession under section 11(5) to the petitioners herein and the failure on the part of the competent authority to make any efforts to collect necessary particulars as discussed above, the contention of the competent authority that the possession has been taken over on 12.6.1999 is factually baseless. This Court finds greater force in the argument so advanced on the side of the petitioners. 15. As referred to above, no record is made available herein to show that the actual possession was taken over under section 11(5) or under Section 11(6) either from the erstwhile owner or from the petitioners herein. The mere averment made in the counter affidavit without further mentioning the name of the person from whom the actual possession was taken over, is not sufficient enough to establish the respondents contention in this regard and on the failure on the part of the respondents to prove the actual taking over of possession, the petitioners contention that the actual possession continues to be with them is to be necessarily accepted. As no actual possession was taken over by the competent authority pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act, the entire proceedings by virtue of Section 4 of Repeal Act 20/1999 shall stand abated. Viewing from any angle, the entire proceedings initiated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is by virtue of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of the original Act and is by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.