JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner is NEPC India Limited represented by its Director. They filed a Special Revision Petition being S.R.P.No.4/2002 before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (for short Land Reforms Act), challenging an order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the first respondent State. 2. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as CRP No.1971 of 2003. However, a learned Judge of this court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge were not a Court but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRP was converted into writ petition and notice was ordered. 3. In fact, the petitioner company was in possession of lands in excess of the Land Ceiling Act. They were first owning 2248.20 Acres in Coimbatore and Erode Districts. By way of sale, they had transferred substantial lands in favour of other companies. In order get over the provisions of the Act, they filed an application dated 12.06.1997 under Section 37A of the Act to the Government. By an order dated 08.12.1998, the State Government held that even during the pendency of the exemption application, they have sold the properties and their action was illegal. Therefore, the exemption sought for under Section 37A of the Act cannot be granted. It also held that under Section 7 of the Act, they had contravened the provisions of the Act. Hence, further action can be initiated under Section 20 of the Act. The order of the Government made in G.O.D.No.595 Revenue (Land Reforms) dated 08.12.1998 was not challenged by the petitioner before the Court. But they sent a representation to the then Minister for Review dated 29.01.1999 and requested to reconsider their earlier decision. They also sent a further representation dated 28.06.2001 to the then Minister for Energy with a similar request. Further representation was once again sent to Minister of Revenue dated 23.07.2001. 4. By a letter dated 12.11.2001, the State Government considered their earliest representation dated 29.01.1999 and held that there was no new grounds adduced for grant of exemption. Hence, the land covered by the Act cannot be allowed to be sold. In that view of the matter, their request was rejected. 4. By a letter dated 12.11.2001, the State Government considered their earliest representation dated 29.01.1999 and held that there was no new grounds adduced for grant of exemption. Hence, the land covered by the Act cannot be allowed to be sold. In that view of the matter, their request was rejected. Challenging the same, the Special revision came to be filed, which was converted into writ petition as noted above. 5. The grounds raised by the petitioner Company was that the refusal to grant exemption was against the spirit of Section 37A of the Act and the provisions of Sections 7 and 20 cannot be invoked when their exemption application is pending. The Government ought to have exempted the land by virtue of Sections 3(22) and 3(19) of the Land Reforms Act as the lands were not used for agricultural purposes. Keeping an application for grant of permission for four years and later refusing the same was erroneous. The sale of excess land took by the petitioner without the permission of the first respondent was not against the provisions of the Act. There is no provision which prohibits the land owner to sell the excess land. 6. First of all, it is not in dispute that the Act in question applies to the land held by the petitioner Company in excess of the ceiling. In such circumstances, Section 37A of the Act is the only provision under which a commercial or industrial undertaking after getting permission from the Government can hold the land in excess. Under Section 37A(2) of the Act, the Government is given discretion to grant permission and also to impose such conditions as are necessary except in accordance with Section 37A. The company cannot hold any land in excess specified under Section 7. Under Section 37(a)(5) of the Act, the Government can also cancel such permission on breach of any conditions imposed. Under Section 23 of the Land Reform Act, if any transfer by way of sale or otherwise made, then such sale is held to be invalid. The petitioner company cannot have a vested right in demanding protection under Section 37A to hold in excess of the ceiling prescribed under the Act. The contravention of Section 37A will automatically result in invocation of Sections 7 and 20 of the Act. The petitioner company cannot have a vested right in demanding protection under Section 37A to hold in excess of the ceiling prescribed under the Act. The contravention of Section 37A will automatically result in invocation of Sections 7 and 20 of the Act. The contentions raised by the petitioner in this regard are misconceived and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 7. This Court do not think that the Government by passing the impugned order had committed any irregularity or illegality. The petitioner company has not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.