JUDGMENT :- 1. The Writ Petition is filed by G. Kothandapani, son of A.K.Gurumurthy Achari, challenging the proceedings of the second respondent viz. Assistant Commissioner of Land Tax and Competent Authority of Urban Land Ceiling,Alandur Area dated 30.9.1986 declaring an extent of 5600 sq. mts. out of 7600 sq. mts. of land, an excess vacant land in Survey No.22/1B and 23/3A of Madipakkam village and further direction to the petitioner to surrender possession of the said land with the Tahsildar, Tambaram in his proceedings Ref. 7236/86(B), dated 18.12.1987. 2. In the light of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (Act 20/1999), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was the absolute owner of the land in question. While so, pursuant to the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, the second respondent viz. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax and Competent Authority of Urban Land Ceiling, Alandur Area issued notice to the petitioner under Section 7(2) of the Act, requiring the petitioner to file return. Since the petitioner failed to file return as per the provisions of the Act, the second respondent did not agree with the petitioner in not declaring the said land. Therefore, notice under Section 9(4) of the Act and statement under Section 9(1) of the said Act were issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit his objection to declare an excess vacant land measuring 5600 sq. mts out of the total extent of 7600 sq. mts deducting his family eligibility of 2000 sq. mts. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted his statement on 8.6.1998 declaring 5600 sq. mts as excess vacant land. On that basis, the second respondent has also accepting the petitioner's statement, issued the impugned order dated 30.9.1986 in SR.787/85 A declaring 5600 sq. mts as excess vacant land. Subsequently, notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued by the Tamil Nadu Government to the petitioner in Ref.7236/86(B) dated 18.12.1997 and finally on 12.2.1988, the petitioner, on his own, handed over the excess land to the Revenue Inspector. He further submitted that thereafter notice under Section 12(7) of the Act was issued on 12.4.1988 calling upon the petitioner for enquiry on 5.9.1988. He further submitted that thereafter notice under Section 12(7) of the Act was issued on 12.4.1988 calling upon the petitioner for enquiry on 5.9.1988. After accepting the said notice dated 12.4.1988, the petitioner has also given his no objection letter on 4.5.1988 and thereafter the petitioner keeping quiet for 11 years, has filed revision before the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai requesting to revise the order passed under Section 10(1) of the Act with further request to issue a direction to allot the entitlement area of 2000 sq. mts in the area of vacant site in Survey Nos.22/1B and 23/3A of Madipakkam village. 3. The reason given in the said revision was, after giving no objection for surrendering excess vacant land, the petitioner came to know that some of the encroachers have unlawfully put up their superstructure. Therefore, it was very difficult for him to enjoy the said land and on that basis, he asked for change of land. Subsequently, an inspection was also conducted on the site of the petitioner's land and the Inspection Team found out that the actual possession were encroached by encroachers. Therefore, they expressed their inability to exchange the land. Accordingly, the second respondent passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999 came into force on 16.6.1999, the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents automatically lapsed. Therefore, he has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings. But, the said submission was opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed, in which, it has been stated that the petitioner, on his own, has come forward to surrender the excess land. On the basis of the petitioner's statement, the respondents have declared the land of 5600 sq. mts as excess vacant land and therefore, on 12.2.1988, the petitioner has also handed over the vacant possession to the Revenue Inspector and after handing over the possession with a delay of 11 years, the petitioner cannot ask for change of land on the ground that the petitioner's land has been encroached by some of the persons. mts as excess vacant land and therefore, on 12.2.1988, the petitioner has also handed over the vacant possession to the Revenue Inspector and after handing over the possession with a delay of 11 years, the petitioner cannot ask for change of land on the ground that the petitioner's land has been encroached by some of the persons. Further, it was also submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that even before the passing of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999, which came into force on 16.6.1999, the petitioner handed over the vacant possession of the land and the delivery register is also showing that the petitioner has handed over the vacant possession of the land on 12.2.1988. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in favour of the petitioner to say that the petitioner can avail the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999, which came into force on 16.6.1999, for the simple reason that he has also handed over the physical possession of the excess vacant land wayback on 12.2.1988. 7. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.