Judgment :- 1. The brief facts of the case, sans unnecessary details, leading to the filing of these writ petitions are stated hereunder. 2.1. The petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, who is the fifth respondent in all other writ petitions, viz., K.Radhalakshmi, is stated to have purchased 1.5 Acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.151/1 and 151/2 situated at Ramapuram Village on 1.1.1976 under a registered document, and is stated to have been in possession and enjoyment of the same along with her family members. The extent contains land and buildings. 2.2. The said K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) is stated to have been holding major share in M/s.Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, a company later impleaded as fifth respondent in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, which company has also been arrayed as sixth respondent in other writ petitions, and she applied for transfer of one acre excess land to the said company in the year 1978 as per the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (Tamil Nadu Act XXIV of 1978), (for brevity, "the Principal Act"). It is her case that the Government passed orders determining the excess land under the Principal Act, but the Government has not taken possession of the excess land and she and her legal heirs are in possession of the property. In the meantime, Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited was closed and the lease given to it was surrendered. 2.3. It is stated that in the year 2002, the petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007 has applied to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, the second respondent, for transfer of land and the second respondent is stated to have cleared the same and referred to the Assistant Commissioner, the third respondent and therefore, according to her, the second respondent has accepted the physical possession of the lands with her. She is stated to have built up around 60 industrial sheds in the year 1998 and applied for regularization and in the 60 industries operating in the premises, around 1000 workers are engaged. It is stated that since the authorities required issuance of patta for the purpose of further construction, she applied to the Government for releasing the property from the purview of the Principal Act. However, she along with her legal heirs have been paying the statutory duties to the public authorities like the Panchayat. 2.4. It is stated that since the authorities required issuance of patta for the purpose of further construction, she applied to the Government for releasing the property from the purview of the Principal Act. However, she along with her legal heirs have been paying the statutory duties to the public authorities like the Panchayat. 2.4. The Principal Act was enacted for the purpose of fixation of ceiling limit of urban lands and taking possession of the excess vacant lands and ultimately, the Principal Act came to be repealed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999), (for brevity "the Repeal Act"). As per the Repeal Act, the lands which were covered under the Principal Act, being the excess lands, possession of which was not taken over by the Government, were directed to be restored to the original owners after refund of the amount received and therefore, according to the petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, the Government has no right or power to retain possession, since the Principal Act itself was repealed and possession continued to be with her and her family members and according to the Repeal Act, the taking over of possession from the land owners under the Principal Act must be physical possession and not merely vesting of right with the government. Therefore, according to her, since possession of the entire land has not been taken over by the government at any point of time, she is entitled to restoration of ownership and it is in those circumstances, she has requested the respondent/Government to release the land so as to enable her to get patta. 2.5. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007 that the company floated by her, viz., Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, does not require the land and the land has been surrendered to her and she is paying the statutory duties. 2.5. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007 that the company floated by her, viz., Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, does not require the land and the land has been surrendered to her and she is paying the statutory duties. Since the company was unable to pay the amount to the Government and in the meantime, the said company has been closed, she undertook to pay the instalment amounts to be paid by the company and because the property has not been released, she was unable to get the building plan approved for further construction and therefore, she has filed the said writ petition in W.P.No.28993 of 2007 for a declaration that she is entitled to retain the lands measuring an extent of 4131.598 Square Meters comprised in Survey No.151/1 Part, Ramapuram Village, as per Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act to enable her to get patta on the grounds that the Commissioner under Principal Act has accepted that the possession of the land and building are with her; that since the company to which the petitioner transferred the land stood closed, she is entitled to retain the land and therefore, patta should be transferred to her name; and that the Repeal Act does not provide any saving clause and in fact benefits have been conferred under Section 3 (2) of the Repeal Act and the proceedings under the Principal Act itself are not over and by virtue of the Repeal Act all proceedings stand abated. 3.1. The other writ petitioners, including the petitioner in W.P.No.16690 of 2009, who are occupying various industrial sheds of different extents in the total extent of 4131.598 Square Meters of land, are stated to be the tenants in respect of those sheds constructed by the said K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007), who is arrayed as fifth respondent in their writ petitions. 3.2. 3.2. While it is admitted that the said K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) has purchased total extent of 1.5 Acres in Survey Nos.151/1 and 151/2 under registered document from Late Sri Gemini Ganesan, it is their case that after the Principal Act came into existence on 3.8.1976, in respect of which various provisions were notified on 17.5.1978, out of 1.5 Acres of land purchased by her, one Acre, which is to the extent of 4131.598 Square Meters in Survey No.151/1 Part of Ramapuram Village, was declared to be excess land in her hand and that was sub-divided into Survey Nos.151/1B and 151/1C and the extent of 4131.598 Square Meters, sought to be acquired under the Principal Act, was brought in Survey No.151/1B. 3.3. While it is admitted that K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) has applied for exemption from the Principal Act, it is stated that she floated the company called Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited and she was holding major share in it and her husband was a Director and on behalf of the company, an application was made to the first respondent/Government on 24.11.1977 requesting to transfer the said excess land in favour of the company for industrial purposes. On behalf of the first respondent proposals were sent on 17.5.1979 to acquire the excess land from K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) as per the provisions of Sections 9 to 11 of the Principal Act and transfer it to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited for industrial purposes as per Section 24(4) of the Principal Act. 3.4. According to the said petitioners, the acquisition has been completed and the property is vested absolutely with the Government, which is stated to have taken possession on 5.8.1983, as confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Kundrathur, Chennai - 600 088 in the proceedings dated 8.1.2008 and 2.9.2008, and the excess land was allotted to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited by the Government as per Section 24(4) of the Principal Act under G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue Department, dated 19.4.1990. 3.5. 3.5. It is stated that K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) has received 25% of the compensation amount on 17.3.1984 amounting to Rs.5,062.50 towards the acquisition and it is stated that on 5.4.1987, she has received first four instalments towards compensation amount, amounting to Rs.1802/- and she refused to receive the balance amount, viz., 5th to 15th instalment, and the same was deposited with the Revenue Department. 3.6. It is stated that Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, to which the lands were allotted for industrial purpose, has not utilised the land for the said purpose and ultimately, the company came to be closed and wound up and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue Department, dated 19.4.1990 is liable to be withdrawn. It is stated that even though K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) ceased to be the owner and possession was taken over by the Revenue Department, she constructed industrial sheds on the subject property and the portions were handed over to the said petitioners as tenants and according to them, they have been running the business in these years employing more than 1000 persons in all and they were all paying rents to K.Radhalakshmi towards the use of the industrial sheds by obtaining registration certificates, SSI licence, electricity connection, etc. 3.7. The Repeal Act has repealed the Principal Act and as per Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, in respect of the lands deemed to have vested under the Principal Act as per Section 11(3) of the Principal Act, in respect of which possession has not been taken over by the State Government and amount has been paid by the State Government as compensation, such lands shall not be restored unless the amount paid if any is refunded to the State Government. 3.8. According to them, K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007), after the Repeal Act has been enacted, has applied to the second respondent on 2.12.2002 requesting re-allotment, since possession has not been taken over from her, in respect of which no action was taken by the first and second respondents due to the reason that the first respondent has already taken over possession from the fifth respondent as per Section 11(5) of the Principal Act. Therefore, according to them, since possession has been taken over by the Government and handed over by way of transfer to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, the interim order of status-quo passed by this Court on 13.2.2008 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.26993 of 2007 filed by K.Radhalakshmi is of no avail, as she has not been in possession. 3.9. It is stated that the said petitioners, through their association, viz., Telace Industrial Estate Industries Owners Association, have made representation to the government on 6.10.2007 requesting to allot the individual area, which is on lease with the members of the association for industrial purposes and when that representation was not considered, the said association filed W.P.No.36047 of 2007, which was disposed by this Court on 3.12.2007, by directing the first respondent to consider the said representation and pass orders, on condition that the individual members of the association shall file individual representations. Accordingly, it is stated that the said petitioners have made individual representations requesting for allotment of various extents of land which are in their possession for using the same for industrial purposes at the prevalent price. 3.10. It is stated that the petitioners have been paying rent to K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) till May, 2008 without default. Since K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007), in the month of May, 2008, asked the petitioners to vacate the premises and threatened to disconnect electricity supply, some of the tenants have moved the civil court challenging the eviction and rents are being paid to the credit of the civil court. 3.11. It is stated that the said entire area is covered under the industrial zone as per the master plan of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. On an information received under the Right to Information Act from the Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Ceiling), Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088, the said petitioners learnt that the subject property has been handed over to the Revenue Department and it continues to vest with the government and the same was never handed over to K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007). 3.12. 3.12. As per the direction given by this Court on 3.12.2007, the second respondent passed an order on 20.9.2008 stating that since the writ petition filed by K.Radhalakshmi is pending, no order can be passed and it was thereafter, the said petitioners have filed implead petitions in W.P.No.28993 of 2007 filed by K.Radhalakshmi and the implead petitions were all directed to be heard at the time of final disposal of W.P.No.28993 of 2007. 3.13. The said petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated 20.9.2008 refusing to pass orders as per the earlier direction given by this Court on 3.12.2007 in W.P.No.36047 of 2007. According to them, their representations should have been considered independently, since K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) is not entitled to re-allotment as per the provisions of the Repeal Act, where re-allotment is provided only in a case where the government has not taken possession of land and in the case on hand, possession has been taken over from K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) in the year 1983 itself. Therefore, the petitioners have filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.16690, 24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009 for a direction against the first respondent/government to allot the lands in their possession measuring various extents from and out of an extent of 4131.598 Square Meters in Survey No.151/1B, Ramapuram Village, Thiruvallur District to them. 4. Even though the government has not filed any counter, the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the files. 5.1. It is the contention of Mr.P.Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, viz., the original land owner who purchased the property in the year 1976, who has been arrayed as fifth respondent in all other writ petitions, that admittedly the physical possession of the excess lands as per the Principal Act was not taken over by the government and therefore, by virtue of the Repeal Act, which came into force in 1999, when possession has not been taken, the land ceiling proceedings stand abated and the only right of the government is to get back the amount paid, including the compensation. It is his submission that there are records to show that even as on date the property tax has been paid by her to the tax authorities and records are available up to 2007 to that effect. 5.2. It is his submission that there are records to show that even as on date the property tax has been paid by her to the tax authorities and records are available up to 2007 to that effect. 5.2. It is his submission that on filing of the writ petition in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, there has been an interim order protecting the possession of the property, which is still with her, and the status-quo order passed has been confirmed by a detailed order dated 11.8.2008, by which there was an order of injunction also restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property by his client. 5.3. He would also rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Angoori Devi v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2000 (Supp 1) SC 295 to substantiate his contention that when once possession has not been taken over by the government, the owner who is in possession at the time of the Ceiling Act is entitled to continue and retain possession. 5.4. According to him, as per the Repeal Act, there must be record to show that the State has taken physical possession of the surplus land and he would rely upon the judgment in [2000] 6 SCC 325. He would also rely upon the judgments in 2002 (2) CTC 716 , 2004 (4) MLJ 676 and 2006 (4) LW 784 , apart from many other unreported judgements to substantiate his contention in that regard. 5.5. He would submit that as far as the other writ petitioners are concerned, they are admittedly tenants under K.Radhalakshmi and in a dispute between her and the government, the tenants are third parties. In this regard, he would rely upon the decision in 2001 (3) CTC 520 . He further added that the tenants only want to usurp the property belonging to K.Radhalakshmi, which cannot be permitted in law. 5.6. He would also submit that by no stretch of imagination the other writ petitioners, who are tenants under K.Radhalakshmi, can claim right over any portion of the property either by allotment or otherwise, since the relationship is only that of landlord and tenant. 6.1. 5.6. He would also submit that by no stretch of imagination the other writ petitioners, who are tenants under K.Radhalakshmi, can claim right over any portion of the property either by allotment or otherwise, since the relationship is only that of landlord and tenant. 6.1. Per contra, it is the contention of Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.16690 of 2009, by referring to Section 11(5) of the Principal Act, that when as per the Principal Act the excess land is vested with the government, which has become final, especially when the compensation has been passed on, by a combined reading of Sections 11(3) and 12(1) of the Act, the possession is deemed to have been taken, particularly when what was available was only a vacant land. She would rely upon the decision in [2008] 4 SCC 594 to substantiate her contention in respect of legal possession, especially regarding vacant land. She would also reply upon 2009 (4) LW 826 in this regard. 6.2. It is her submission that when once it is admitted by K.Radhalakshmi herself that Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, which is a company having independent entity, by way of allotment by the government under Section 24(4) of the Principal Act has taken possession, it means that physical possession has been taken away from K.Radhalakshmi as its owner and handed over to another person, viz., Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, and it is no more open to K.Radhalakshmi to say that she continues to be in possession. According to her, even if Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited is controlled by K.Radhalakshmi, inasmuch as Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited is a legal person, to which possession has been handed over by the government, if Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited has been liquidated, the property has to vest with the government and K.Radhalakshmi cannot claim herself to be in possession at all. 6.3. She would also submit that when once the government legally has allotted land to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited by G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue Department, dated 19.4.1990, it is not open to K.Radhalakshmi to continue to claim to be in possession, because the government by allotment of land to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited is deemed to have taken physical possession from K.Radhalakshmi and given to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited. When once the company and shareholders are not one and the same, it is her submission that under the Repeal Act, it relates only about the original owner and not the allottee and since, Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited has become subsequent allottee under Section 24(4) of the Principal Act, the original owner does not come into the picture at all. 6.4. In effect, it is her submission that when once it is admitted that possession has been handed over to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited for industrial purposes, K.Radhalakshmi loses her physical possession and that itself is sufficient to show that vesting of the property with the government has been completed as per the provisions of the Principal Act. 7.1. It is the contention of Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009, while adopting the submissions made by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, that the writ petition filed by K.Radhalakshmi is not maintainable for the simple reason that she has alienated her right to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, in which she is only a shareholder and therefore, she cannot claim herself to be the owner of the company. 7.2. According to him, when Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited was liquidated, the property is deemed to have vested with the government and it is for the government to decide about the allotment of land to others, after the Repeal Act has come into existence and therefore, it is not open to K.Radhalakshmi to question the rights of the tenants to claim allotment from the government. 7.3. He would also insist that as per G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue Department, dated 19.4.1990, the vesting of property with Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited has already been completed and there is no question of K.Radhalakshmi claiming herself to be in possession. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.16690 of 2009, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009 and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Government, perused the files and given by anxious thought to the issue involved in this case. 9. The purchase by K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) in respect of 1.5 Acres or 27 grounds or 66000 sq.ft. 9. The purchase by K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) in respect of 1.5 Acres or 27 grounds or 66000 sq.ft. of agricultural land in Survey Nos.151/1 Part and 151/2 Part, Ramapuram Village from its previous owner Gemini R.Ganesan under a registered sale deed dated 1.1.1976 is not in dispute and the same is on record. 10. The Principal Act which came into force with effect from 3.8.1976 has fixed a ceiling limit in respect of urban lands and inasmuch as the lands purchased by K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) are covered under the Madras Urban Agglomeration in Category 1 of Schedule 1 of the Principal Act, admittedly, as per the Principal Act, out of 1.5 Acres of land purchased by K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007), one Acre has been declared as surplus, beyond the ceiling limit and under Section 11 of the Principal Act, the excess vacant land beyond ceiling limit is to be acquired by the State Government. 11. Section 11(3) of the Principal Act, which is as follows: "Section 11. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.- (1) and (2) .... (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified." contemplates such notification to be given under Section 11(1) of the Principal Act and on such notification, the excess land is deemed to have vested absolutely with the State Government free from all encumbrances. 12. 12. As it is seen in the file, the publication of notification under Section 11(3) of the Principal Act in respect of the excess lands was on 17.8.1983 and it is stated in the report filed under Section 24(4) of the Principal Act that the government has taken possession from K.Radhalakshmi (petitioner in W.P.No.28993 of 2007) on 24.11.1983, fixing the total value payable at Rs.20,250/- and the acquired land was given sub-division No.151/1B, Ramapuram and such entry has also been made in the revenue records. 13. It appears that on behalf of Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, in which K.Radhalakshmi was holding a major share along with her husband, a request was made to the government to allot the said acquired lands to it for industrial purposes. On behalf of Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, a letter has been addressed on 25.11.1983 to the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, requesting to sell the excess vacant land acquired from K.Radhalakshmi to them. 14. Section 24(1) of the Principal Act empowers the State Government to allot the excess lands acquired by it to any person or industry and such allottee will be person in lawful possession. Section 24(4) of the Act, which is as follows: "Section 24. Disposal of vacant land acquired under the Act.- (1) to (3) ... (4) Where any vacant land which is in the possession of any person for any purpose relating to, or in connection with, any industry but owned by any other person, is declared as excess vacant land under this Chapter, such person in possession of such vacant land shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any of the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, continue to possess such land under the State Government under such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the State Government. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section,- (i) the expression "to possess vacant land" shall have the same meaning as in the Explanation under sub-section (2) of Section 20; (ii) the expression "industry" shall have the same meaning as in clause (b) of the Explanation under sub-section (1)." enables such person to whom the allotment has been given for industrial purpose to continue to possess the land under the State Government, as per the terms and conditions of allotment. 15. 15. By virtue of such power conferred under Section 24 of the Principal Act, the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue Department, dated 19.4.1990, directing the Collector to hand over possession to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited. The said government order is as follows: "M/s.Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited has requested allotment of lands measuring 4050 sq.mtrs. in S.No.151/1B of Ramapuram Village, Madras Urban Agglomeration to M/s.Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, Madras. Government have examined the proposal and under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 ( Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978) read with Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978 the Government allot the lands measuring 4050 Sq.Mtrs. In S.No.151/1B of Ramapuram Village, Madras Urban Agglomeration to Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Ramapuram, Madras on collection of one and half times of market value, subject to the conditions indicated below:- (i) Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Madras shall pay the one and half times of market value of the land, as land value, and for the value of trees, wells and structures, if any. (ii) Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Madras should utilise the land for the purpose specified within a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land. The lands shall not be utilised for any purpose other than the said purpose. (iii) The lands allotted shall not be transferred by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or otherwise to any person or institution. (iv) The land value shall be paid within 30 days from date of receipt or orders fixing the land value. (v) If Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Madras fails to remit the amount within a period of thirty days, the allotment is liable to be cancelled, without assigning any reason. (vi) the possession of the lands shall be handed over by the Collector of Chengai Anna District to M/s.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited on remittance of value of land. (vii) in the event of Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Ramapuram, Madras not complying with any of the conditions of allotment, the Government shall after giving an opportunity to them to be heard in the matter cancel the allotment and the lands shall revest to Government free from all encumbrances. (vii) in the event of Messrs.Telace Plants and Equipment (Private) Limited, Ramapuram, Madras not complying with any of the conditions of allotment, the Government shall after giving an opportunity to them to be heard in the matter cancel the allotment and the lands shall revest to Government free from all encumbrances. No compensation shall be payable in respect of any buildings or other superstructure constructed on such lands, re-vesting to the Government under this clause. The land value shall be credited to "0029 Land Revenue -00-Revenue 800-other Receipts-AO - Receipts under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (D.P.Code - 0029 - 800 AO 0007). The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration is also requested to furnish the one and half times of market value in consultation with the Collector of Chengai-Anna District for approval of the Government. He is also requested to issue suitable instructions to the Collector of Chengai Anna District in this regard." 16. Even though K.Radhalakshmi is stated to be holding a major share in Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited along with her husband, being the Director, it remains an admitted fact that the said Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having an independent legal personality, independent of its shareholders, who constituted the corporate personality. 17. Even though on file I am unable to find out anything to show that the authority under the Principal Act have in fact taken physical possession from K.Radhalakshmi in respect of the excess lands, by virtue of the government order passed as per Section 24 of the Principal Act, the possession has been directed to be handed over to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited through the District Collector. It is also not in dispute and admitted by K.Radhalakshmi that Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited has taken possession of the vacant land which was acquired from her under the Principal Act and declared as excess from her. 18. It is also not in dispute and admitted by K.Radhalakshmi that Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited has taken possession of the vacant land which was acquired from her under the Principal Act and declared as excess from her. 18. However, it has been the stand of K.Radhalakshmi that she continues to be in possession of the entire extent of land by putting up industrial sheds by herself and it is her case, as it is also evidenced by the various lease deeds executed by her during March, 2003 in favour of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16690, 24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009, who are the tenants, wherein the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16690, 24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009, who have asked for allotment of sheds in their favour from the Government, they have accepted that the said K.Radhalakshmi, being the lessor, is absolute owner and it is also not in dispute that they have been paying rent to her till 2008, when the said K.Radhalakshmi has filed a suit in O.S.No.161 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur for an injunction against the tenants from putting up or altering any construction. She has also filed simultaneously suits against the said petitioners, who are tenants, for possession and all the suits are pending. 19. The crucial point under this factual scenario to be considered is by virtue of the advent of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Central Act 15 of 1999), based on which the State Government has passed the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which has received the assent of the Governor on 16.6.1999, the date on which it has come into force, whether the said K.Radhalakshmi should be deemed to continue to be in possession, in which event, by virtue of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, her possession will be protected. 20. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 3 of the Repeal Act, which is as follows: "Section 3. 20. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 3 of the Repeal Act, which is as follows: "Section 3. Savings: (1) The repeal of the Principal Act shall not effect - (a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub section (3) of Section 11, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; (b) The validity of any order granting exemption under sub section 1 of Section 21 or any action taken thereunder. (2) Where - (a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under Section (3) of Section 11 of the Principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by competent authority; and (b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land, then, such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government." 21. Therefore, by virtue of Section 11(3) of the Principal Act, after declaring excess of vacant land, if possession has been taken from K.Radhalakshmi by the State Government, the Repeal Act will not have any effect, viz., there is no obligation on the part of the State Government to restore possession to K.Radhalakshmi if possession was taken. On the other hand, even by virtue of Section 11(3) of the Principal Act when on acquisition the vesting on the State Government was deemed, but nevertheless when possession was not taken over by the State Government, the Government is entitled only to get back the refund of amount paid towards compensation for such acquisition of the excess land and not to restore possession. 22. It is to be noted that after the government passed the government order transferring the land to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited and directing the District Collector to hand over possession to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, there are no records, as it is seen in the file, to show that the Collector has handed over possession to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited. Further, even much after the government order transferring the excess land in favour of Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, the said K.Radhalakshmi herself has executed lease deed in the year 2003 in respect of various portions of land to other writ petitioners, who have admitted that the said K.Radhalakshmi continues to be the owner of the lands by paying rent up to 2008, till the said K.Radhalakshmi initiated proceedings against them for eviction. 23. As I have stated earlier, there is nothing on file to show that on passing order under Section 11(3) of the Principal Act, physical possession has been taken over from K.Radhalakshmi in respect of the excess lands either by the government or other officials authorised on behalf of the government. The factum of acquisition from K.Radhalakshmi, stated to have been in the year 1983, and the factum of transferring the property under Section 24 of the Principal Act to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited in the year 1990 by the government order are all unassailably available by virtue of the documents, but there are no records to show that physical possession of the land has been taken over from K.Radhalakshmi by the government. 24. By long line of judgements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Courts in India, it has been held that when possession of the vacant land has not been taken over by the Government, the proceedings under the Principal Act abate after the Repeal Act has come into existence. It was in Angoori Devi v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2000 (Supp 1) SC 295, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "2. These cases relate to the interpretation of different provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. During the pendency of these appeals in this Court, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has been repealed by Act 15 of 1999 and the State of U.P. Also has adopted the same by a Resolution. In view of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Repealing Act and the fact that the possession of the vacant land has not been taken over by the State Government, which is asserted by the Counsel appearing for the appellants and is also apparent from the interim orders passed by this Court, the question for consideration no longer survives." 25. That was also the view of the Supreme Court in Pt.Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. and others, [2000] 6 SCC 325. The Supreme Court has held as follows: "5. Since there is nothing on record to indicate that the State had taken possession over the surplus land, the present proceedings have to be abated and are hereby abated under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999." 26. That was also asserted by the Supreme Court in Mukarram Ali Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2007-4-LW-797, as follows: "6. In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant to which no objection has been filed, undisputed position is that the State has not taken the possession over the surplus land. Therefore, the proceedings have to be treated to have abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act." 27. In Ghasitey Lal Sahu and another v. Competent Authority under the Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, U.P. and another, [2004] 13 SCC 452, it was held as follows: "1. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants placed before us a copy of the letter dated 5.1.2000 addressed to the appellants by Narender Nath Chaudhary, Assistant Engineer, Urban Land Ceiling, Kanpur, wherein it is clearly stated that the proceedings in this case will abate under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short "the Act") as the proceedings have not yet been initiated. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that having regard to Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short "Act of 1999), the proceedings abate. She also submitted that the possession of the land in question has not been taken. She further submitted that, all along, there had been interim orders in favour of the appellants and this Court also had granted interim order on 9.2.1998. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents states that in view of the letter aforementioned, the appeal may be disposed of. 3. Under these circumstances, having regard to Section 4 of the Act of 1999, the proceedings under the Act abate. Nothing more is required to be done in this case. In this view, the impugned order will not have any effect and shall not remain in operation." 28. 3. Under these circumstances, having regard to Section 4 of the Act of 1999, the proceedings under the Act abate. Nothing more is required to be done in this case. In this view, the impugned order will not have any effect and shall not remain in operation." 28. While construing the term "taking over possession by the State Government", a Division Bench of this Court in Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Industries v. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government and 3 others, 2009-4-LW-819, has rejected the contention raised on behalf of the government that symbolic possession is sufficient and actual take over of possession is not contemplated under the Principal Act, as follows: "22. The learned Special Government Pleader vehemently argued that symbolic possession is sufficient when the actual take over of possession is not contemplated under the Act. We are not in agreement with that submission in view of the categorical pronouncements of this Court referred to above." 29. The absence of any savings clause in the Repeal Act, which is intended to preserve from destruction certain rights, while it does not give any new right, in the absence of taking over of physical possession under the Principal Act after the land is declared surplus, the Repeal Act cannot be stated to confer any better right to the Government. That was also the view of this Court, as held by A.Kulasekaran,J., as He then was, in Simpson and General Finance Company Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2006-4-LW-787. While construing the savings clause, it was held as follows: "12. "Saving clause" is used to preserve from destruction certain rights, remedies or privileges already existing not that it gives any new right. The assumption is that legislature enact laws with complete knowledge of existing laws pertaining to the same subject. The failure to add saving clause indicates that the intent was not to save the existing legislature. In this case, Section 21 (2) was not saved in the repeal Act." 30. In V.Gurunathan v. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax and Ceiling, Tambaram Area, Chennai and others, [2007] 5 MLJ 103, this Court has held as follows: "Mere vesting of the land in the Government is not sufficient. In this case, Section 21 (2) was not saved in the repeal Act." 30. In V.Gurunathan v. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax and Ceiling, Tambaram Area, Chennai and others, [2007] 5 MLJ 103, this Court has held as follows: "Mere vesting of the land in the Government is not sufficient. Taking actual possession of the land and payment of compensation therefor to the land owner, are crucial factors which, if not done prior to the coming into force of the Repeal Act of 1999, proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, would abate." 31. Again, this Court in Saraswathi and another v. Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai and others, [2007] 5 MLJ 1240 has held that the land acquisition proceedings would stand abated if it is not shown by the State that actual physical possession of the land in question was taken over and due compensation paid before the Repeal Act has come into existence. 33. S.Jagadeesan,J., as He then was, in C.V.Narasimhan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and two others, 2002-2-LW-764, has held as follows: "8. ....... it is clear that the repealed Act gives certain right to the owners of the land where the physical possession of such land continues to be with the owner. The statutory vesting is of no relevance. In the case on hand, the petitioner claims to be in possession of the disputed land. When sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the repealed Act specifically makes a provision to refund the compensation and retain possession if possession remains with the land owner. Hence, it is for the first respondent to consider the question of physical possession and decide the issue. Virtually, the first respondent has failed to consider this vital factor. This Court is of the view that the non consideration of this vital factor by the first respondent will amount to an error apparent on the face of the record, as well as the impugned order suffers from non application of mind with regard to the legal implications of the repealed Act." 33. This Court is of the view that the non consideration of this vital factor by the first respondent will amount to an error apparent on the face of the record, as well as the impugned order suffers from non application of mind with regard to the legal implications of the repealed Act." 33. Therefore, by a catena of judgments it is clear that unless it is proved that the State Government has taken physical possession of excess land after declaring the excess as per the provisions of the Principal Act by initiating the acquisition proceedings, and if it is proved that physical possession continues to vest with the previous owner, who is in enjoyment and possession after coming into force of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, by which the proceedings under the Principal Act stand abated, the owner is certainly entitled to have the benefit of the said provision and continue to be in possession. 34. On the facts of the present case, there are records abundantly to show that the K.Radhalakshmi has been paying property tax in her name throughout, viz., even as on March, 2007, and even the other petitioners, who are the tenants under her, have clearly admitted the ownership of K.Radhalakshmi at least till 2008, up to which time they have been continuously paying rent to her, till, of course, she has initiated action for eviction against them. The overwhelming evidence of physical possession in the hands of K.Radhalakshmi is apparent on the face of the entire factual aspect as such. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.16690 of 2009 and the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24933 to 24935, 25998 to 26002 of 2009, who are all tenants under K.Radhalakshmi, that there is a deemed taking over of possession by the combined reading of Sections 12(1) and 11(3) of the Principal Act, has no meaning. On the factual matrix, while it is true that five instalments of amounts have been sent by the State after declaring excess of vacant lands, it remains an admitted fact that K.Radhalakshmi has not received the amount as contemplated under Section 12(1) of the Principal Act. 35. There is one another aspect that has to be considered here. On the factual matrix, while it is true that five instalments of amounts have been sent by the State after declaring excess of vacant lands, it remains an admitted fact that K.Radhalakshmi has not received the amount as contemplated under Section 12(1) of the Principal Act. 35. There is one another aspect that has to be considered here. While it is the stand of the State Government that in the year 1983 the surplus land of K.Radhalakshmi was declared and possession was taken, in respect of the same there is absolutely no record regarding taking over of physical possession. Likewise, even though it is stated that in the year 1990, transfer was effected as per Section 24 of the Principal Act in favour of Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, which is virtually owned by K.Radhalakshmi as major shareholder along with her husband, for handing over of such possession to Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, there are no evidence and in spite of all those aspects, the tenants have chosen to enter lease agreements with K.Radhalakshmi in the year 2003, thereby recognizing her possession, title and ownership over the lands. If such lease agreements were entered by the said tenants with Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, through K.Radhalakshmi as its Director, it would have been certainly a different issue. But the fact remains that the tenancy agreements were entered by the tenants with K.Radhalakshmi not representing the company, but individually in her name and it was after she has taken steps to evict the tenants, the tenants, for the first time, having entered lease agreements with K.Radhalakshmi in the year 2003 and paying rent continuously in these years, have taken a diametrically opposed stand as if the land except 50 Cents of land is belonging to the government. That only speaks volume about the conduct of the tenants. 36. In the communication of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax addressed to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department in Rc.No.17630/2001 (2), dated 9.12.2002, while referring to the claim of K.Radhalakshmi that she has been in possession throughout, it is stated that the government order dated 17.5.1979 should be simultaneous to the date of taking over of land and allotting to the company, viz., Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited, and the taking over should be construed as 1983. The operative portion of the letter is as follows: "The records available also show that the Government Order dated 17.5.1979 is a simultaneous order wherein the land should be taken over from Tmt.K.Radhalakshmi, the present petitioner and should be allotted to her company, namely Telace Plants and Equipment Private Limited. Hence, the date of taking over of the land by the Government in 1983 may be taken as the date of allotment." 37. This shows that it is not even the case of the government that physical possession has been taken over, but it was only a deemed possession on record and even on record, except an endorsement made in one of the files, there is no evidence to show that physical possession has been taken from K.Radhalakshmi. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that inasmuch as the State Government has never taken physical possession from K.Radhalakshmi as per the Principal Act and before the Repeal Act came into existence, as per the Repeal Act the entire proceedings initiated under the Principal Act stand abated. With the result, K.Radhalakshmi is entitled to retain possession of the extent of 4131.598 Square Meters comprised in Survey No.151/1 Part, Ramapuram Village as per Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16690, 24933 to 24935, and 25998 to 26002 of 2009, viz., tenants, who have filed writ petitions for a direction are not entitled to any relief as claimed. In the result, W.P.No.28993 of 2007 stands allowed and W.P.Nos.16690, 24933 to 24935, and 25998 to 26002 of 2009 stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.5 of 2008 in W.P.No.28993 of 2007, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.16690 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.24933 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.24934 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.24935 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.25998 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.25999 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.26000 of 2009, M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.26001 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.26002 of 2009 are closed.