ORDER 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of a direction forbearing the respondents from taking further action under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) and to direct the respondents to drop the proceedings under the said Act pertaining to the lands in S. No. 44/lA and in S. No. 55/1, measuring an total extent of 6800 sq.meter in Amudurmedu Village in Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District by initiating further proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978. 2. The factual matrix of the case is to be narrated hereunder: 2.1. The petitioner had purchased a property under Sale Deeds dated 14.5.1962 and 20.4.1966 measuring an extent of 1 acres and 18 cents in Amudurmedu Village in S. No. 44/lA and in S. No. 55/1 measuring an extent of 0 acres and 54 cents, in all measuring 1 acre and 72 cents in the said Village in Poonamallee Taluk and Thiruvallur District. The petitioner was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The petitioner reliably learnt that her lands are under the Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent on 25.11.2010 requesting to drop the urban land ceiling proceedings relating to the petitioner’3 land as stated above. 2.2. The petitioner was not served with the notices under Section 9(5) or 11(5) of the Act. The petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land till date. In view of the possession of the subject land with the petitioner till’ date and the physical possession was not taken over by the respondents, the proceedings initiated under the Act must be held to have abated under Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Repealing Act) . In view of the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition with the above said prayer. 3. Mr. David Tyagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondents neither served the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act to the petitioner nor taken actual physical possession till date from the petitioner and as such, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Act must be held to have abated under Section 4 of the Repealing Act. It is contended that though the respondents claim that notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was served, the original records produced before this Court discloses that the respondents claimed to have Served the notice by affixing the notice on the subject land and they have not sent any notice through RPAD and as such, it cannot be contended that the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was served on the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, would place reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 12.9.2011 passed in W.P. No. 19105 of 2008. It is submitted that in the said decision thi3 Court has elaborately dealt with the matter regarding serving of notice under Section 11(5) of the Act as well as taking actual physical possession. 4. Per contra, Ms. V.M. Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader contended that notices under Section 9(5) and 11(5) of the Act were already served on the petitioner’s son and daughter. It is contended that the possession was also taken over from the petitioner on 11.08.1998 and handed over to the revenue authorities on the same day. It is submitted that necessary entries were also made in the revenue records in respect of taking over possession of the subject property. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot invoke the benefit of the Repealing Act. 5. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the original records produced before this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader. 6. The respondents have not filed any counter, but on the other hand they have produced the original records before this Court. 7. At the outset, it is to be stated that the perusal of the original records reveals that notices under Sections 7(2) and 9(5) of the Act were claimed to have been served on the daughter and son of the petitioner, but the perusal of the original records reveals that only some signature was found and it was not stated about the non-availability of the petitioner and on what authority, the respondents sought to serve the notice to the son and daughter of the petitioner. It is further seen that there is no acknowledgment by making an endorsement by the son and daughter of the petitioner to the effect that they have received the notice. It is also relevant to note that the said documents does not contain any name of the witnesses in the presence of whom, the notices have been served. It is seen from the records that statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 2.8.1997. However, in respect of the crucial and vital document, namely, regarding serving of Section 11(5) notice is concerned, which is a mandatory requirement under the Act, the perusal of the original records reveals that the respondents have not served the said notice through RPAD, but on the other hand, it is stated that the notice was affixed in the premises, namely, at the subject land. It is stated that an endorsement was found in the said document to the effect that the authorities were not aware of the address of the petitioner and as such, they have affixed the notice. 8. It is curious to note that inspite of the claim made by the respondents to the effect that they have served Section 10(1) statement to the petitioner, the respondents claim that they are not aware about the address of the petitioner. Therefore, the documents produced before this Court reveals that the notices under Sections 9(5) and 11(5) of the Act have not at all been served in the manner known to the law. 9. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Sathasivam (as His Lordship then was) in V. Somamundaram and Other v. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and Other LNIND 2007 MAD 160 : (2007) 1 MLJ 750 , wherein it was held as hereunder: “9. ..... As per Section 11(5) of the Act, the competent authority is bound to issue notice in writing to any person, who may be in possession of the land, to surrender and deliver possession thereof, to the State Government or to any person duly authorized by the State Government, within thirty days’ time. No notice having been issued against the appellants, who are in possession of the lands as stated supra, taking possession of lands on 30.4.1999 by the second respondent is non-est. No notice having been issued against the appellants, who are in possession of the lands as stated supra, taking possession of lands on 30.4.1999 by the second respondent is non-est. It is to be noted that due to the repealing of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, with effect from 16.9.1999, it is not open to the authorities to proceed against the appellants at this stage to rectify the non-compliance of Section 11(5) of the Act.” In yet another decision dated 18.6.2007 of the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya (as his Lordship then was) in W.A. Nos. 693 to 695 of 2003, in Annim Jacob and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, a similar view was expressed. The Division Bench of this Court in the said decision has held as hereunder: “8. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the competent authority issued any notice in writing directing the original land holder or the appellants to surrender or deliver possession of the lands in question. Nothing has been produced to suggest that the original land holder or the appellants refused or failed to comply with such order and on failure the possession of the lands were taken by force. In absence of such notice under Section 11(5) or action taken under Section 11(6), a bald statement as made by the respondents that possession was taken on 10.2.1995, cannot be accepted...... 13. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued from the records produced that even the vendor of the land was also not served with the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act read with Rule 10(3). According to him, the notice under Section 11 (5) should be sent by RPAD. In this case, admittedly, the records do not indicate that notice was sent through RPAD to the erstwhile owner. The learned counsel also pointed out that there was no endorsement from the erstwhile owner for the receipt of the notice. On the other hand, the records reveal that an endorsement was made by the official at Page No. 937 of the record file that notice was served on the erstwhile owners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this does not amount to service of notice under Section 11(5) of the Act. On the other hand, the records reveal that an endorsement was made by the official at Page No. 937 of the record file that notice was served on the erstwhile owners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this does not amount to service of notice under Section 11(5) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously: contended that if such a method is approved, then the officials would cook up the records by simply making an endorsement in the notice without getting endorsement from the concerned persons for proof of service or by sending through RPAD. We find force in the submission of the petitioner. 22. In view of categorical pronouncements of this Court, we are of the view that the notice under Section 11(5) is mandatory and in the absence of 11(5) notice, the entire proceeding is vitiated.” The principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in this case also, this Court already held that the notices under Section 9(5) and 11(5) of the Act were not served on the petitioner in the manner known to law and as such, in view of the absence of Section 11(5) notice, the entire proceedings is vitiated as the mandatory provision under Section 11(5) of the Act was not complied by the respondents. 10. Now coming to the question of taking over possession of the subject land from the petitioner it is to be stated that the original records produced before this Court discloses that the respondents have taken only, paper possession, namely, symbolic possession and not taken the actual physical possession of the subject land from the petitioner. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 18.6.2007 in W.A. Nos. 693 to 695 of 2003 (cited supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that symbolic possession is not a possession as contemplated under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act. 11. In yet another decision, a Division Bench of this Court in Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Industries v. Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu and Others 2009-4-LW-819 : LNIND 2009 MAD 2778 : (2009) 8 MLJ 522 , by following the earlier decisions of this Court has held as hereunder : “18. 11. In yet another decision, a Division Bench of this Court in Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Industries v. Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu and Others 2009-4-LW-819 : LNIND 2009 MAD 2778 : (2009) 8 MLJ 522 , by following the earlier decisions of this Court has held as hereunder : “18. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Honourable Ms. Justice Prabha Sridevan in W.P. Nos. 19845 of 2006 dated 31.7.2006 wherein in paragraph No. 13, the learned Judge held that mere recording of possession by the authorities will not amount to actually taking over of possession. The learned Judge rejected the plea of taking of possession based on the similar Land Delivery Receipt produced in that case. In this context, the learned Judge recorded in paragraph No. 8 that the Land Delivery Receipt does not show in whose presence, the possession was taken. The learned Judge also relied on a paragraph in W.P. No. 34590 of 2004, which is as follows: “When the respondent does not say that the petitioner had surrendered possession on its own, then the respondent ought to have been taken possession. Under Section 11(6) of the Principal Act, whenever a urban land owner fails to surrender possession as demanded under Section 11(5) of the Act, then the competent authority may take possession of the lands and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. Therefore, from the above two aspects, namely, the urban land owner was directed to surrender possession and since he is not shown to have surrendered possession and the power of the Government to use such force as may be necessary in taking possession, clearly indicate that physical possession of the land must be taken by the competent authority. Therefore, from the above two aspects, namely, the urban land owner was directed to surrender possession and since he is not shown to have surrendered possession and the power of the Government to use such force as may be necessary in taking possession, clearly indicate that physical possession of the land must be taken by the competent authority. There is nothing on record to show that “on what day possession was taken; was any representative of the writ petitioner present; the name of the person who took possession; the person from whom possession was taken; are there any contemporary record to show that possession was in fact taken at such a time and on such a date when possession was handed over to the Revenue Inspector, Pallikaranai; are there any record to show such handing over to the Revenue Inspector, Pallikaranai and the name of the officer, who received possession of the lands....” In C.V. Narasimhan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu etc. and 2 Others 2002 (2) L.W. 764 , while considering the impact of the Repealing Act, had held that where physical possession of such land continues to be with the owner, the statutory vesting under Section 11(3) of the Act is of no relevance at all. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner further cited the decision dated 25.9.2006 of the Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla (as His Lordship then was) in W.P. Nos. 33839 and 33911 of 2004, wherein the learned Judge followed his earlier decision dated 9.9.2004 in W.P. No. 6641 of 1997 and the same is extracted hereunder: “11. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of S. Jagadeesan, J in the judgment reported in C.V. Narasimhan rep. by his Power Agent Smt.Jayalakshmi, No. 12, Bishop Garden, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 28 v. 1. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9, 2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-5, 3. The Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Alandur 2002 (2) L.W. 764 , wherein the learned Judge has clearly stated that so long as the physical possession of the land continues to be with the owner, even the statutory vesting of the land will be of no consequence.” The learned Judge in paragraph No. 7 of the same judgment dated 25.9.2006 has held as follows: “7. To the same effect is the order of Justice R. Balasubramanian, dated 22.8.2006 passed in W.P. No. 17416 of 2004, where the learned Judge, reiterating the position that the possession means taking physical possession, had held, “Therefore, the sine qua non to keep the property declared as surplus under the provisions of the Act is that physical possession of the said property ought to have taken by the competent authority despite coming into force of the Repealing Act.” 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on paragraph No. 10 of the judgment dated 19.10.2006 of the Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru in W.P. No. 29061 of 2003, which is as follows: “This Court in its judgment reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J. 664 (Sosamma Thampy v. The Assistant Commissioner (ULT)-cum- Competent Authority (ULC), has analyzed all the previous case laws and categorically held that physical possession is required and mandatory under the ULC Act and noting in the file that symbolic possession is taken cannot be accepted as taking of physical possession. This Court is in complete agreement with the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision which also squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Act contemplates that if the persons in possession failed to deliver possession within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 11(5), the Competent Authority has to take possession under Section 11(6) of the Act. The learned counsel has brought to our notice that the words “may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary” used in 11(6) indicates that to take actual possession, the Competent Authority is clothed with power under Section 11(6). In the absence of delivery of possession by land owner pursuant to notice under Section 11(5), the possession should have been taken through the manner suggested under Section 11(6). Since the notice under Section 11(5) was not even served, the symbolic possession is ‘not a possession as contemplated under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act. In the absence of delivery of possession by land owner pursuant to notice under Section 11(5), the possession should have been taken through the manner suggested under Section 11(6). Since the notice under Section 11(5) was not even served, the symbolic possession is ‘not a possession as contemplated under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced various receipts for payment of tax and the latest receipt is dated 7.3.2007 and various electricity bills including the last one dated 14.11.2008 besides Small Scale Industries Registration Certificate about the carrying on the manufacturing of bricks, in support of his submission that the concerned lands are in his actual possession.” The Division Bench of this Court, ultimately in the said decision, has held as hereunder: “23. Once the possession is not taken over by the Government as held by us, all the proceedings under the Act must be held to have abated under Section 4 of the Repealing Act, in view of the categorical pronouncement of the Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt. Angoori Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others JT 2000 (Supp.1) SC 295 .” The principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also this Court already held that the petitioner was not served with Section 11(5) notice and the actual physical possession of the subject land was not taken over by the respondents. Therefore, all the proceedings initiated under the Act must be held to have abated in view of the categorical pronouncement of the Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt. Angoori Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others JT 2000 (Suppl. 1) SC 295 as well as by the Division Benches of this Court in the decisions cited supra. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to treat the proceedings initiated under the Act as abated under Section 4 of the Repealing Act. Consequently, the respondents are directed to incorporate the name of the petitioner as owner in all the revenue records like patta, chitta and adangal. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to treat the proceedings initiated under the Act as abated under Section 4 of the Repealing Act. Consequently, the respondents are directed to incorporate the name of the petitioner as owner in all the revenue records like patta, chitta and adangal. It is made clear that the above said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Ordered accordingly.