Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of declaration declaring that the proceedings taken by the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 in respect of Survey No.269/1A and 269/2 of Thiruneermalai Village formerly within Saidapet Taluk, now within Tambaram Taluk, measuring an extent of 7150 sq. meters stand abated as per section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999). 2. Admittedly, the first respondent (competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978) effected a declaration under section 11(3) of the said Act holding an extent of 7150 sq. meters comprised in Survey No.269/1A and 269/2 of Thiruneermalai village to be excess vacant land in the hands of one Balaraman. It is also not in dispute that the said Balaraman was the owner of the said property on the advent of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 and hence the assessment of the above said vacant land to be excess vacant land in the hands of the said Balaraman could not be found fault with. 3. On the other hand, the petitioner, who has chosen to purchase the said property from the said Balaraman under a sale deed dated 21.11.1985 registered as document No.548/1986 in the office of Sub Registrar, Pallavaram, contends that despite the fact that the sale deed executed by Balaraman in favour of the petitioner would not be valid as against the government and the declaration made under section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 had the deeming effect of vesting the property with the government, the mere deemed vesting of the property with the government was not enough to bring the case within the exemption clause found in section 3 of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999) to save the proceedings from the mischief of being lapsed under section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999) and that for attracting the exemption under section 3 of the Repeal Act, possession of the property should have been taken as per the procedure contemplated in the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that no such possession was taken and only a record had been created in the office of the respondents as if possession was delivered to the Revenue Department and such a paper delivery, without actual possession being taken in accordance with Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978, the savings provision under section 3 of the Repeal Act would not get attracted. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents would contend that possession of the land was taken prior to the Repeal Act coming into force by following the procedure contemplated in the main act, namely Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 and that hence the proceedings would not stand abated under section 4 of the Repeal Act as it is exempted under section 3 of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999). Learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the erstwhile owner of the urban land, namely Balaraman did not respond to the notices sent under section 7(2) and the subsequent notices, which resulted in the issuance of publication of the declaration under section 11(3) declaring the land concerned in this writ petition to be excess extent of vacant urban land held by the said Balaraman; that the purchase made by the petitioner being one made subsequent to the date of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 coming into force was void as against the government and that therefore, the notice prior to the declaration under section 11(3) to the said Balaraman was enough to justify the declaration. 5. Of course to the above said extent the learned Additional Government Pleader is right in his contention that the declaration was properly made and the declaration had the deeming effect of vesting the property with the government. But the further contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the proceedings in respect of the land concerned in this writ petition have not lapsed on the advent of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999) seems to be unsustainable. 6. But the further contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the proceedings in respect of the land concerned in this writ petition have not lapsed on the advent of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999) seems to be unsustainable. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out the fact that throughout the earlier stages, which culminated in the publication of declaration under section 11(3), the erstwhile owner of the urban land, namely Balaraman evinced no interest and that the fact that the said Balaraman had executed a sale deed conveying the property concerned in this writ petition to the petitioner under the sale deed dated 21.11.1985 registered as document No.548/1986 on the file of Sub Registrar, Pallavaram, a number of years prior to the date of publication of declaration under section 11(3) was known to the competent authority and still the competent authority proceeded with the publication of declaration on the premise that the purchase made by the petitioner could not be set up to defeat the right of the government. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the said fact not for contending that the publication of the declaration under section 11(3) was defective or invalid, but for showing that the competent authority was very much aware of the fact that there had been a sale transaction in respect of the property concerned in the writ petition and the petitioner was the purchaser and that said purchaser was in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. 7. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property from 21.11.1985, though the property was deemed to have vested with the government on the publication of section 11(3) declaration on 02.06.1992, the competent authority ought to have followed the procedure contemplated in the Act for taking possession of the land, to say that the proceedings had not lapsed on the advent of the Repeal Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the fact that no notice under section 11(5) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 was served on the petitioner, who was in possession and submitted that any paper delivery recorded by the authorities, would not be recognised as a possession taken legally under sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader, pointing out the fact that notice under section 11(5) came to be served on one Indira, daughter of Balaraman, contended that the same would show that proper procedure was followed before taking possession under section 11(6) of the Act. It is the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the said notice served on Indira, daughter of Balaraman, coupled with the documents showing delivery of possession to the Revenue Department, will prove the case of the respondents that possession of the land declared as excess vacant urban land was taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that hence the plea of the petitioner for a declaration that the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 in respect of the survey numbers concerned in this writ petition stand lapsed has got to be rejected. 9. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to the fact that the competent authority was not only aware of the sale transaction, but was also aware of the fact that pursuant to the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner, patta had been issued in favour of the petitioner and entries in the 'A' register had also been made in the name of the petitioner and that despite the fact that the property stood registered in the name of the petitioner even before the publication of the declaration and on the date of alleged issuance of section 11(5) notice, the competent authority failed to serve notice under section 11(5) on the petitioner who was in possession of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out the above facts, contended that actual possession was not taken and only a paper delivery was effected by making entries in the revenue records and in such circumstances, the court must hold that the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 stand lapsed and abated by virtue of section 4 of the Repeal Act, namely Act 20 of 1999. The writ petitioner has also enclosed copies of patta issued in her name and A-Register extract in the typed set of papers. 10. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is supported by various judgments of this court as well as the apex court. Needless to cite all those decisions and suffice to observe that by now it is settled proposition of law that any notice served on a person, who was not in possession of the property, will not be a valid notice under section 11(5) of the Act to save the proceedings from the mischief of being lapsed under section 4 of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999). This point has been dealt with by various benches of this court and the Supreme Court and the above view was expressed. The following are the cases in which the said views was expressed:- (1) W.A.Nos.693 to 695/2003 (1.Annie Jacob, now known as Mrs.Annie Jonathan Rep by Power Agent George Alexander, 2.Mrs.Susy Alexander, 3.Lyme George Appellants in W.A.No.693/03, Thomas Jacob, Appellant in W.A.No.694/03, Susy Alexander, Appellant in W.A.No.695/03 vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9, 2. The Assistant Commissioner Urban Land Ceiling Chennai Agglomeration, Alandur, Chennai-88, respondents in all WAs) – Judgment of High Court, Madras; (2) The Government of Tamil Nadu and others V. Nandagopal and others reported in 2011 (3) CTC 843 ; (3) V.Somasundaram and Others Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and Others reported in (2007) 1 MLJ 750 ; (4) Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and Others vs. Mecca Prime Tannery rep. by its Managing Director Tmt.V.Jayakodi, Chennai-44 and others reported in [2012] 6 MLJ 273, (5) Mukarram Ali Khan Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and Others reported in (2007) 1 MLJ 750 ; (4) Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and Others vs. Mecca Prime Tannery rep. by its Managing Director Tmt.V.Jayakodi, Chennai-44 and others reported in [2012] 6 MLJ 273, (5) Mukarram Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. And others reported in [2008] 1 MLJ 507; and (6) Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar vs. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and othersreported in (2012) 4 SCC 718 11. In view of the same, this court does have no hesitation in holding that possession in the manner contemplated under section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act was not proved to be taken by the competent authority and that hence the acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 stand lapsed and abated by virtue of section 4 of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999). 12. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and the relief as prayed for by the petitioner is granted. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.