JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition was filed by Karumbu Kadai Rajiv Nagar Kudiyiruppor Welfare Association challenging the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.SR.53/89 A1 dated 17.11.1994,to quash the same on the ground that the proceedings initiated by the second respondent should abate as per the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (Act 20 of 1999) with the consequential direction forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the members of the petitioner’s association in any many manner in respect of the properties at Survey No.246/2, 3A and 3C of Anupar Palayam village, Koottu Pagudhi, Coimbatore District. 2. (i) It was pleaded before this court that the petitioner association is a registered association and the members of the petitioner association are the owners of the lands in Survey No.246/2, 3A and 3C of Anupar Palayam Village, Koottu Pagudhi, Coimbatore District to an extent of 118.70 grounds. It was also contended that the members of the petitioner association have purchased the said properties and after purchase, they have put up construction after obtaining sanctioned plan from the competent authority. Subsequently, when they had approached the Tahsildar, Coimbatore for patta, they came to know that the abovesaid property was covered under the proceedings issued by the second respondent dated 17.11.1994 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978. Since the respondent has initiated the proceedings under the abovesaid Act against the vendor's predecessor C.P. Manickam, they have come to challenge the impugned proceedings by filing the present writ petition on the ground that the proceedings initiated by the second respondent is abated. (ii) Further, it was pleaded that the petitioner association is being the owners of the property covered under the impugned proceedings dated 17.11.1994, unless the second respondent issues a notice to the members of the petitioner association, they cannot take any proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978. 3. (i) This Court is not able to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reason is very simple and clear that although they claimed to be the owners of the property by virtue of purchase, nowhere in the affidavit they have mentioned the date of purchase and the extent of property purchased from the vendor. (i) This Court is not able to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reason is very simple and clear that although they claimed to be the owners of the property by virtue of purchase, nowhere in the affidavit they have mentioned the date of purchase and the extent of property purchased from the vendor. (ii) The second respondent is liable to issue notice only to the persons who are owning the land on the date of issuance of the notice as per the revenue records. In the present case, the second respondent-competent authority had initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 against the petitioner vendor predecessor C.P. Manickam by issuing notice under Section 7(2). It was also admitted by the petitioner in para 3 of the affidavit that the said C.P. Manickam had also received the said notice on 21.12.1992 and thereafter, draft notice was issued on 29.1.1993 and the same was also again admittedly received by the land owner on 29.3.1993, whereupon objections received from him, was also admitted by the petitioner. It was further admitted by the petitioner herein that the previous vendor after initiation of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978, had sold the property to H.Abdul Bazheer and he has given power to Mohammed Yakoob to sell the abovesaid property and based on the said power the said Mohammed Yakoob suppressing the fact that the said property was covered under the Ceiling, sold the property to the petitioner. The abovesaid transfer of the land is hit by section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceilingand Regulations) Act 1978 since section 6 clearly states that no person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit shall transfer any such land until he has furnished a statement under Section 7 and a notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published under sub-section (1) of section 11 and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void. (iii) The original vendor C.P. Manickam had maliciously sold the land to come out from the coverage of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1978 proceedings. (iii) The original vendor C.P. Manickam had maliciously sold the land to come out from the coverage of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1978 proceedings. Be that as it may, when the petitioner came to this Court in 2006 for quashing the proceedings initiated by the second respondent dated 17.11.94 on the ground that they have been in physical possession of the land on the date of coming into force of the Repeal Act 20/1999 which would automatically stand attracted, has not satisfactorily proved before this Court that they have been in physical possession of the land. Moreover, no document, whatsoever, proving the physical possession of the land has been filed before this Court. Therefore, this Court is not able to extend the benefit of section 4 of the Repeal Act. 4. Accordingly, W.P.No.10220/2006 fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No.11563/2006 is also dismissed.