JUDGMENT : 1. The dispute in this writ petition is in respect of the lands comprised in Town Survey No.19, Block No.19 and Ward No.B at Chinthamani, Tiruchirapalli Town. The first respondent by his proceedings in RC A1/2751/91 dated 18.10.1996, under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had declared the said lands as excess, as per the provisions of the said Act. In this regard, a Notification was issued against one Mr.Kunju Pillai. Subsequently, as per Rule 10(1) of the Rules, Form V, was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 30.07.1997 thereby acquiring the said lands comprised in T.S.No.19 measuring an extent of 4,160 square meters in favour of the Government. Challenging these two proceedings, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition are as follows:- (i). One Mr.Kunju Pillai, a resident of Tiruchirapalli was the father of the respondents 2 and 4 and father-in-law of the third respondent. One Mrs.Sampooranathammal was the wife of Mr.Kunju Pillai. Mr.Kunju Pillai owned an extent of 4.93 acres of wet lands comprised in Old T.S.Nos.3942/1, 3942/2, 3946 and 4009/1 at Chinthamani Village, Tiruchirapalli. The said lands had been purchased by Mr.Kunju Pillai under a registered sale deed bearing No.1568/79. Subsequently, partition was effected among the family members of Mr.Kunju Pillai and the same was evidenced by a partition chit dated 20.08.1981. The said partition was effected in the presence of panchayatdars. However, the said partition chit was not registered. (ii). According to the said document, Mr.Kunju Pillai was allotted 0.47 acres of land in Old T.S.No.3942/1 and another extent of 0.65 acres in T.S.No.3942/2 and thus, the total extent of the land allotted to Mr.Kunju Pillai was 1.12 acres (vide Schedule-A). His wife Mrs.Sampooranathammal was allotted 0.65 acres in Old.T.S.No.3942/2 (vide Schedule – B). Mrs.Saraswathy, the eldest daughter of Mr.Kunju Pillai was allotted 0.45 acres in Old S.No.3942/2 and another extent of 0.19 acres in Old S.Nos.3943/2, 3946 and 4009/1 were also allotted to her. Mrs.Pattu Ammal, Mr.Manickam, Mr.Kumar and Ms.Vijaya who are another daughter and sons and last daughter of Mr.Kunju Pillai were allotted 0.63 acres each in Old.T.S.Nos.3943/2, 3946 and 4009/1. (iii). Mrs.Saraswathy, the eldest daughter of Mr.Kunju Pillai was allotted 0.45 acres in Old S.No.3942/2 and another extent of 0.19 acres in Old S.Nos.3943/2, 3946 and 4009/1 were also allotted to her. Mrs.Pattu Ammal, Mr.Manickam, Mr.Kumar and Ms.Vijaya who are another daughter and sons and last daughter of Mr.Kunju Pillai were allotted 0.63 acres each in Old.T.S.Nos.3943/2, 3946 and 4009/1. (iii). Though, initially, proceedings were initiated against all the lands which were originally owned by Mr.Kunju Pillai under the provisions of the said Act, later on, the same was modified and finally, the lands held by Mr.Kunju Pillai and Mrs.Sampooranathammal alone were considered and notified. The total extent of the lands so held by Mr.Kunju Pillai and Mrs.Sampooranathammal was 1.77 acres, comprised in Old.S.Nos.3942/1 and 3942/2. Subsequently, Old.S.Nos.3942/1 and 3942/2 were assigned new Town Survey Numbers as T.S.Nos.6 & 11 respectively. Mrs.Sampooranathammal died in the year 1995. Mr.Kunju Pillai’s second son Mr.Kumar also died on 29.04.1987. Therefore, according to the first respondent, fresh action was initiated in respect of the lands owned by Late Mr.Kunju Pillai and Late Mrs.Sampooranathammal and notice for enquiry was duly served on their only surviving son Mr.Manickam on behalf of his parents. An extent of 3000 sq.meters of land was allowed to be retained as their entitlement and the remaining extent of 4160 sq.mtrs was determined as excess over the ceiling limits in their hands and an order under Section 9(5) of the said Act to that effect was passed in RC.A1/2757/91 dated 18.10.1996 (impugned in this writ petition). The said order namely the impugned order was served on Manickam and further action was pursued and notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 30.07.1997 (impugned in this writ petition). Thereafter, final notification under Section 11(3) of the Act vesting 4160 sq.mtrs., of lands in T.S.No.19 was also gazetted on 10.09.1997. Challenging the above impugned proceedings, the petitioners are before this Court with this writ petition. 3. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the purchasers of the lands from the sons and daughters of the deceased Mr.Kunju Pillai and Mrs.Sampooranathammal. They have purchased the lands in New T.S.No.19. The Old Survey Numbers for the said lands were S.Nos.3943, 3946 (part) and 4009/1. 3. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the purchasers of the lands from the sons and daughters of the deceased Mr.Kunju Pillai and Mrs.Sampooranathammal. They have purchased the lands in New T.S.No.19. The Old Survey Numbers for the said lands were S.Nos.3943, 3946 (part) and 4009/1. In other words, the above three Old Survey Numbers were clubbed together and a New Survey Number was assigned to the same as T.S.No.19. The land comprised in new T.S.No.19 was used for laying plots and accordingly, the petitioners have purchased such plots from their original owners. It is further contended by the petitioners that instead of issuing Notification in respect of New Survey Numbers 6 and 11 relatable to Old S.Nos.3942/1 and 3942/2, the first respondent has issued Notification in respect of T.S.No.19 which has got nothing to do with Mr.Kunju Pillai and Mrs.Sampooranathammal, after the partition. Thus, according to the petitioners, by mistake, in the impugned proceedings, the Survey Number of the lands taken over as excess has been mentioned as T.S.No.19. It is the further contention of the petitioners that no notice was served on them and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 4. A detailed counter has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Tiruchirapalli wherein, in paragraph Nos.4,5 & 6, it has been held as follows:- “4. I respectfully submit that after due service of notice under Section 9(4) of the said Act the first respondent by his order dated 09.10.1991 made in RC/A1/2757/91 under Section 9(5) determined that out of the total extent of 4.93 acres equivalent to 19,950 sq.mtrs owned by the Junjupillai family, his family was eligible to hold 7500 sq.mtrs of lands only as their entitlement at 1500 sq.mtrs each of the 5 members Kunjupillai, Sampooranathammal, Manickam, Kumar and Vijaya (unmarried daughter) and declared the remaining extent of 12,450 sq.mtrs as excess over the ceiling limit in their hands by inadvertence. The said order dated 09.10.1991 was omitted to be served on the persons concerned. Further the Town Survey Number of the land was also by mistake quoted as new T.S.No.19 while the land situated in T.S.No.6,11,15 (part) and 19. These defects were noticed only during November 1994 when the survey staff started preparing sub division records. The said order dated 09.10.1991 was omitted to be served on the persons concerned. Further the Town Survey Number of the land was also by mistake quoted as new T.S.No.19 while the land situated in T.S.No.6,11,15 (part) and 19. These defects were noticed only during November 1994 when the survey staff started preparing sub division records. Therefore, re-enquiry was necessitated and the order under Section 9(5) of the said Act was to be passed afresh. The sons and daughters of C.Kunjupillai sold out their respective share of their lands in new NO.19 as house plots in the year 1984 itself and thus the deed of partition came into effect. Recognizing these sales and further recognizing that the extent of land held by each of them was well within the ceiling limit fixed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 the first respondent left their lands from taking action under the said Act. Therefore, action was required to be taken under the above Act only in respect of the lands owned by late Kunjupillai and his wife Sampooranathammal. The total extent of land owned by then is 1.77 Acres equivalent to 7160 sq.mtrs and it lies in Old T.S.No.3942/1 and 3942/2 which correlates to new Survey No.6 and 11 respectively. Sampooranathammal died in the year 1995. Kunjupillai’s second son Kumar also died on 29.04.1987. Therefore fresh action was initiated in respect of the lands owned by Thiru C.Kunjupillai and Late Sampooranathammal and notice for enquiry was duly served on their only surviving son Manickam on behalf of his parents. An extent of 3000 sq.mtrs of lands was allowed to be retained as their entitlement and the remaining extent of 4160 sq.mtrs was determined as excess over the ceiling limits in their hands and on order under Section 9(5) of the said Act to that effect was passed in Rc.A1/2757/91 dated 18.10.1996. The said order was got served on Manickam and further action pursued and notification and Section 11(1) of the Act was got published in the T.N Government Gazette dated 30.07.1991. Thereafter, final notification under Section 11(3) of the said Act, vesting 4160 sq.mtrs of lands in T.S.No.19 was also gazetted on 10.09.1997. 5. I respectfully submit that Kunjupillai and his wife owned lands in T.S.No.6 and 11 and not in T.S.No.19. Thereafter, final notification under Section 11(3) of the said Act, vesting 4160 sq.mtrs of lands in T.S.No.19 was also gazetted on 10.09.1997. 5. I respectfully submit that Kunjupillai and his wife owned lands in T.S.No.6 and 11 and not in T.S.No.19. The lands in T.S.No.19 are jointly owned by respondents 2, 3 and 4 as per the deed of partition executed on 20.08.81. The contention of the petitioners is that the excess land in question fall in T.S.No.6 and 11 and not in T.S.No.19 as has been notified by the first respondent under Section 11(1) of the Act and that therefore the Notification published as such is totally wrong. They have further contended that they have purchased house plots in T.S.No.19 and the respondents 3 and 4 are the real owners of the lands, that Kunjupillai and his wife are not the owners of the said lands, that they are owners of lands in T.S.Nos.6 and 11 only and that action should have been initiated against them in respect of lands in T.S.NO.6 and 11 only. The petitioners herein pointing out the above error committed by the first respondent have filed the writ petition seeking relief by quashing the impugned order dated 18.10.1996 made in R.C.A1/2787/91 under Section 9(5) and consequential issue of Notification dated 30.06.1997 under Section 11(1) of the T.N.Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and published in the T.N.G.G dated 30.07.1997. 6. Regarding the various grounds raised in paragraph 10 of the affidavit I submit that the allegations made against paragraph 10(1) of the affidavit are not denied. The omission to mention the T.S.No., of the land in the impugned order dated 19.10.1996 under Section 9(5) of the Act and subsequently mentioning the survey number of the land wrongly as that of T.S.NO.19 in the Notification dated 30.06.1997 under Section 11(1) of the Act and got it published in the T.N.G.G dated 30.07.1997 are not deliberate but they are only mistakes crept in due to oversight.” Thus, according to the counter, the Notification should have been issued only in respect of New Town Survey Numbers 6 and 11 relatable to O.S.Nos.3942/1 and 3942/2. But, by mistake, in the impugned proceedings, T.S.No.19 was mentioned. 5. But, by mistake, in the impugned proceedings, T.S.No.19 was mentioned. 5. But, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent would further submit that possession has been taken over by the Government and therefore, though the act has been repealed, the vestiture of the land in Government will hold good. Referring to the above averments, the learned Special Government Pleader would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the above submissions. 7. The partition effected on 20.08.1981 among the family members of Mr.Kunju Pillai, has been accepted by the first respondent. As I have extracted above, in paragraph No.4, of the counter, the first respondent has tacitly admitted that an action was taken under the provisions of the Act, only in respect of the lands owned by Mr.Kunju Pillai and his wife Mrs.Sampoornathammal and not against the lands which were allotted in partition to the sons and daughters of Mr.Kunju Pillai and Mrs.Sampoornathammal. 8. As admitted in paragraph No.4 of the counter, the lands owned by Mr.Kunju Pillai and his wife Mrs.Sampoornathammal were comprised in Old S.Nos.3942/1 and 3942/2. Therefore, these two lands should have been notified and taken over by the Government. Certainly, that was the intention of the first respondent. It is also admitted in the counter that the New Survey Numbers for Old Survey Numbers 3942/1 and 3942/2 are T.S.Nos.6 and 11 respectively. In order to clarify the correctness of the above statement made in the counter, I have perused the extract taken from Town Survey Field Register for Tiruchirapalli Town (vide xerox copies of the certified copies annexed to the typed set of papers). As per the said Register, the Town Survey Number 19 is relatable to Old Survey Numbers 3942/1 and 3942/2, 3943/2, 3946 and 4009/1. Admittedly, these lands were allotted to the sons and daughters of Mr.Kunju Pillai and Mrs.Sampooranathammal. Further, even according to the first respondent, no proceeding was initiated in respect of Old S.Nos.3943/2, 3946 and 4009/1 which were owned by the sons and daughters of Mr.Kunju Pillai. As per the very same Register, the New Survey Number for Old Survey No.3942/1 is T.S.No.6 and similarly, the New Survey Number for Old Survey No.3942/2 is T.S.No.11. Therefore, the Notification should have been issued only in respect of New Survey Number.6 (Old.S.No.3942/1) and in respect of New Survey Number.11 (Old S.No.3942/2). As per the very same Register, the New Survey Number for Old Survey No.3942/1 is T.S.No.6 and similarly, the New Survey Number for Old Survey No.3942/2 is T.S.No.11. Therefore, the Notification should have been issued only in respect of New Survey Number.6 (Old.S.No.3942/1) and in respect of New Survey Number.11 (Old S.No.3942/2). This is what has been tacitly admitted in the counter also. But, by mistake, they have issued the impugned proceedings as though the land comprised in T.S.No.19 is proceeded against. This mistake has been admitted in the counter itself. As I have already extracted above, there is no controversy before this Court that the land comprised in T.S.No.19 which was relatable to Old S.Nos.3946, 3943 (part) and 4009/1 belonged to the sons and daughters of Mr.Kunju Pillai and Mrs.Sampooranathammal, from whom the petitioners have purchased. Therefore, the impugned Notification issued in respect of these lands comprised in T.S.No.19, by mistake, is liable to be set aside. 9. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that possession was taken by the Government in respect of land comprised in T.S.No.19 is seriously disputed by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the possession still remains with the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of an interim order of injunction granted by this Court, possession has not been taken over by the Government. Since, in the counter itself, it is stated that the impugned notification has been issued in respect of wrong Survey Number namely T.S.No.19, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside and the possession of the lands should continue to be with the petitioners and if the possession has already been taken by the first respondent, the same should be returned to the petitioners. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed with a further direction to the first respondent to hand over possession of the land comprised in T.S.No.19 to the petitioners, if, possession has already been taken by the first respondent. At any rate, the consequential order shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.