JUDGMENT 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to reverse the entries in the land register maintained in the office of the fourth respondent as to the ownership of the land comprised in S.No.292/2B formerly S.No.292/2 measuring 72 cents so as to show that the legal representatives of petitioner's late father S.S. Sivam are the owners of the above land. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner's late father S.S. Sivam was the registered owner of the agricultural land comprised in Survey Nos.23/1, 22/2, 25/1 and 292/2 of Tambaram Village measuring 8300 sq. meters. He died intestate on 15-05-1992. During his life time, the petitioner's father, after the commencement of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, filed a statement on 10-08-1978 before the third respondent and contended that the aforesaid lands were used for agricultural purposes only and the same would be used only for that purpose. Therefore, he contended that the provisions of the said Act will not apply to the land owned by him. Thereafter, the petitioner's father sold the land comprised in survey Nos.25/1 measuring 46 cents and S.No.22/2 measuring 45 cents and S.No.23/1 measuring 39 cents respectively in the year 1982 to various purchasers. (i) One of the purchasers filed a return under the said Act and the third respondent commenced the proceedings by issuing notice under Section 9(4) of the Act to the petitioner's father through his proceedings dated 31-10-1988. The petitioner's father appeared before the third respondent on 22-01-1990 and represented that he was owning only 72 cents of land comprised in S.No.292/2, at that time and the same was used for agricultural purposes only. The third respondent passed an order on 29-01-1990 under Section 9(4) of the said Act holding that the land owned by the petitioner's father was the Urban Land falling within the purview of the Act and the sale effected by him after the commencement of the Act was not valid. The third respondent also found that the petitioner's father was holding excess land measuring 5800 sq.metres. (ii) The petitioner's father filed an appeal before the second respondent, which came to be dismissed without giving him an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, he preferred a review before the second respondent and during the pendency of the review he died on 15-05-1992. The third respondent also found that the petitioner's father was holding excess land measuring 5800 sq.metres. (ii) The petitioner's father filed an appeal before the second respondent, which came to be dismissed without giving him an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, he preferred a review before the second respondent and during the pendency of the review he died on 15-05-1992. On 25-07-1992, the second respondent issued a notice under Section 11(5) of the said Act calling upon the petitioner's father to surrender possession of the land measuring 5800 sq. metres. (iii) Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 03-08-1992 under Section 33 of the said Act before the second respondent. The petitioner also filed the stay application before the second respondent. As the second respondent did not pass any interim order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.12693 of 1992 and sought for a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal within a reasonable time. (iv) On 21-08-1992, the writ petition was admitted and an interim order of stay, staying all further proceedings of the third respondent dated 15-07-1992 was granted. The said interim order was duly communicated to the third respondent through his counsel on 21-08-1992. Subsequently, when the writ petition in W.P.No.12693 of 1992 was taken up for further hearing, the third respondent filed a counter on 14-12-1995, wherein he has not stated anything about the alleged taking of possession of the land from the petitioner or his father. On 06-03-1997, this Court passed the final order in the above writ petition directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months. In spite of such direction given by this Court, the second respondent has not passed any orders in that appeal. (v) In the mean time, the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act) came into force on 16-06-1999, whereby all pending proceedings before Courts, Tribunals and other authorities stood abated, if no possession was taken before the crucial date. Therefore, the petitioner through his request dated 11-10-2002 called upon the second respondent to reverse the entries in the land register showing the first respondent as the owner of the land in question. Therefore, the petitioner through his request dated 11-10-2002 called upon the second respondent to reverse the entries in the land register showing the first respondent as the owner of the land in question. As the said request of the petitioner was not considered, the present writ petition is filed before this Court with the relief as stated supra. 3. The respondents filed a common counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows: (i) One Chellammal, filed Form VIII under Section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978) (herein after referred to as 'the said Act'). The Deputy Tahsildar, who scruitinised the form reported that the individual had purchased 0.07 acres of dry land in S.No.23/1 from on S.S. Sivam. In order to verify the liability of the purchaser a notice under Section 7(2) of the said Act was issued on 19-05-1988 to the said Sivam requesting to file return under Section 7(2) of the said Act. (ii) As there was no response, a notice under Section 9(4) with a statement under Section 9(1) as contemplated under the said Act was issued to him on 31-10-1988 for the proposed acquisition of 7850 sq. metres. The draft statement under Section 9(1) with notice under Section 9(4) of the said Act was served on the land owner on 30-11-1988. (iii) The land owner filed an objection on 08-12-1988. It is stated by the land owner that he has sold only 0.76 acre in survey No.292/2 which is being used for agricultural purpose and the remaining lands have been sold to various persons. After enquiry, an extent of 5800 sq.metres of vacant land was ordered to be acquired by the Government under Section 9(5) of the said Act, through the proceedings dated 29-01-1990. (iv) The land owner appealed before the second respondent under Section 33 of the said Act. The above appeal was dismissed on 12-04-1991. Final statement under Section 10(1) of the said Act was issued on 26-04-1990. Notice under Section 11(1) of the said Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 27-11-1991. The Notification under Section 11(3) of the said Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 19-02-1992. The above appeal was dismissed on 12-04-1991. Final statement under Section 10(1) of the said Act was issued on 26-04-1990. Notice under Section 11(1) of the said Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 27-11-1991. The Notification under Section 11(3) of the said Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 19-02-1992. The land was vested with the Government and intimated under Section 11(5) of the said Act to the land owner on 29-05-1992 and it was served on the land owner on 21-07-1992 and handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 09-09-1992. (v) The learned counsel for the petitioner through his letter dated 21-08-1992 informed that a writ petition in W.P.No.12693 of 1992 was filed before this Court and a stay order was also issued and the same would be served in due course. However, the said order was received only on 18-09-1992, after taking the possession of the excess vacant land on 09-09-1992. Since the possession of the excess vacant land was taken and handed over on 09-09-1992, the Repeal Act will not affect this case as per Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the possession of the land was not at all taken on 09-09-1992 as contended by the respondents and on the other hand, even as on today, the land is still in the possession of the petitioner. In support of his submission, he stated that this Court has granted interim stay on 21-08-1992 of all further proceedings in pursuant to the notice under Section 11(5)of the said Act. When such stay was granted, the same was communicated to the respondents, the respondents cannot take possession on 09-09-1992 as contended by them and therefore, it is not a correct statement and on the other hand, it is only a false statement. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also invited the attention of this Court to the communication issued by the petitioner's counsel dated 21-08-1992 addressed to the competent authority as well as the counter filed by the respondents in the earlier writ petition dated 14-12-1995 to contend that the present stand taken by the respondents with regard to the possession is an utter falsehood. 6. 6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the very appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the proceedings under Section 11(5) is not at all maintainable and moreover, the possession was already taken on 09-09-1992, even before receiving the stay order copy and therefore, when possession was already taken much prior to the crucial date of the Repeal Act, the petitioner cannot seek any relief in this writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. The short point for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to seek reversal of the entries in the land registered in respect of the land at survey No.222/2B formerly survey No.291/2 measuring 72 cents. 9. The contention of the petitioner in short is that pursuant to the introduction of the Repeal Act, the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of the subject matter of the land got lapsed, as possession of the land was not taken from the petitioner by the respondents before 16-06-1999. Therefore, what has to be seen in this case is as to whether the possession of the petitioner's land was taken by the respondents before the said cut-off date or not. 10. It is the specific contention of the respondents in this writ petition that the possession was taken on 09-09-1992. On the other hand, it is stoutly denied by the petitioner that no such taking over had taken place on the said date. 11. Before considering the said issue, let me reiterate, at the risk of repetition, certain admitted facts with dates and events in this case. A notice under Section 11(5) of the said Act dated 15-07-1992 calling upon the petitioner to surrender possession of the land was issued by the respondents and served on the petitioner on 25-07-1992. Admittedly, the said proceedings was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal on 03-08-1992. 12. When the Appellate Authority failed to grant interim stay of all further proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.12693 of 1992 on 20-08-1992. Admittedly, the said proceedings was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal on 03-08-1992. 12. When the Appellate Authority failed to grant interim stay of all further proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.12693 of 1992 on 20-08-1992. In the said writ petition, an ex parte interim stay was granted by this Court on 21-08-1992 staying all further proceedings of the competent authority, Tambaram consequent to his order in R.C.No.3010/88C dated 15-07-1992 passed under Section 11(5) of the said Act. Immediately, on the same day, the petitioner's counsel communicated to the Competent Authority by specifically stating that the petitioner herein filed a writ petition and obtained an interim order of stay of the Section 11(5) proceedings dated 15-07-1992 and consequently called upon the said authority not to take any further steps in pursuant to the said proceedings. It is further stated therein that the certified copy of the said interim order would be served on the competent authority in due course. 13. The receipt of the said communication dated 21-08-1992 is admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed in this writ petition. At paragraph No.10 of the counter, they admit that the petitioner's counsel through his letter dated 21-08-1992 informed that a writ petition, W.P.No.12693 of 1992 was filed and stay order was issued by the High Court. Therefore, it is made clear without any ambiguity that the competent authority has got full knowledge about the interim order of stay granted by this Court, through the communication dated 21-08-1992 issued by the petitioner's counsel. Once such communication was issued, in all fairness, he should have waited for effecting the service of the interim order, in view of the fact that the said communication came to be issued on the very same day, on which the interim order came to be passed. But, it is now contended in the counter filed by the respondents that the said order copy was served to the respondents only on 18-09-1992 and in the mean time, the possession was taken on 09-09-1992. 14. I am unable to accept this contention of the respondents for two reasons, (i) firstly, when they admit that they had knowledge about the interim order passed through the communication dated 21-08-1992 issued by the petitioner's counsel, they ought not to have taken possession on 09-09-1992. 14. I am unable to accept this contention of the respondents for two reasons, (i) firstly, when they admit that they had knowledge about the interim order passed through the communication dated 21-08-1992 issued by the petitioner's counsel, they ought not to have taken possession on 09-09-1992. Even assuming that they have taken possession on the said date, the said conduct, in my considered view is not a proper course of action, especially, when the communication sent by the petitioner's counsel referred the writ petition and miscellaneous petition numbers, with the date of the order. Therefore, any possession if it is taken in pursuant to the interim stay granted on 21-08-1992 is to be construed as an illegal action and against the stay order and thus, cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. (ii) Secondly, I am of the firm view that the possession was not at all taken on 09-09-1992 and it is stated for the first time before this Court in the counter filed by the respondent, may be as an after-thought, to prevent the petitioner from getting any relief in this writ petition. 15. Why I am making this observation with firm view is because of the respondents' own conduct in filing a counter affidavit in the earlier writ petition. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.12693 of 1992 dated 14-12-1995 would show that there was no indication anywhere to say that the possession was taken on 09-09-1992. If really the possession was taken on the said date, they would have certainly stated the same in the counter affidavit filed on 14-12-1995. Absolutely, there was no reference whatsoever therein about such taking of possession. Therefore, this Court could reasonably, come to a conclusion, without any hesitation, that the possession was not at all taken on 09-09-1992 as claimed by the respondents in the present writ petition. It is not their case that the possession was taken on any other date other than on 09-09-1992. It is not their case that the possession was taken once again subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit in the earlier writ petition before the crucial date. It is not their case that the possession was taken on any other date other than on 09-09-1992. It is not their case that the possession was taken once again subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit in the earlier writ petition before the crucial date. Therefore, when they are very firm in saying that the possession was taken on 09-09-1992, which I consider is a false statement, I find that the possession having not been taken from the petitioner before the crucial date i.e., 16-09-1999, the entire proceedings has to be held abated in view of the Repeal Act. 16. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits arising out of the Repeal Act including the one to get the entries reversed in the Register maintained at the hands of the fourth respondent as prayed for in this writ petition. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reverse the entries as prayed for in this writ petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P.No.60736 of 2002 is closed.