Judgment K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.9.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.13909 of 2010, in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondents herein. 2. The said Writ Petition was filed seeking for a declaration to declare the proceedings initiated by the second appellant herein under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, as abated, in view of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, since the physical possession of the subject matter land, had not been taken away from the respondents/writ petitioners. 3. The case of the respondents/writ petitioners before the learned single Judge is as follows: The writ petitioners are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the subject matter land by obtaining patta in their names and paying Kist to the Revenue Department. By proceedings dated 29.7.1997, initiated against a dead person, by name E.A.Kareem, the second appellant declared the vacant land of 2,650 Sq.Mtrs as excess. The writ petitioners were not served with any notice and all the notices were served by affixture in the field through stick and the writ petitioners had no knowledge about the acquisition proceedings. The writ petitioners submitted a representation on 21.11.2005 seeking to set aside the said proceedings, as the same was issued in the name of the dead person. Moreover, the Principal Act was also repealed by Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999 and as the physical possession of the land is still with the writ petitioners, the entire proceedings would stand lapsed. The said representation was accepted by the first appellant herein and as per the proceedings, dated 6.12.2005, he acknowledged that the entire proceedings stood abated and issued further direction to the second appellant herein to effect necessary changes in the Revenue Records. However, the second appellant did not effect necessary changes. Therefore, the above Writ Petition was filed with the prayer as stated supra. 4. The said Writ Petition was resisted by the appellants herein (respondents in the Writ Petition) by contending that the final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 28.4.1998, which was served by affixture, and therefore, the Notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was issued on 5.11.1998 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. 4. The said Writ Petition was resisted by the appellants herein (respondents in the Writ Petition) by contending that the final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 28.4.1998, which was served by affixture, and therefore, the Notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was issued on 5.11.1998 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. It was further contended that the possession of the excess land was taken and handed over to the Revenue authorities on 24.5.1999 and the compensation amount of Rs.2,650/-was kept as Revenue Deposit. 5. The learned single Judge found that the proceedings initiated against the dead person are vitiated, apart from the fact that the possession of the excess land so declared, was also not taken in the manner known to law after serving notice to the writ petitioners who are the legal heirs of the said E.A.Kareem. Thus, the learned single Judge found that the possession has not been taken from the writ petitioners and consequently declared that the proceedings have abated in view of the Repeal Act. 6. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the original files placed before this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader to ascertain as to whether the physical possession of the land was taken over from the respondents/writ petitioners. 7. The short point for consideration in this Writ Appeal is as to whether the physical possession of the subject matter land, had been taken over from the writ petitioners in accordance with law and if no such possession is taken, whether the proceedings are abated, in view of the Repeal Act. 8. First of all, it is not in dispute that the entire proceedings were initiated and culminated into making a declaration of excess land only against the dead person, namely E.A.Kareem. We have perused the files. The Gazette Notification issued in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under Section 11(1) of the said Act, is available in the files, discloses that the said Kareem was shown as the person who was holding the land. Further proceedings were all issued only against the said person, who was not alive at the time of issuance of those proceedings. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned proceedings were initiated not against the writ petitioners, but against the dead person. Further proceedings were all issued only against the said person, who was not alive at the time of issuance of those proceedings. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned proceedings were initiated not against the writ petitioners, but against the dead person. Apart from the said fact, the further perusal of the files would show that a notice, dated 6.4.1999, under Section 11(5) of the said Act was issued only in the name of the said dead person, calling upon him to surrender or deliver possession of the subject matter land. Though the copy of the said notice was made available in the files, there is nothing on record to show that the same was served on the said person or any other person on his behalf. Thus, it is evident that no such notice was ever served. Further, a perusal of the Land Delivery Receipt made available in the files would show as if the possession was handed over and taken over only by the Revenue officials and not by the urban land owner. Here again, the name of the land owner was shown as E.A.Kareem and the names of the writ petitioners are not shown anywhere in the proceedings. There is nothing on record to indicate that the land owner delivered the possession. Equally, there is no proceedings available to show that the authorities resorted to dispossess the land owner/owners in a manner as prescribed under the said enactment. 9. The facts which are culled out from the perusal of the files, as discussed supra, would show that the actual physical possession of the land was not at all taken from the land owners. On the other hand, the appellants proceeded to initiate the proceedings against the dead person and effected the proceedings in the records to show as though the possession was taken, which at the most has to be considered or construed only as symbolic possession and not physical possession. 10. The very same issue was considered by us in Writ Appeal No.949 of 2013 and by judgment dated 3.9.2014, this Court observed in paragraphs 8 to 10 as follows: "8. 10. The very same issue was considered by us in Writ Appeal No.949 of 2013 and by judgment dated 3.9.2014, this Court observed in paragraphs 8 to 10 as follows: "8. The issue as to whether taking over of the land by symbolic possession can be construed as possession taken and based on such act, whether the authorities can claim right over the land after the Repeal Act, has already been considered and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs., Hari Ram reported in 2013-3-MLJ-408(SC) at para 38 and 39, which reads as follows:- "38. Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of the Repeal Act 15 of 1999 on sub-section (3) to Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act 1999 has expressly repealed the Act 33 of 1976. The Object and Reasons of the Repeal Act has already been referred to in the earlier part of this Judgment. Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a statute before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case. 39. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under subsection (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act." 9. Likewise in a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu vs., Mecca Prime Tannery reported in 2012-6-MLJ-273, it has been held at para 33 to 35 as follows:- "33. Likewise in a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu vs., Mecca Prime Tannery reported in 2012-6-MLJ-273, it has been held at para 33 to 35 as follows:- "33. The phrases shall be deemed to have been acquired and shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the State Government occurring in Section 11(3) of the Act, in our considered opinion, mean that the right, title and interest in respect of the land shall be deemed to have been vested in the State Government and not possession of the land. After the right, title and invested is vested in the State Government by notification under Section 11(3), the State Government has to take further action for taking possession of the land, if the land owner or any person in possession refuses or fails to surrender or deliver possession of the land so vested in the Government. 34. There are cases where after notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, the land owner delivers possession of the land and acknowledges the same in writing, and the State, after taking possession of the land so delivered voluntarily by the land owner, either comes into possession of the same or allots those lands to other persons, then in such cases, even thereafter, if the land owner or any person claims to be in possession of those lands, then we have no hesitation in holding that continuance of such possession even after surrendering or delivering the land to the State is illegal possession and they shall be treated as encroachers. 35. However, there are cases where although the competent authority issued the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act to the land owners or persons in possession to surrender or deliver possession of the land, but the land owner or the person in possession fails to deliver the land and continues to be in possession of such land and the authority of the State did not take action under Section 11(6) of the Act for taking delivery of possession, then in such cases, the State Government shall not be deemed to be in possession of those lands. " 10. " 10. From the perusal of the above said decisions, it is very clear that the mere vesting of land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the said Act would not confer any right on the State Government, in the absence of any proof that there was voluntary surrender of vacant land or there was a forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the said Act. Symbolic possession is totally different and distinct from physical possession. It is only a paper possession, which cannot be treated or construed as that of possession as required under the Act." 11. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported in 2014 (2) CTC 665 (SC) (Gajanan Kamlya Patil Vs. Addl. Collector & Competent Authority), held in paragraphs 12 and 13 as follows: "12. We may indicate, apart from the affidavits filed by the officials in this case, no other document has been made available either before the High Court or before this Court, either showing that the Appellant had voluntarily surrendered or the Respondents had taken peaceful or forcible possession of the lands............ 13. We have, therefore, clearly indicated that it was always open to the authorities to take forcible possession and, in fact, in the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, it was stated that if the possession had not been surrendered, possession would be taken by application of necessary force. For taking forcible possession, certain procedures had to be followed. Respondents have no case that such procedures were followed and forcible possession was taken. Further, there is nothing to show that the Respondents had taken peaceful possession, nor there is anything to show that the Appellants had given voluntary possession. Facts would clearly indicate that only de jure possession had been taken by the Respondents and not de facto possession before coming into force of the repeal of the Act. Since there is nothing to show that de facto possession had been taken from the Appellants prior to the execution of the possession receipt in favour of MRDA, it cannot hold on to the lands in question, which are legally owned and possessed by the Appellants. Consequently, we are inclined to allow this appeal and quash the notice dated 17.2.2005 and subsequent action taken therein in view of the repeal of the ULC Act. Consequently, we are inclined to allow this appeal and quash the notice dated 17.2.2005 and subsequent action taken therein in view of the repeal of the ULC Act. The above reasoning would apply in respect of other appeals as well and all proceedings initiated against the Appellants, therefore, would stand quashed." 12. Considering all the above facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the actual possession of the land was not at all taken from the hands of the respondents/writ petitioners, we are of the view that the entire proceedings initiated under the abovesaid Act, stand lapsed, in view of the Repeal Act, and thus, the learned single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition, with which we find no grounds to interfere. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.