ORDER : The first petitioner has submitted that his father M.S. Sulthan Ibrahim, son of Mohamed Ismail purchased a land comprised in Survey No.722 measuring to an extent of 6.67 acres situated at Pallikaranai Village, the then Saidapet Taluk, now at Shozhinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District in and by a registered sale deed dated 28.05.1963 as Document No.1998 of 1963, at Registrar of Madras, Chengalpattu for valuable consideration from Mr. M.P. Mohideen Pitchai son of Peer Mohamed Sahib. The first petitioner has further submitted that originally, the vendor of the said land had purchased the same from M. Shanmugam Pillai and his three sons on 30.08.1962 registered as Document No.4591 of 1962 in the Office of the Registrar of Madras, Chengalpattu. Since the purchase of the above said land, his father was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same till his death by effecting mutation entries in his favour vide patta No.776. 2. The first petitioner has further submitted that his father died on 30.12.1993 leaving behind the first petitioner as his only surviving legal heir to inherit the Estate of Late Sultan Ibrahim. While these facts are so, since they are residing at Madurai, though the property is situated within the jurisdiction of Kancheepuram District, the third respondent had passed the impugned proceedings and thereby declared the excess vacant land of 2.55.0 hectares in Survey No.722/1, leaving 0.14.0 hectares as entitlement area in Survey No.722/2A in the name of a wrong person one Mrs. Kamala Sethi, from whom the acquisition proceedings have been concluded and no notice was served to the first petitioner's father in whatsoever manner. The first petitioner has further submitted that on 02.03.2012, he has applied for certified copies of the impugned proceedings under Section 9(5), 11(3) and 11(5) of the Principal Act, 1978 to the third respondent herein under Right to Information Act. The same has been duly considered by the third respondent and he sent a reply to his letter in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.138/12, dated 02.04.2012 stating that since the said lands have been acquired in the name of Mrs. Kamala Sethi in R.C.No.4680/1986 and the acquisition files are not available in its office and also as no records available for issuance of compensation, hence, the third respondent was handicapped to issue the certified copies of 9(1), 11(3) and 11(5) of the impugned proceedings. Kamala Sethi in R.C.No.4680/1986 and the acquisition files are not available in its office and also as no records available for issuance of compensation, hence, the third respondent was handicapped to issue the certified copies of 9(1), 11(3) and 11(5) of the impugned proceedings. Since after getting the information from the third respondent, he has filed this writ petition for challenging the said impugned acquisitions acquired against a wrong person Mrs. Kamala Sethi, hence, there is no laches on his part for filing the writ petition. 3. The first petitioner has further submitted that the said land was encroached by the Slum Dwellers comprising more than 40 families and therefore, the physical possession has not been taken neither from the wrong person Mrs. Kamala Sethi nor from his father Mr. Sulthan Ibrahim. Therefore, the physical possession of the land is absolutely vested with him since the patta also stands in his father's name Late Sulthan Ibrahim vide patta No.776 issued by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet. Now, he came to understand that the Principal Act also was repealed by the State Act 20 of 1999, and therefore as the physical possession of the land is with him, hence, benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 has to be given to him. The first petitioner has further submitted that the physical possession of the said land is with him. Though the second respondent passed the impugned order, he has not taken any physical possession till date. More over, the petitioners have not received any notice over the said proceedings. The first petitioner has further submitted that the Principal Act has been repealed by the State Act 20 of 1999 dated 16.06.1999 and thereby the proceedings of the second respondent has abated because, they are in physical possession and enjoyment of the same. 4. The first petitioner has further submitted that the physical possession of the land comprised in S.No.722, 722/1 and 722/2A to an extent of 2.69.0 hectares situated at Pallikaranai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District remains with them and the above said land is exclusively in their possession and enjoyment. 4. The first petitioner has further submitted that the physical possession of the land comprised in S.No.722, 722/1 and 722/2A to an extent of 2.69.0 hectares situated at Pallikaranai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District remains with them and the above said land is exclusively in their possession and enjoyment. The first petitioner has further submitted that since Principal Act 24 of 1978 has been repealed by State Act 20 of 1999, the third respondent has no right whatsoever to take physical possession of the land comprised in S.No.722, 722/1 and722/2A to an extent of 2.69.0 hectares situated at Pallikaranai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 5. The first petitioner has further submitted that though the Act was repealed by the State Act 20 of 1999, if any irregularities to have happened that may be challenged in a Special Tribunal constituted for the purpose of Urban Land Ceiling. Now, the Tribunal was abolished, hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. The first petitioner has further submitted that since the Act 24 of 1978 was repealed, he is entitled for possession of the land comprised in S.No.722, 722/1 and 722/2A to an extent of 2.69.0 hectares situated at Pallikaranai Village, Sholignallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that originally the subject land has been purchased by one M.S. Sulthan Ibrahim under a registered Sale Deed pertaining to the property in Survey No.722 of Pallikaranai Village, measuring to an extent of 6.67 Acres. From the date of purchase, the said M.S. Sulthan Ibrahim has been occupying the same till his life time. After his death, his legal heirs had succeeded the subject land. The third respondent had passed the impugned order and thereby declared the excess vacant land to an extent of 2.55.0 Acres, in Survey No.722/1. The impugned order was passed in the name of one Kamala Sathe. Actually, she is not the owner of the said property. The first petitioner had received information under the Right to Information Act. It revealed that the third respondent had acquired the subject land from Kamala Sathe. However, the connected records are not available. Now, the said vacant land had been encroached by about forty families of slum dwellers. It clearly proves that the respondents are not in physical possession of the subject land. It revealed that the third respondent had acquired the subject land from Kamala Sathe. However, the connected records are not available. Now, the said vacant land had been encroached by about forty families of slum dwellers. It clearly proves that the respondents are not in physical possession of the subject land. Further, Repeal Act 20 of 1999 came into force from 16.06.1999. As such, the impugned proceedings passed under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act is not maintainable. Sultham Ibrahim had purchased the subject land on 25.05.1963. After purchasing the same, he had mutated all the revenue records and connected records in his name. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed this Court to allow the writ petition. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the lands, comprised in Survey No.722/1 and 723 of Pallikaranai Village, had been purchased by the Assistant Commissioner Urban Land Tax under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act. After acquisition, two portions of the said lands were allotted to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. In respect of the said property, the power agent of the petitioners had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.11922 of 2007, before this Court seeking direction to the respondents therein not to disturb her possession and the said writ petition is pending enquiry. On the same prayer, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. On considering the facts and circumstance of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court is of the view that in respect of the same subject matter of land the petitioners have filed W.P.No.11922 of 2011 before this Court and the same has been allowed. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.