Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 233 (MAD)

P. Thulasibai v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2016-01-21

C.S.KARNAN

body2016
ORDER : The petitioner has submitted that she is the only daughter of her father Late Balaiah Naidu and her only brother Kothandan predeceased her father. The petitioner has further submitted that certain lands in Survey No.108/1 with an extent of 1.95 acres in No.5, Vilinjiambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, the then Chengalpet District now added in Greater Chennai was owned by her family. Her father's mother Chinnammal was the original owner. The petitioner has further submitted that her father Ballaiah Naidu, as the only heir of his mother inherited the said extent with full legal right. Thereafter, her father settled the extent of 35 cents in the property out of total extent of 1.95 acres mentioned above in favour of her by registered settlement deed dated 17.07.1972 registered as Document No.1704/1972, on the file of Sub Registrar of Poonamallee. The petitioner has further submitted that when her father was in possession and enjoyment as exclusive owner of the above mentioned 1.95 acres, he conveyed a portion of it viz., another 31 cents by a registered sale deed dated 19.02.1986 and registered as document No.861/1986, on the file of SRO, Poonamallee in favour of one K.Sukumaran Thambi S/o.Krishnan Pillai. The petitioner has further submitted that as an exclusive owner, her father created a mortgage of the lands in his possession which was also discharged subsequently. 2. The petitioner has further submitted that thus after dealing with 66 cents of land her father was owning and enjoying 1.29 acres of land in S.No.108/1 in Vilinjiambakkam Village. The petitioner has further submitted that even before her brother's death his wife left the family several years back and her whereabouts are not known till now. The petitioner has further submitted that since she was the only legal-heir of her father, she was looking after him and she was living with him along with her family viz., with her husband, two sons and one daughter. The petitioner has further submitted that before his death, her father by a registered Will dated 31.01.1994 and registered as Document No.10/1994, on the file of SRO Poonamallee bequeathed his property to her viz., the above mentioned 1.29 acres and another house site in the same village. The petitioner has further submitted that before his death, her father by a registered Will dated 31.01.1994 and registered as Document No.10/1994, on the file of SRO Poonamallee bequeathed his property to her viz., the above mentioned 1.29 acres and another house site in the same village. The petitioner has further submitted that her father died on 13.07.2009 and after his death, she became entitled to an extent of 1.64 acres of land in Survey No.108/1 of No.5, Vilinjiambakkam Village (35 cents settled in favour and 1.29 Acre through Will). The petitioner became the owner of the property by way of settlement and Will. 3. The petitioner has further submitted that as exclusive owner of 1.64 acres of land, she is in possession and enjoyment of same till today. The petitioner has further submitted that while so, all of a sudden very much to her surprise and shock on 01.03.2014, several persons claiming themselves as subordinates of the second respondent herein entered into her land and started fencing. When the petitioner questioned them, she was directed to go over to the Office of the second respondent. On going there, she was told several proceedings were initiated in the name of her deceased father behind his back. The Authority without verifying the ownership of the land had issued an order only against Late Balaiah Naidu (her father), the previous owner. When the petitioner applied for copies of the proceedings, she came to know that several proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1978 without following the procedure as laid down in the said Act. From the copies obtained by her, she came to know that by proceedings in R.C.No.108/14C NK 1294/93D, dated 29.05.1995, the second respondent herein seems to have passed an order under Section 9(5) of the said Act. In the said communication itself, it is mentioned that an earlier notice under Section 9(4) and notice under Section 9(1), the draft statement was passed by affixing the same in the land. As per the provisions of Section 9(4) of the Act, the draft statement shall be served in the prescribed manner on the person concerned together with the notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within 30 days of the service thereof. As per the provisions of Section 9(4) of the Act, the draft statement shall be served in the prescribed manner on the person concerned together with the notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within 30 days of the service thereof. The petitioner has further submitted that there is no valid legal notice to the owners of the land as contemplated under Section 11(5) of the Act. The property was settled in her favour on 17.07.1972 and bequeathed through Will in her favour on 31.01.1994. But, the respondent passed the impugned order on 29.05.1995 after several years. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that no notice under Section 9(4) was served to her deceased father as a consequence her father was not able to file any objection to the draft statement as provided. The petitioner has further submitted that Section 9(4) notice itself was not served on her father. The petitioner has further submitted that even as per the order served by the second respondent herein under Section 9(4) and Section 9(1) information were not able to be served on her father and such notice was pasted in the Land (which was lying vacant which facts was admitted). The petitioner has further submitted that as per the said communication, notice was served by affixture. In the said communication dated 19.09.1992, it was mentioned that since no objection was received under Section 9(5), her family is taken as one person. The petitioner has further submitted that her family consists of herself, her husband, two sons who have married children and daughter and her husband who also have married children. The petitioner has further submitted that for these reasons her family consists of 10 persons admittedly. The petitioner has further submitted that as per Section 5 which provides ceiling limit every person who is not family are entitled to 1500 sq.m where vacant land is situated in Urban agglomeration falling within Category II. The petitioner has further submitted that Vilijiambakkam Village is not specified in Schedule I. In the villages mentioned in Sriperumbudur Taluk, her village comes under II category. Hence, every person is entitled to 1500 sq.mt. The petitioner has further submitted that in so far as her family is concerned, there are 10 members and if every other person is taken into consideration there will be no excess urban land. 5. Hence, every person is entitled to 1500 sq.mt. The petitioner has further submitted that in so far as her family is concerned, there are 10 members and if every other person is taken into consideration there will be no excess urban land. 5. The petitioner has further submitted that as per order of the second respondent dated 25.05.1995 her family is considered as one person which conclusion is illegal and improper and without application of mind. The petitioner has further submitted that when she applied for copies of orders, the second respondent herein also provided copy of Form 3 statements under Section 8, in which her deceased father's name is found as the owner of the vacant land. The vacant land is mentioned as 7900 sq.mt. as per the said form out of 7900 sq.mt. 500 sq.m. are exempted and 7400 sq.mt. was declared as excess. In fact, several columns are left open. The petitioner has further submitted that since her father died on 13.07.2009, her family members should be considered as landowners. The petitioner has further submitted that in several reported judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court and other Courts, it is held that if the procedure as laid down in Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act is not followed strictly, the entire proceedings are vitiated. The petitioner has further submitted that admittedly as per communication of the second respondent, notice under Sections 9(4) and 9(i) were served by affixture in vacant barren land which cannot be accepted at any stretch. The petitioner has further submitted that the land Government cannot claim that after notification is issued declaring vacant land, the land have deemed to have been acquired and vested with the State Government, free from all encumbrance. The petitioner has submitted that as per the provisions of the Act under Section 11(5), the authority shall issue notice to person who is in possession to surrender and deliver possession to the State Government and if he fails to deliver the land and if no action is taken for taking delivery for possession, the State Government shall not be deemed to be in possession of such land. 6. The petitioner has further submitted that till date, she is in possession and at no point of time, she was dispossessed. 6. The petitioner has further submitted that till date, she is in possession and at no point of time, she was dispossessed. The petitioner has further submitted that as per the decision of this Court, notice under Section 11(5) is mandatory and in the absence of 11(5) notice, the entire proceedings are vitiated. The petitioner has further submitted that to prove the possession of the Government, there must be some records showing that the landowners signed while delivering the possession of excess land pursuant to Section 11(5) in form VII prescribed under Rule 10(13). In her case, her father died on 13.07.2009 and as per his Will, the petitioner is the real owner at present and if really, the second respondent enquired in the matter properly, she would have informed him that she is the owner of the land. The petitioner has further submitted that the possession as provided under the Act is physical possession and not paper possession. The petitioner has further submitted that as mentioned above, recently on 01.03.2014, after the revenue officers visited the land, she came to know that certain proceedings were initiated in the name of her deceased father behind his back without following the procedures as laid down in the Act and Rules. The petitioner has further submitted that till today, she was not informed of any further proceedings. 7. The petitioner has further submitted that for all these reasons stated above, the order of the second respondent in NK No.1294/93 D dated 29.05.1995 passed under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act is illegal, improper and opposed to the principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 8. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and submit that the petitioner is attempting to mislead this Court, making false statements and has filed this writ petition after a period of 17 years after the land in S.No.108/1 of Vilinjiambakkam Village was handed over to the Revenue Authorities. Further, the said settlement made by the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah, the father of the petitioner herein, was not reflected in the revenue records. The respondents have further submitted that after the settlement of 35 cents to the petitioner Tmt.Tulasibai herein, the daughter of the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah, the changes were not made in the revenue records. Further, the said settlement made by the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah, the father of the petitioner herein, was not reflected in the revenue records. The respondents have further submitted that after the settlement of 35 cents to the petitioner Tmt.Tulasibai herein, the daughter of the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah, the changes were not made in the revenue records. Also, the Urban Land Owner in his statement did not disclose the above facts. Hence, action was initiated in the name of the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah. Further, the alleged sale of land during 1986 and Will during 1994 are not valid under Section 6 of the Act. Further, after acquisition, the land was fenced by the Tahsildar, Poonamallee. Hence, the land was not in the possession of the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner that the land is in her possession is a false one. 9. The respondents have further submitted that neither the Urban Land Owner, after his demise nor his legal-heir, the petitioner herein occupied in any way and are not living in the land, but living elsewhere. The petitioner was not in possession of the subject lands during the process of acquisition proceedings or physically even now. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner has no case for the claim. The respondents have further submitted that the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1294/93/D, dated 29.05.1995 passed under Section 9(5) of the Act in respect of the land comprised in S.No.108/1 of Vilinjiambakkam Village, then Sriperumbudur Taluk, measuring 31 cents have been passed after following due procedure as per the Act and Rules and are saved by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999. The respondents have further submitted that the land in S.No.108/1 measuring an extent of 1.95 acres / 7900 sq.mts in Vilinjiambakkam Village of Poonamallee Taluk was classified as dry and registered in the name of Thiru.Balaiah, the father of the petitioner herein as per the revenue records. Since the landowner did not file the return under Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter called as the Act), a notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was issued in SR.198/1989, dated 28.08.1989 and it was served on 05.09.1989 by affixture as the urban landowner was not residing in the address mentioned. Since the landowner did not file the return under Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter called as the Act), a notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was issued in SR.198/1989, dated 28.08.1989 and it was served on 05.09.1989 by affixture as the urban landowner was not residing in the address mentioned. But, no return was filed and the notice under Section 9(4) along with draft statement under Section 9(1) of the Act were issued on 29.05.1992 calling for the proposed acquisition of 7400 sq.mts. after allowing 500 sq.mts., as family entitlement and it was served by affixture through the Village Assistant on 19.09.1992 as the Urban Land Owner was not residing in the address mentioned in the notice and no objections were received. The land was inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar on 24.09.1992 and found vacant. The statement from the Urban Land Owner was also recorded on 09.05.1995. The land was again inspected by the Assistant Commissioner on 25.05.1995 and found lying vacant. The sale made by the Urban Land Owner during the year 1986 is null and void under Section 6 of the Act and hence, overruled and orders under Section 9(5) of the Act were passed on 29.05.1995 in the name of Thiru.K.Balaiah, S/o.Thirumalaisamy Naidu declaring 7400 sq.mts. as excess vacant land and ordered to acquire it. The orders were served on 08.06.1995 to Thiru. Balaiah the Urban Land Owner. 10. The respondents have further submitted that the final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 05.08.1995 and was served on to Thiru.Balaiah. The notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was issued on 30.11.1995 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.5, Part VI, Section 1, dated 07.02.1996. The notification under Section 11(3) of the Act vesting the land with Government with effect from 01.05.1996 was issued on 29.03.1996 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.21, dated 05.06.1996 in Notification No.VI(1)/601/96, at Page No.539 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Then form of notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued on 02.09.1996 and it was sent by post on 07.01.1997. The excess vacant land in S.No.108/1 of Vilinjiambakkam Village measuring an extent of 7400 sq.mts was handed over to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar on 28.08.1997 by the Deputy Tahsildar (Urban Land Tax) Poonamallee. Then form of notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued on 02.09.1996 and it was sent by post on 07.01.1997. The excess vacant land in S.No.108/1 of Vilinjiambakkam Village measuring an extent of 7400 sq.mts was handed over to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar on 28.08.1997 by the Deputy Tahsildar (Urban Land Tax) Poonamallee. The respondents have further submitted that the notice under Section 12(7) of the Act was issued on 27.06.2002 for declaiming amount payable under Section 12(6) of the Act. The orders under Section 12(6) of the Act were passed on 03.01.2003 and the amount of Rs.7,400/-was claimed and kept in Revenue Department vide challan No.48, dated 24.03.2008. The excess vacant land in S.No.108/1 of Vilinjiambakkam Village measuring an extent of 7400 sq.mts. was handed over to the Revenue Authorities and necessary entries were made in Village and Taluk Accounts. The excess vacant land was also fenced by the Tahsildar, Poonamallee for protection and utilization for public purpose in future. Against the acquisition proceedings, the writ petition is filed by Tvt. Unnikrishanan and 20 others, the legal-heirs of the purchaser of the acquired land belatedly having kept quiet for last 28 years. As per Section 6 of the Act, the sale is null and void and the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. 11. The respondents have further submitted that the writ petitioner is preferring this writ petition claiming to be owner and to be in possession of the land. The petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of the land at any time. A portion of the land was settled in the petitioner's favour by her father, the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah. Then, the remaining portion was settled by the Will of her father. Another part of the land was sold by the Urban Land Owner. All the above transactions are null and void as per Section 6 of the Act. But the land in total was registered in the name of Thiru.Balaiah and the Ownership is recorded in the revenue records. The Tahsildar is the custodian of lands in a Taluk. He alone can give any detail of a land in respect of his Taluk and confirm the correct ownership of any land of his Taluk on the basis of Taluk / Village / accounts. The Tahsildar is the custodian of lands in a Taluk. He alone can give any detail of a land in respect of his Taluk and confirm the correct ownership of any land of his Taluk on the basis of Taluk / Village / accounts. If ownership is claimed merely by registered sale deed documents or settlement or will fraudulent sales would well lead to illegal ownership. As per the village records, the registered owner of the lands was Thiru.Balaiah. Hence, action was taken to acquire the excess vacant land held by him. The respondents have further submitted that the sale made by the Urban Land Owner and then land settled by a Will are null and void as per Section 6 of the Act and is not valid. Also, the petitioner had at no time sought transfer of ownership of the land in the Village Accounts and not obtained patta in her name for 28 years from 1972 to 2014 based on the settlement deed. The Revenue Records are the basis for initiating action under the Act. As on 03.08.1976, Thiru.Balaiah was the registered owner of the land. The alleged settlement of 35 cents of land to his daughter, Tmt.Thulasibai vide settlement deed No.1704 of 1972, dated 17.07.1972 was not reflected in the revenue records. The Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah in his statement given before the Assistant Commissioner, the second respondent on 09.05.1995 did not mention anything about the said settlement made to his daughter, Tmt.Thulasibai. Hence, all actions was taken based on records as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner, the second respondent is correct and according to the provisions of the Act. 12. The respondents have further submitted that when the petitioner has not submitted any proof of her possession of the vacant land, she has no locus standi to question the acquisition. It is also submitted that the land in S.No.108/1 in Vilijiambakkam Village measuring an extent of 1.95 acres or 7900 sq.mts. stood registered in the name of THiru.Balaiah Naidu in Village / Taluk Accounts as on 03.08.1976. Hence, all notices were issued and received by the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah as per the procedure laid down in the Act. The land was inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar on 24.09.1992 and found vacant. The statement from the Urban Land Owner was also recorded on 09.05.1995. Hence, all notices were issued and received by the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah as per the procedure laid down in the Act. The land was inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar on 24.09.1992 and found vacant. The statement from the Urban Land Owner was also recorded on 09.05.1995. The land was again inspected by the Assistant Commissioner on 25.05.1995 and found lying vacant. The sale made by the Urban Land Owner during the year 1986 is null and void under Section 6 of the Act and hence, overruled and orders under Section 9(5) of the Act were passed on 29.05.1995 in the name of Thiru.K.Balaiah, S/o.Thirumalaisamy Naidu declaring 7400 sq.mts as excess vacant land and ordered to acquire it. The orders were served on 08.06.1995 to Thiru.Balaiah, the Urban Land Owner. The final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 05.08.1995 and was served on to Thiru.Balaiah. Then, after the acquisition, the possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 28.08.1997, making entries in the Village Accounts, transferring ownership from the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah to Government. Thus, the land is registered in the name of the Government since 1997 and the acquired land was also fenced by the Tahsildar, Poonamallee Taluk and hence, the possession of the acquired land is with the Government. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that proceedings were initiated in the name of her deceased father behind his back is denied. The Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah, the father of the petitioner, Tmt.Thulasibai very well knew about the acquisition proceedings. As stated above, the statement of the Urban Land owner was recorded, orders under Section 9(5) of the Act were served, final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was served and hence, in spite of knowing about acquisition, no objections, appeal were filed. Hence, the acquisition proceedings were accepted and unagitated during the life time of Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah, the father of the petitioner. 13. The respondents have further submitted that the land comprised of 31 cents in the above survey number was never under the enjoyment and possession of the petitioner herein. The land was at no time registered in the name of the petitioner in the Village accounts. 13. The respondents have further submitted that the land comprised of 31 cents in the above survey number was never under the enjoyment and possession of the petitioner herein. The land was at no time registered in the name of the petitioner in the Village accounts. As stated supra, the land in S.No.108/1 measuring an extent of 1.95 acres stood registered in the name of Thiru.Balaiah as per Village Accounts and as he did not file the return under Section 7(1) of the Act, a notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.1989 and was served by affixture and then further action was proceeded. The notice under Section 9(4) along with draft statement under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued on 29.05.1992 and as the Urban Land Owner was not residing in the village it was served in the land by affixture in presence of Village Assistant on 19.09.1992, which is as stipulated made of service in Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules 1978 (herein after called as the Rules). Then, the land was inspected by both the Deputy Tahsildar attached to Assistant Commissioner Office and by the Assistant Commissioner, the second respondent and found vacant. The statement of the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah was also obtained on 09.05.1995. Then, orders under Section 9(5) of the Act were passed on 29.05.1995 and as it was refused it was served by affixture in the land. But, the final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was served on the Urban Land Owner. But, the Urban Land Owner did not disclose about his family and the alleged settlement to his daughter, the petitioner herein. The Urban Land Owner did not file appeal or any objection even after receipt of it. Hence, the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner is correct and as per the provisions of the Act. 14. The respondents have further submitted that the contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner got the land by a settlement deed during the year 1972 but did not change the name in the revenue records. Hence, proceedings were initiated against Thiru.Balaiah, the registered owner of the land. The statement from the Urban Land Owner was recorded. It did not disclose anything about his family. Hence, entitlement was allowed for the Urban Land Owner alone as per records available. Hence, proceedings were initiated against Thiru.Balaiah, the registered owner of the land. The statement from the Urban Land Owner was recorded. It did not disclose anything about his family. Hence, entitlement was allowed for the Urban Land Owner alone as per records available. Hence, entitlement of 500 sq.mts was allowed and orders were passed under Section 9(5) of the Act on 29.05.1995, when the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah was alive. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that orders were improperly passed in the name of the deceased person is false. It is further submitted that the order under Section 9(5) of the Act was sent by RPAD on 08.06.1995. Final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was served on the Urban Land owner. Hence, the Urban Land Owner, Thiru.Balaiah had knowledge about the acquisition proceedings during the process and did not file any objection or appeal against it. The respondents have further submitted that after adhering to due procedure as stipulated in the Act, all notices and orders were served. In spite of receiving it, the Urban Land Owner did not file any objections. Hence, in the absence of it further action was proceeded. The petitioner is quoting the orders of this Court, which are unrelated with this issue. As stipulated in the Act, when the Urban Land Owner was not residing in the Village and his address not known, the notice can be served by affixture in the land. The land was vested with the Government vide notification under Section 11(3) of the Act published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 05.06.1996 and the land was vested with the Government free from all encumbrances with effect from 01.05.1996. The notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued on 02.09.1996 and was sent by post. As there was no objections to the acquisition by the Urban Land Owner, the possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to Revenue Authorities on 28.08.1997, making necessary entries in the Village Accounts. Then, the land was also fenced by the Tahsildar, Poonamallee, thus protecting the acquired land for future utilization of the land. 15. The respondents have further submitted that the land in S.No.108/1 of Vilinjiambakkam Village was registered in the name of Thiru.Balaiah as per Village / Taluk accounts. Hence, action was taken in the name of Thiru.Balaiah, the Urban Land Owner. 15. The respondents have further submitted that the land in S.No.108/1 of Vilinjiambakkam Village was registered in the name of Thiru.Balaiah as per Village / Taluk accounts. Hence, action was taken in the name of Thiru.Balaiah, the Urban Land Owner. After completing the action as stipulated in the Act, as stated supra and after the land was acquired, the possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 28.08.1997. Then, necessary entries were made in the Taluk / Village Accounts. Further, the land was also fenced by the Tahsildar, Poonamallee, thus protecting the acquired land for future utilization. Hence, the land was in the possession of the Government and the taluk records show that the land is registered in the name of the Government only. Therefore, the land was never in possession and enjoyment by the petitioner. The settlement made by the petitioner's father is null and void under Section 6 of the Act and hence not valid. Till date, the petitioner did not change her name in the revenue records. The petitioner did not care about the land and was not living anywhere near the land and not in possession of the land after the settlement and Will and did not contact the Tahsildar Office before or after the settlement and Will and did not represent as an interested persons in the land till 2014 after which, she has filed the present writ petition. If the petitioner was in possession of the land, she would have known about the acquisition as notices were served by affixture in the said land and the petitioner's father, in spite of knowing about it, did not file objections or appeal, when the Act was in force or even after the repeal of the Act. The writ petition filed by the petitioner after a lapse of 17 years of taking possession of the land cannot be accepted and has to be dismissed on laches of delay. 16. The respondents have further submitted that the notification under Section 11(3) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 05.06.1996 and the land deemed to have been vested with the Government with effect from 01.05.1996. The possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to the Revenue Department on 28.08.1997 before the repeal of the Act. The possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to the Revenue Department on 28.08.1997 before the repeal of the Act. The petitioner got the land by settlement made by the Urban Land Owner, her father during 1972 and by Will during 1994 and the land so got by the Will is not valid under Section 6 of the Act. The settlement made by the petitioner's father during 1972 was not reflected in the revenue records and was not disclosed by the Urban Land Owner during enquiry and for all the reasons submitted supra, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit given under the Repeal Act. Further, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the acquisition proceeding and to file the present writ petition after a delay of 17 years from the date of purchase, which has to be dismissed on laches of delay. Hence, the respondents entreat the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the subject land, comprised in Survey No.108/1 of Vilinjiambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, measuring an extent of 1.95 Acres, originally belonged to the grandmother of the petitioner. After her demise, the petitioner's father had succeeded the property as the only legal heir. Further, out of love and affection, he has settled a portion of the property, measuring an extent of 35 Cents, in favour of his daughter / petitioner herein, under a registered Settlement Deed, dated 17.07.1972. Thereafter, her father sold another portion of the property, measuring an extent of 31 Cents, to one Sugumaran, under a registered Sale Deed, dated 19.02.1986. Further, her father executed a registered Will, dated 31.01.1994, to and in favour of his daughter / petitioner herein and bequeathed the remaining 1.29 Acres of land along with another house-site. Her father expired on 13.07.2009. After his death, the petitioner has become the absolute owner of 1.64 Acres of land. In such circumstances, some of persons, who were attached to the second respondent and claiming ownership of the said land, started putting up fencing. Immediately, she had rushed to the second respondent's office, wherein she has been informed that several proceedings were initiated to acquire the land, which was in her father's name. 18. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that the respondents had initiated the said proceedings without following the necessary legal formalities. Immediately, she had rushed to the second respondent's office, wherein she has been informed that several proceedings were initiated to acquire the land, which was in her father's name. 18. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that the respondents had initiated the said proceedings without following the necessary legal formalities. The second respondent had passed proceedings, dated 29.05.1995. Actually, the respondents had not issued any legal notice to the petitioner. The petitioner's family consists of her husband, two sons and both are married and her daughter and husband are living as family members. As such, each of the persons are entitled to 1500 sq.meters of land. As such, the impugned order is illegal. The total vacant land is mentioned as 7900 sq.meters, out of which the respondents had allowed 500 sq.meters and declared the remaining 7400 sq.meters of land as excess land. The respondents have not considered that the petitioner's family members are married, and they have not allowed the admissible extent of land. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the second respondent. 19. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the total land, measuring an extent of 7900 sq.ft., has been classified as dry land. After initiating the acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, notices were served on the petitioner's father, but even after serving the said notice, her father did not file any objection. The Sale Deed executed by her father during 1986, is null and void. Before acquisition, a notification was published in the Government Gazette as well as in the local newspapers. Compensation amount has been assessed properly and deposited in the revenue account on 24.03.2008. Possession was also handed over to the revenue authorities. In such circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the learned Additional Government Pleader has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 20. On considering the facts and circumstances 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 the father of the petitioner had executed a settlement deed in her favour, during 1972, in respect of 35 Cents of land. After executing the said settlement deed, the petitioner had not mutated the revenue records and connected records in her name. After executing the said settlement deed, the petitioner had not mutated the revenue records and connected records in her name. Besides, she has not produced tax particulars from the date of settlement, which are mandatory. Further, the impugned order has been passed on 29.05.1995, but the writ petition has been filed during 2014, after a lapse of 19 years. As such, the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage. Further, it is seen that compensation amount has also been deposited in the revenue account. In such circumstances, the writ petition does not generate sufficient force to allow it and hence it is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.