JUDGMENT : P. VELMURUGAN, J. PRAYER : Writ Appeals are filed under clause 15 of Letters patent, to set aside the common order dated 11.07.2016 made in WP.Nos.20577, 20576 and 20578 of 2001 respectively. These appeals are filed against the common order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the learned single judge in WP.Nos. 20577, 20576 and 20578 of 2001 respectively. 2. The facts of the cases are culled out from the affidavits filed by the power agent of the owners of the lands. The writ petitioners are the owners of the agricultural lands to an extent of 56cents situated in S.Nos.268/4, 268/3A and 268/2 and 268/5 towards their respective shares. The appellants/respondents therein initiated proceedings under Urban Land Ceiling Act and neither the land owners voluntarily surrendered the possession of the vacant lands under Section 11(5) of the Act nor the competent authority forcibly taken the possession of the vacant lands under Section 11(6). However, the appellants have not taken possession from the writ petitioners and the respondents herein are continued to be in possession of the lands. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioners have given registered power of attorney dated 20.03.1992 to the power agent. The repeal Act came into force w.e.f. 16.06.1999, on the date of repeal Act came into force, the writ petitioners are not in possession of the lands. The competent authorities have not taken possession of the vacant lands from the land owners/writ petitioners in the manner known to law, therefore, the proceedings under urban land ceiling Act got abated. The writ petitioners state that they came to know about acquisition only at later point of time and thereafter, filed the writ petitions for quashing the notifications. The power agent approached the revenue authorities to issue Chitta for the period from 01.08.1999, at that time he came to know for the first time that the said lands were acquired as excess lands under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thereafter, the power agent applied for certified copy of the said orders before the competent authority which were issued on 27.06.2000. Thereafter, the writ petitioners made representations to the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Tax, Chepauk which were negatived by the Government on 13.02.2001 citing the Government Letter dated 30.08.2000. Thereafter, the power agent applied for certified copy of the said orders before the competent authority which were issued on 27.06.2000. Thereafter, the writ petitioners made representations to the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Tax, Chepauk which were negatived by the Government on 13.02.2001 citing the Government Letter dated 30.08.2000. On enquiry, the petitioners found that the entire urban land ceiling acquisition proceedings starting from Section 9 to 11 were taken without notice to the petitioners, as required under the Act, at any point of time the notifications in Form-VI were published on 30.09.1998 under Section 11(3) not came to the knowledge of the writ petitioners. 3. In the meanwhile, the urban land ceiling Act was repealed on 16.06.1999, the writ petitioners stated that either during the commencement of the Principal Act or during proceedings under the said Act, the lands were never classified as urban lands. The impugned notifications were published on 30.09.1998 under Section 11(3) of the Act came to the knowledge of the petitioners only when they approached the VAO for getting chitta, therefore, the petitioners had filed the above writ petitions. 4. The learned single judge allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned proceedings by observing that the petitioners proved that they are in continuous possession of the lands in dispute upto date, notwithstanding the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Act and that the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the repeal Act 20/1989. Challenging the said common order, the respondents in the writ petitions have filed the present intra court appeals. 5. The learned Advocate General would submit that the land owners have not submitted the returns/statements, on field verification it was found that the lands have been converted into a house plots, the respondents herein also not submitted the returns, the competent authority passed the orders and declared the lands as excess lands under the Act. Since, the respondents herein/land owners of the lands have not filed the returns under Section 7(1) of the Act. Notices under section 7(2) were issued and served on the land owners on 10.11.1993, even then the land owners/petitioners did not file returns, hence the draft statements under Section 9(1), notices under Section 9(4) of the Act were issued and the same were served on the land owners/respondents herein on 10.08.1994. Notices under section 7(2) were issued and served on the land owners on 10.11.1993, even then the land owners/petitioners did not file returns, hence the draft statements under Section 9(1), notices under Section 9(4) of the Act were issued and the same were served on the land owners/respondents herein on 10.08.1994. As the respondents herein did not turn up for enquiry and furnish any family details, the said lands were inspected by the competent authority on 22.02.1996. It is seen that the lands are kept as vacant and laid out as plots and stones are planted. As the respondents herein/land owners did not file any objections and furnish family details and hence they have been treated as single respectively and allowed 500sq.mtr each in their respective survey numbers, out of the total extent of 2,250sq.mtr respectively. Orders under Section 9(5) of the Act were also issued and there were no response, draft statements under Section 10(1) of the Act were also issued separately. The respondents herein did not file any appeal before the appellate authority/Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of land reforms within the stipulated period of time under Section 33 of the Principal Act. Therefore, notices were issued under Section 11(1) and notifications under Section 11(3) were also published, after publishing the gazette notifications under Section 11 (3) of the Act except 500sq.mtr each, remaining portion of the excess lands were vested with the Government. Notices under Section 11(5) were also issued to the land owners and taken over delivery of the excess lands, since, they have refused to take the notice and hence affixed. Thereafter, the competent authority/Deputy Tahsildar taken possession of the excess vacant lands on 28.04.1999 and 24.05.1999 respectively and handed over the same to the Revenue Authority/Revenue Inspector. 6. Further, he would submit that once the lands are vested with the Government, the respondents have no authority to part with the urban lands. Even much prior to repeal Act came into force, acquisition proceedings were initiated and completed by the competent authority and lands were also taken delivery and handed over to the Government/Revenue Inspector. 6. Further, he would submit that once the lands are vested with the Government, the respondents have no authority to part with the urban lands. Even much prior to repeal Act came into force, acquisition proceedings were initiated and completed by the competent authority and lands were also taken delivery and handed over to the Government/Revenue Inspector. On the date of repeal Act came into force, the lands were already taken possession by the competent authority and no proceeding was pending on the date of the repeal Act came into force and there is no merits in this case and the respondents were not in possession of the property on the date of repeal Act came into force and no other proceeding was pending under the Act. The repeal Act has nothing to do with these cases. The lands are only vacant lands, since, there were no resistance from land owners, they were not in actual physical possession of the lands, the competent authority had taken the excess land in possession and handed over the lands to the revenue authorities. The lands are vacant lands and not occupied by any of the persons by means of any building or conducting agricultural activities either on the date of taking possession or on the date of repeal Act came into force, therefore there is no necessity to take forcible possession or issue notice under Section 11(6) of the Principal Act. 7. The respondents/land owners have not established the factum of the possession of the lands on the date on which the repeal Act came into force or any proceedings were pending under the Act. The learned single judge failed to consider all the factual as well as legal position and gave effect to the documents filed by the land owners. None of the documents show that either at the time of taking possession or on the date of repeal Act came into force they were in actual physical possession of the lands or some proceedings were pending under the Principal Act. 8. The learned Advocate General would place reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court for taking over the possession of the vacant land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyothi Sarma reported in (2015) 5 SCC 321 held as the relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder :- “12. 8. The learned Advocate General would place reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court for taking over the possession of the vacant land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyothi Sarma reported in (2015) 5 SCC 321 held as the relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder :- “12. The question, however, is whether actual physical possession of the land in dispute has been taken over in the case at hand by the competent authority or by the State Government or an officer authorised in that behalf by the State Government. 13. The case of the appellant is that actual physical possession of the land was taken over on 7-12-1991 no matter unilaterally and without notice to the erstwhile landowner. That assertion is stoutly denied by the respondents giving rise to seriously disputed question of fact which may not be amenable to a satisfactory determination by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. But assuming that any such determination is possible even in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, what needs examination is whether the failure of the Government or the authorised officer or the competent authority to issue a notice to the landowners in terms of Section 10(5) would by itself mean that such dispossession is no dispossession in the eye of the law and hence insufficient to attract Section 3 of the repeal Act. Our answer to that question is in the negative. 14. We say so because in the ordinary course actual physical possession can be taken from the person in occupation only after notice under Section 10(5) is issued to him to surrender such possession to the State Government, or the authorised officer or the competent authority. There is enough good sense in that procedure inasmuch as the need for using force to dispossess a person in possession should ordinarily arise only if the person concerned refuses to cooperate and surrender or deliver possession of the lands in question. That is the rationale behind Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act. But what would be the position if for any reason the competent authority or the Government or the authorised officer resorts to forcible dispossession of the erstwhile owner even without exploring the possibility of a voluntary surrender or delivery of such possession on demand? That is the rationale behind Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act. But what would be the position if for any reason the competent authority or the Government or the authorised officer resorts to forcible dispossession of the erstwhile owner even without exploring the possibility of a voluntary surrender or delivery of such possession on demand? Could such use of force vitiate the dispossession itself or would it only amount to an irregularity that would give rise to a cause of action for the aggrieved owner or the person in possession to seek restoration only to be dispossessed again after issuing a notice to him? It is this aspect that has to an extent bothered us. 15. The High Court has held that the alleged dispossession was not preceded by any notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. Assuming that to be the case all that it would mean is that on 7-12-1991 when the erstwhile owner was dispossessed from the land in question, he could have made a grievance based on Section 10(5) and even sought restoration of possession to him no matter he would upon such restoration once again be liable to be evicted under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act upon his failure to deliver or surrender such possession. In reality therefore unless there was something that was inherently wrong so as to affect the very process of taking over such as the identity of the land or the boundaries thereof or any other circumstance of a similar nature going to the root of the matter hence requiring an adjudication, a person who had lost his land by reason of the same being declared surplus under Section 10(3) would not consider it worthwhile to agitate the violation of Section 10(5) for he can well understand that even when the Court may uphold his contention that the procedure ought to be followed as prescribed, it may still be not enough for him to retain the land for the authorities could the very next day dispossess him from the same by simply serving a notice under Section 10(5). It would, in that view, be an academic exercise for any owner or person in possession to find fault with his dispossession on the ground that no notice under Section 10(5) had been served upon him 16. The issue can be viewed from another angle also. It would, in that view, be an academic exercise for any owner or person in possession to find fault with his dispossession on the ground that no notice under Section 10(5) had been served upon him 16. The issue can be viewed from another angle also. Assuming that a person in possession could make a grievance, no matter without much gain in the ultimate analysis, the question is whether such grievance could be made long after the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical possession was taken over from the erstwhile landowner on 7-12-1991 as is alleged in the present case any grievance based on Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a reasonable time of such dispossession. If the owner did not do so, forcible taking over of possession would acquire legitimacy by sheer lapse of time. In any such situation the owner or the person in possession must be deemed to have waived his right under Section 10(5) of the Act. Any other view would, in our opinion, give a licence to a litigant to make a grievance not because he has suffered any real prejudice that needs to be redressed but only because the fortuitous circumstance of a repeal Act tempted him to raise the issue regarding his dispossession being in violation of the prescribed procedure.” 9. The Division Bench of this Court dealt with the similar situation and held that once the Government notified the lands in the Gazette under section 11(3) of the Act, the lands were vested with the Government, subsequently, issued notice under Section 11(5) and taken possession and handed over the possession to the revenue department before the repeal Act came into force, then the repeal Act has no application at all. Hence, the order passed by the learned single judge is liable to be set aside and prays to allow the intra court appeals. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the lands originally belonged to one A.E.Ephiraim and the respondents are his sons and they have divided the properties among themselves by way of partition deed dated 07.11.1979 under registered Document No.4583 of 1979 before the SRO, Tambaram and they were not able to look after the properties directly. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the lands originally belonged to one A.E.Ephiraim and the respondents are his sons and they have divided the properties among themselves by way of partition deed dated 07.11.1979 under registered Document No.4583 of 1979 before the SRO, Tambaram and they were not able to look after the properties directly. On 23.03.1992, respondents have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Robinson, the affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioners in the writ petitions were not aware of the proceedings initiated by the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The power of attorney while approaching the revenue authority for getting chitta came to know about the acquisition proceedings. Subsequently, applied the copies of the orders passed by the competent authority and filed the writ petitions. None of the proceedings were served on the land owners or power of attorney holder. They are in continuous possession of the lands and the appellants never taken possession from the respondents. The appellants have not produced single acknowledgment to prove that notices under any of the sections have been served on the respondents and the possessions were taken and handed over by one department to any other department, no notice was served under Section 11(5) of the Act and the respondents have not voluntarily surrendered the lands to the appellants and the appellants have not taken the lands from the respondents under Section 11(6) of the Act forcibly. Therefore, in the absence of any such proof to show that the possession of the vacant lands from the respondents were taken over by the appellants prior to the repeal Act came into force the respondents are entitled to get benefit of the repeal Act. The appellants have not proved that they have taken possession prior to the urban land ceiling Act 1978 was repealed on 16.06.1999, the respondents/land owners were in possession of the property, therefore the proceedings got abated and the lands belong to the respondents herein and not to the appellants. 11. The learned senior counsel for the respondents relied upon the unreported order of this Court in the case of N.P.Ramanujam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai and others in WP.No.50411 of 2006 dated 01.02.2013. 11. The learned senior counsel for the respondents relied upon the unreported order of this Court in the case of N.P.Ramanujam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai and others in WP.No.50411 of 2006 dated 01.02.2013. The relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order is extracted hereunder:- “13. It is categorically stated, taking over possession completes only when it has been signed by the land owner while delivering the excess land pursuant to notice under Section 11(5) of the Act. In this case, as already found, no service of notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was effected. Even as per the procedure under Section 11(6), the petitioner did not sign the land delivery receipt. When the land owner is not a party to the land delivery receipt, the alleged possession is not an actual possession. It is only a paper possession. 14. The respondent contends that the possession was taken by land delivery receipt. A perusal of the land delivery receipt would show that there is no independent witness. It merely states that Revenue Inspector, delivered possession to the Revenue Department. It is not mentioned as to how the Revenue Inspector Urban Land Ceiling Department took possession from the land owners especially when the land owner refused to deliver possession as stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. When there was a refusal by the land owner, the respondent necessarily has to resort Section 11(6) to take possession by force. Section 11(6) of the Act reads as follows: "(6) if any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary." There is nothing on record to prove that proceeding under Section 11(6) of the Act was taken. It is unbelievable that the possession of the land was taken from the hands of the urban land owner, when he refused to hand over, by the authorities on its own, who in turn handed over the possession to the revenue department.” 12. It is unbelievable that the possession of the land was taken from the hands of the urban land owner, when he refused to hand over, by the authorities on its own, who in turn handed over the possession to the revenue department.” 12. Therefore, there is no proof to show that the appellants have taken physical possession of the excess vacant land prior to the date of repeal Act came into force, the respondents were in possession of the lands, electricity connection stands in the name of the respondents, revenue records are standing in the name of the respondents, they have been paying the tax and the Chittas and Adangals also stand in the name of the respondents. Since, the appellants have not taken physical possession of the vacant lands and all the revenue records stand in the name of the respondents, the learned single judge after rightly considering all the documents allowed the writ petitions. Subsequently, the land owners have sold the properties to one Robberts Donison, now he has been in possession of the property and he also filed separate writ petition before this Court in WP.No.9159 of 2013 to direct the third respondent/Tahsildar, Tambaram to issue patta in respect of the petitioners' lands situated at S.Nos.268/2, 268/3 and 268/4 in Old.No.166 New No.133 based on his representation dated 10.01.2012 and pursuant to the order of this Court in WP.Nos.20576 to 20578 of 2001. Thereafter, filed the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.104 of 2014, in the meanwhile pattas were transferred in the name of Robberts Donison. Even now, the purchaser of the respondents herein is in possession of the lands, therefore, at any point of time, the appellants/competent authorities are not in possession of the said vacant lands. Therefore, there is no merits in the appeals and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 13. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 14. The subject matter of the lands originally belonged to father of the respondents herein and the respondents entered into partition among themselves on 07.11.1979 under registered Document No.4583 of 1979 on the file of the SRO, Tambaram 56cents each situated in S.Nos.268/4, 268/3A and 268/2 and 268/5 towards their respective shares. 14. The subject matter of the lands originally belonged to father of the respondents herein and the respondents entered into partition among themselves on 07.11.1979 under registered Document No.4583 of 1979 on the file of the SRO, Tambaram 56cents each situated in S.Nos.268/4, 268/3A and 268/2 and 268/5 towards their respective shares. Since, the lands are vacant lands and the respondents have not submitted any statements under Section 7(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, therefore, the appellants issued notices under Section 7(2) of the Act, even then they have not filed any objections regarding statements filed by the appellants. Notices issued under Section 9(4) along with draft statements under Section 9(1) of the Act and initiated proceedings under Section 10 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Subsequently, notifications under Section 11(3) were published in the Government Gazette and notices under Section 11(5) of the Act were issued. The possessions were taken on vacant lands from the respondents on 28.04.1999 and 24.05.1999 respectively and handed over the same to the Revenue Authority/Revenue Inspector. 15. After sending notices under Sections 7(1) and 9(5), since, there are no response from the respondents, the appellants initiated proceedings and notified under Section 11(3) and subsequently issued notices under Section 11(5) for handing over possession. Even though notices under Section 7(1) were served on 10.11.1993 and 9(4) were served on 10.08.1994. Thereafter, the respondents have neither submitted their objections nor appeared for enquiry, therefore, the competent authority inspected the lands on 22.02.1996 and found the lands are kept as vacant and laid out as plots and stones are planted and also not furnished any family particulars. As per the principal Act, the respondents are entitled 500sq.mtrs each respectively, out of the total extent and the balance of excess lands were declared as urban lands. As against the said orders, the respondents/land owners have not filed any appeal under Section 33 of the Act and subsequently, draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act were issued and gazette notifications under Section 11(3) were published and notices under 11(5) of the Act were also issued requesting to surrender possession of the lands within thirty days, since the respondents have not handed over the possession, the Delivery of possessions were taken on vacant lands from the respondents on 28.04.1999 and 24.05.1999 respectively and handed over the same to the Revenue Authority/Revenue Inspector. 16. 16. Once the respondents have not submitted any returns, even after receiving the notices under Section 9(4) and if they have not filed any objections for the orders under Section 9(5) or no response to the subsequent proceedings and after notifications under Section 11(3) excess land declared by the competent authority are vested with the Government. Therefore, for taking possession, the competent authority issued notices under Section 11(5) were also issued requesting to surrender possession of the excess vacant lands within thirty days, since the respondents have not received the notices and notices were affixed. Subsequently, possessions were taken on excess vacant lands from the respondents on 28.04.1999 and 24.05.1999 respectively and handed over the same to the Revenue Authority/Revenue Inspector. Therefore, the titles are vested with the Government and the possessions are with the Government, when the repeal Act came into force on 16.06.1999. 17. As rightly pointed out, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courts by the learned Advocate General and contended that mere handing over and taking over the possession of the vacant lands between the officials are sufficient and also dealt with Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Central Act which are equivalent to Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Tamil Nadu Act. Since, there is no resistance either by the land owners or any of their agent or otherwise who is said to have been in possession on the date of taking over the possession, the proof for which the department can only show the records. 18. In this case, the entire lands are vacant lands, as per records filed before this Court, the Tahsildar has taken possession after issuing notice under Section 11(5) of the Act. The respondents have not received the notice and served by way of affixture and taken possession and handed over the same to the revenue officials much before the repeal Act came into force on 16.06.1999. On the date of repeal Act came into force the possession of the lands are with the Government. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyothi Sarma reported in (2015) 5 SCC 321 (cited supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. In this case also, the original records show that the mode of taking possession and handing over possession is only on record. In this case also, the original records show that the mode of taking possession and handing over possession is only on record. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking over and handing over of the lands, the Government is in possession of the lands, much prior to the repeal Act came into force. Admittedly, no proceedings under the Act is pending or the possession is with the respondents/land owners. Therefore, the repeal Act is not applicable to the present case on hand, the learned single judge failed to consider the factual as well as legal position. 19. Insofar as the revenue records are concerned, on a careful perusal of the typed set of papers filed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, all the documents are obtained only after filing of the writ petitions, that too all the documents stand in the name of the power agent of the respondents and not in the names of the land owners. Even in the additional typed set of papers filed by the respondents, the property tax bills shown in page numbers 12 to 17 dated 15.09.2005, 27.06.2006 and 30.01.2013 stand in the name of the power agent and series of bills dated 12.01.2019 for the assessment period from 2012-2013 to 2018-2019 stand in the name of the subsequent purchaser after obtaining orders from this Court in WP.No.9159 of 2013 dated 14.12.2013. 20. The learned senior counsel would also submit that the adangals stand in the names of the respondents. On a careful perusal of the copies of the adangals issued for the fasili 1406, 1405 and 1407 i.e, for the year 1996, 1995 and 1997. The respondents have not produced any copies of the adangals for the year 1998 and 1999 when the repeal Act came into force. As per the records of the competent authority, the possessions were taken on 28.04.1999 and 24.05.1999 respectively, subsequently the repeal Act came into force on 16.06.1999, there is no revenue records filed by the respondents for the particular fasili 1408 and 1409 (year 1998 and 1999). Even the electricity service connection card and the bills also stand in the name of the power agent and not in the name of the original owners. 21. Even the electricity service connection card and the bills also stand in the name of the power agent and not in the name of the original owners. 21. On a careful perusal of the partition deed, even the schedule of properties described as vacant lands and there is no service connection or the existence of any pumpset are mentioned in the partition deed. Therefore, none of the records would go to show that the respondents are enjoying the properties as agricultural lands and also utilised the service connection. A bare perusal of the documents would show that all the documents were obtained during the pendency of the writ petitions and after filing of the writ appeals. The learned single judge failed to consider the veracity of the documents and given effect to that and comes to the conclusion that on the date of repeal Act, the respondents are in possession of the properties, as per the repeal Act, the Government is not entitled to the properties and quashed the notifications under Section 11(3) dated 30.09.1998 and 09.02.1999 respectively, which warrants interference. 22. On a careful reading of the original records, this Court finds from page 91 of the original files which is order dated 29.02.1996 by the competent authority in which it is stated that under Section 7(1) notices were served on 10.11.1993 and notices under Section 9(4) reports under section 9(1) were served on the respondents on 10.08.1994 and they have not given any objections or response. The competent authority inspected the properties on 22.02.1996 and found the lands are kept as vacant and the same are urban in nature and laid out as plots and stones are planted and no agricultural activities were carrying on, which shows that the respondents were not in actual physical possession of the vacant lands. Once after publishing the notifications under Section 11(3) of the Act, the lands have been transferred to the name of the Government and titles are vested with the Government, the possession of the lands were taken on 28.04.1999 and 24.05.1999 respectively. It is settled law, as far as the vacant land is concerned, the possession follows the title, once the titles are transferred to the appellants and vested with the appellants, since there were no resistance from the respondents, the officials have taken the possession by records and handed over to other department by records. It is settled law, as far as the vacant land is concerned, the possession follows the title, once the titles are transferred to the appellants and vested with the appellants, since there were no resistance from the respondents, the officials have taken the possession by records and handed over to other department by records. The respondents have not proved that they are in physical possession even on the date of Repeal Act and subsequent days, none of the documents filed by the respondents shows on the date of repeal Act came into force, they were in possession of the lands. Therefore, the repeal Act has nothing to do with the present case on hand. Hence, the order passed by the learned single judge is not in consonance with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 23. Further, a perusal of the very same original file at page No.181, the order passed by the competent authority/Assistant Commissioner shows that the respondents even in the year 1982 made representation before the competent authority that the lands are under agricultural activities and sought for exemption from the Act. Based on the representation submitted by the respondents, the competent authority found that the agricultural activities are going on and classified as agricultural lands and granted exemption at that point of time. Subsequently, proceedings dated 29.02.1996, on inspection, the lands were kept as vacant lands and also collected the records on whose name the lands were standing at the relevant point of time, the authorities had collected encumbrance certificates and other relevant documents viz., power deed, partition deed which reveal that the respondents are owner of the lands as stated above and given power of attorney dated 20.03.1992 to one G.Robinson. As already stated that even in the partition deed dated 07.11.1979 under registered Document No.4583 of 1979 the properties are described only as vacant lands. Even there is no service connection has been mentioned in the partition deed. 24. As per the writ petition in WP.No.9159 of 2013 filed by the subsequent purchaser/Robberts Donison in paragraph 4 of the affidavit he has stated that his father executed a registered sale deed on 02.01.2000 in respect of the above properties in his favour. Even there is no service connection has been mentioned in the partition deed. 24. As per the writ petition in WP.No.9159 of 2013 filed by the subsequent purchaser/Robberts Donison in paragraph 4 of the affidavit he has stated that his father executed a registered sale deed on 02.01.2000 in respect of the above properties in his favour. The respondents herein filed the writ petitions in the year 2001, on the date of filing the writ petitions the properties are not standing in the name of said Robinson/Power Agent, the respondents herein are not actual owners on the date of filing the writ petitions. Therefore, the land owners/respondents have no locus standi to file the writ petitions through the power agent. Once the power agent executed the sale deed dated 02.01.2000 in favour of his son/Roberts Donison, the General power of attorney dated 20.03.1992 got terminated and power agent has no locus standi to file the writ petitions on behalf of his Principals/land owners. On the date of filing the writ petitions there is no relationship between the Principals and the agent. Section 201 of the Contract Act explains the termination of agency. Section 201 of the Contract Act is extracted hereunder :- 201. Termination of agency — An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority, or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors. —An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority, or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors." 25. On reading of the general power of attorney dated 20.03.1992, the same was given only for the limited purpose of selling the properties. On reading of the general power of attorney dated 20.03.1992, the same was given only for the limited purpose of selling the properties. Once the sale deed is executed based on the power of attorney by the power agent, as per Section 201 business of the agency being completed the power deed stands terminated and there is no relationship between the principles and agent and the power agent has no locus standi to file the writ petitions on behalf of the principals/land owners. The respondents/land owners have suppressed the material facts on the date of filing the writ petitions that they are in possession of the vacant urban lands, by suppressing the fact that the power agent had executed the sale deed to one Robberts Donison on 02.01.2000, on the date of filing the writ petitions the respondents are not the actual land owners of the vacant lands and they are not in possession of the said vacant lands and not disclosed the correct facts before the Court. The respondents who approached the Court with unclean hands and suppressed all the vital material facts are not entitled for any reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution. 26. In view of the above facts and the proposition of law, we are of the considered opinion that the common order passed by the learned single judge is liable to be set aside. 27. In the result, the intra Court appeals are allowed by setting aside the common order passed by the learned single judge made in WP.Nos.20576 to 20578 of 2001 dated 11.07.2006. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.