JUDGMENT : Subramonium Prasad, J. (Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.21070 of 2003, dated 3/1/2013.) 1. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms and the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Chennai, by way of the instant writ appeal challenges the order, dated 3/1/2013, made in W.P.No.21070 of 2003. A learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment has quashed the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (hereinafter called as “the Ceiling Act” for short) by holding that the writ petitioners were in actual physical possession of the land, on the date when the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999) (hereinafter called as “the Repeal Act” for short) was passed. 2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the land measuring an extent of 2800 Sq.mts, in S.No.11/2A1B of Ayapakkam Village, in Chennai Urban Agglomeration were originally held by one Thiru.A.G.Parthasarathy and others. There was a family partition on 21/8/1985. The lands involved in the writ appeal came to the share of Bhooshanam, first respondent herein and Mahendran, husband of the second writ petitioner/respondent No.2 herein. On the death of Mr. B. Mahendran, his wife, second respondent herein, succeeded to the property. It is the contention of the respondents/writ petitioners that they have been in occupation and enjoyment of the property. The Assistant Commissioner/competent authority, second appellant herein, under the Ceiling Act, issued a notice under Section 7 (2) of the Ceiling Act and the same was served on Mahendran on 14/7/1993, which was followed by preparation of draft statements, as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit, under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act. Order of Section 9 (5) came to be issued on 12/3/1996, declaring an extent of 2800 sq.m excess vacant land. The writ petitioners contend that these proceedings took place without any notice or opportunity to the petitioners. Pursuant to the orders under Section 9 (5) of the Ceiling Act, a final Notification was issued, under Section 10 (1) of the Ceiling Act, on 25/11/1996 followed by a Notification under Section 11 (3) of the Ceiling Act and thereafter, a Notice under Section 11 (5) of the Ceiling Act, on 27/2/1998 was issued. Writ petitioners state that they are in actual physical possession of the land. Writ petitioners state that they are in actual physical possession of the land. It is submission of the respondents that since they are in actual physical possession of the land, the proceedings under the Ceiling Act have abated, when the Repeal Act came into force. 3. On notice, respondents have filed a counter. In the counter, the respondents have stated that the where abouts of the land owner was not known when notices under Section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act was issued and so the notice was serviced by affixture. According to the respondents, since there was no objection to the proceedings or any resistance after the notice under Section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act was issued and served, no order under Section 11 (6) is necessary and the possession of the excess vacant land was taken over and handed over by the revenue authorities, on 24/10/1998. It is also stated that the writ petitioner had sold major portion of the land to third parties. 4. The learned Single Judge, after perusing the entire records observed that only issue which requires for consideration in the writ petition is as to whether the petitioners are in possession of the property as on the date when the repealing Act came into force. The learned Single Judge has observed that writ petitioners have specifically asserted that they are in possession of the land in question. The learned Single Judge further observed that the contention of the petitioners is that no notice was served on the actual owners of the land viz., the petitioners and the final declaration declaring the surplus land was issued, without hearing the petitioners and without issuing any notice to them. The learned Single Judge after perusing the entire material on record came to a conclusion that petitioners are in actual physical possession of the land in question. 5. Heard Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader for the appellants. 6. The only short issue as observed by the learned Single Judge is as to whether the writ petitioners were in possession of the land when the Repeal Act came into force and because of which the proceedings under the Ceiling Act have abated. 7. Sections 6, 11 (3), 11 (5), 11 (6) of the Ceiling Act reads as under:- “6. The only short issue as observed by the learned Single Judge is as to whether the writ petitioners were in possession of the land when the Repeal Act came into force and because of which the proceedings under the Ceiling Act have abated. 7. Sections 6, 11 (3), 11 (5), 11 (6) of the Ceiling Act reads as under:- “6. Transfer of vacant land:- No person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit immediately before the commencement of this Act vacant land shall transfer any such land, or part thereof, by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise until he has furnished a statement under section 7 and a notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published under sub-section (1) of section 11 and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void. 11 (3). At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such dates as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified. 11 (5). Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-Section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. 11 (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 forces as may be necessary.” 8. Sections 3 and 4 of the Repealing Act, reads as under:- “Section 3 - Savings - (1). The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect - (a). Sections 3 and 4 of the Repealing Act, reads as under:- “Section 3 - Savings - (1). The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect - (a). the vesting of any vacant land under sub-Section (3) of Section 11, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; (b). the validity of any order granting exemption under sub-Section (1) of Section 21 or any action taken thereunder. (2). Where - (a). any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-Section (3) of Section 11, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; (b). the validity of any order granting exemption under sub-Section (1) of Section 21 or any action taken thereunder. (2). Where - (a). any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-Section (3) of Section 11 of the Principal Act, but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and (b). any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land, then, such land shall not restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government. 4. Abatement of legal proceedings - All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any Court, tribunal or any other authority shall abate: Provided that this Section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 15-B and 16 of the Principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.” 9. While dealing with the question of vesting of land under Section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act which is pari materia to Section 11 (3) of the Ceiling Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in various decisions held that vacant land is deemed to have been acquired but acquisition does not mean taking over of the possession of the land. For taking possession of the land, the procedure contained under the sub-Section (6) of Section 10 para materia to Section 11(6) of the Tamil Nadu Act has to be followed. Under Section 11 (3) what has vested is dejurae possession and not de facto possession. Section 11 (5) stipulates that any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-Section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government within thirty days of the service of the notice. Sub-Section 6 of Section 11 postulates that if a 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, and for that purpose, use such forces as may be necessary. The procedure under Section 11 (6), therefore, operates when the land owner fails to comply with the direction issued to him under 11 (5) of the Act. Silence on the part of the land owner does not mean that the land owner has given possession and there is no necessity to comply with the procedure under Section 11 (6) of the Ceiling Act. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 10 (5) and (6) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act which is pari materia to Section 11 (5) and 11 (6) of the Ceiling Act, has observed as under in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram { (2013) 4 SCC 280 }. “Peaceful dispossession 34. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 10 (5) and (6) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act which is pari materia to Section 11 (5) and 11 (6) of the Ceiling Act, has observed as under in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram { (2013) 4 SCC 280 }. “Peaceful dispossession 34. Sub-section (5) of Section 10, for the first time, speaks of “possession” which says that where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person, who may be in possession of it to surrender or transfer possession to the State Government or to any other person, duly authorised by the State Government. 35. If de facto possession has already passed on to the State Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression “where any land is vested” under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) of Section 10 can be voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided under Section 11 of the Act early. Once there is no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in writing under sub-section (5) of Section 10 to surrender or deliver possession. Sub-section (5) of Section 10 visualises a situation of surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession. Forceful dispossession 36. The Act provides for forceful dispossession but only when a person refuses or fails to comply with an order under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Sub-section (6) of Section 10 again speaks of “possession” which says, if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land to be given to the State Government and for that purpose, force-as may be necessary-can be used. Sub-section (6), therefore, contemplates a situation of a person refusing or fails to comply with the order under sub-section (5), in the event of which the competent authority may take possession by use of force. Forcible dispossession of the land, therefore, is being resorted to only in a situation which falls under sub-section (6) and not under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Forcible dispossession of the land, therefore, is being resorted to only in a situation which falls under sub-section (6) and not under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Sub-sections (5) and (6), therefore, take care of both the situations i.e. taking possession by giving notice, that is, “peaceful dispossession” and on failure to surrender or give delivery of possession under Section 10(5), then “forceful dispossession” under sub-section (6) of Section 10. 37. The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word “may” has been used therein, the word “may” in both the sub-sections has to be understood as “shall” because a court charged with the task of enforcing the statute needs to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from failure to implement the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it might result in the landholder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word “may” has to be read as “shall”.” 11. It is the submission of the State Government that since Mr.B.Mahendran did not raise any objection at any point of time and he also did not participate in the entire proceedings and he also did not raise any objection after the notice under Section 11 (5) of the Ceiling Act was issued, there is no necessity of invoking the procedure under Section 11 (6) of the Ceiling Act. The stand of the State Government in their counter is that since notice under Section 11 (5) of the Ceiling Act was affixed, procedure under Section 11 (6) of the Ceiling Act, need not be followed. It is also the stand of the State Government that since there was no obstruction, there is no necessity to follow Section 11 (6) of the Ceiling Act. It is also contended that the writ petition has been filed after five years of the possession being taken over and therefore the writ petition is hit by laches. All these contentions cannot be accepted. Admittedly the land is a vacant land. It is not known as to how affixture was done on the vacant land. Admittedly, the affixture was done only because the whereabout of the land owner Mr.Mahendran husband of second respondent was not known. Peaceful dispossession would only mean where the land owner himself hands over vacant possession. Admittedly the land is a vacant land. It is not known as to how affixture was done on the vacant land. Admittedly, the affixture was done only because the whereabout of the land owner Mr.Mahendran husband of second respondent was not known. Peaceful dispossession would only mean where the land owner himself hands over vacant possession. Section 11 (6) of the Ceiling Act, does not by way of talk of use of force by the land owner. Section 11 (6) deals with failure to comply with the notice under Section 11 (5) and 11 (6) is categorical that if a person refuses or fails to comply with an order, then possession has to be taken by resorting to Section 11 (6) of the Act. In the facts of this case, the learned Single Judge, after perusing the entire material on record found that there is no evidence that the Government has taken possession of the land in question. Even before us, no material has been produced as to how, where and before whom notice under Section 11 (5) of the Ceiling Act, was affixed. The material also indicates that possession has been given and taken over by Government officials. There is no material to show in whose presence, the possession of the land was taken over. There are no independent witnesses whose signatures have been affixed to substantiate that the officers went to the site to take the possession. The mere silence on the part of the land owner or the fact that the land owner did not raise any objection or participate in the proceedings cannot absolve the Government from following the procedure under Section 11 (6) of the Ceiling Act. It is settled law that unless actual physical possession of the land had not been taken over, the proceedings taken under the Ceiling Act stood abated on the coming into force of the Repeal Act. 12. Respondents have produced letters dated 27/2/1998, 21/3/1998 and 24/10/1998, and the same read as under:- From Thiru.V.Srinivasan, B.Sc Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Poonamallee at 2, Sannathi Street Poonamallee Madras 56. To The Tahsildar Ambathur RC.No.3687/97/2 dated 27/2/98 Sir, Sub: Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1975 - Madras Urban Agglomeration - Acquisition of excess vacant land measuring 2800 Sq. in Ayapakkam Village - held by Thiru.Mahendran Notification u/s.11(3) of the Act published - reg. To The Tahsildar Ambathur RC.No.3687/97/2 dated 27/2/98 Sir, Sub: Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1975 - Madras Urban Agglomeration - Acquisition of excess vacant land measuring 2800 Sq. in Ayapakkam Village - held by Thiru.Mahendran Notification u/s.11(3) of the Act published - reg. Ref: Notification u/s 11 (3) of the Act published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 14/1/98 in Part VI Section I at page No.62 - - - - - An extent of 2800 Sq.mts in S.No.11/2A 1B of Ayapakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District has been acquired under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 as surplus vacant lands held by Thiru.Mahendran. The Notification u/s 11 (3) of the Act was published the referenced cited. The Notice under Section 11 (5) of the said Act is being issued to the land holder. A copy of it is enclosed. I therefore, request that the possession of the land may please be taken over from the urban land owner or from the Deputy Tahsildar of this office and a copy of Land Delivery Receipt may be sent to this office early. Competent Authority (ULC) & Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Poonamallee, Chennai 56 - - - - - - R.C.622/95/C Dated 21/3/1998 (date written by hand) FORM VII {See Rule 10 (3)} Form of notice under sub-Section (5) of Section 11 regarding surrender or delivery of possession of excess vacant land acquired under sub-Section (3) of Section 11 To Thiru Mahendran Ayapakkam Village Please take notice that the vacant land/lands specified in the Schedule below is/are vested with the State Government under sub-Section (3) of Section II of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 with effect on and from 1st February 1998. You are requested to surrender or deliver possession of the said land/lands to the Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk within thirty days of the service of this notice. 2. If this order is not complied with, the said land/lands will be taken possession of the authority mentioned above after using such force as may be necessary. 3. If there are any construction, they may be removed before the date fixed above. 2. If this order is not complied with, the said land/lands will be taken possession of the authority mentioned above after using such force as may be necessary. 3. If there are any construction, they may be removed before the date fixed above. If they are not removed by the owner, they will be removed by the Officer authorized in this behalf to take possession of the said land who shall sell them and keep the proceeds thereof in deposit in the name of the person, after deducting the cost of removal and other incidental charges.” - - - - - LAND DELIVERY RECEIPT Name of the District: Thiruvallur Name of the Taluk: Ambathur Name of the Village: 73 Ayapakkam S.No. Extent (Sq.mts) Description of land Boundaries North East South West 11/2A1B 028.0 Dry 10 11/2B 14 11/1, 11/2A2 11/2A1A 11/2A3, 11/2A1A Name of owner: Mahendran The above extent has been delivered by me at 24/10/1998 and taken possession of by the Revenue Inspector, Ambathur. Handed Over Taken Over Sd/----- Deputy Tahsildar Urban Land Tax Poonamallee Sd/----- Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Revenue Inspector Ambattur Firka Ambattur Taluk 13. Form VII issued under Rule 10 for compliance of Section 11 (5) has been admittedly served by affixture. Admittedly, the land is a vacant land. There is nothing to show as to where the notice was affixed. In absence of any material placed before us, it cannot be accepted that there was affixture of notice for service under Section 11 (5) of the Ceiling Act. A perusal of the above letter dated 27/2/1998 would show that the second respondent has directed the Tahsildar to take possession from the Deputy Tahsildar and consequently, the Deputy Tahsildar has handed over the possession to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar. The letter shows that the words “from the urban land owner” has been struck off, meaning thereby, the land was not taken from the land owners. What is more interesting is that the letter dated 27/02/1998 proceeds as if the land stand vested in the State under Section 11(3), notice under Section 11(5) is being sent and therefore possession of the land can be automatically taken. This approach is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. A perusal of the above position would show that Section 10 (5) postulates that the land owner himself surrenders the possession. This approach is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. A perusal of the above position would show that Section 10 (5) postulates that the land owner himself surrenders the possession. If the land owner does not surrender possession, then procedure under Section 10 (6) of the Ceiling Act has to be adopted. Section 10 (6) of the Ceiling Act, therefore, postulates that authorities must go to the land and take physical possession on the land itself. This procedure cannot be adopted while sitting inside the office of the authorities. Notice under Section 11 (5) of the Act was served, on the land owners only by affixture. There is nothing to show where the notice was pasted. There is no witness to show whether there was actual pasting or not. The possession certificate only shows that the land was handed over by the Deputy Tahsildar to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar. As observed earlier, the words “from the urban land owner” has been struck off. There is nothing on record to satisfy us that the Government took physical possession of the property from the land owners. There are no witnesses to show that the officers went to the land physically and took over possession which is normally done in favour of independent witnesses. It looks as if the entire exercise of affixture and taking over of the possession of the land was done inside the office of the respondents. This Court is of an opinion that there has to be some form of material showing service of notice under Section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act having being done through affixture. There has to be some material to show voluntary surrender of possession. In the absence of any material, it cannot be presumed that there has been a voluntary surrender of the land. In the absence of voluntary surrender of the land, the State Government will have to resort to the procedure under Section 11(6) of the Ceiling Act. Admittedly, Section 11(6) of the Ceiling Act has not been resorted to. The stand of the State Government that unless there is a physical resistance, Section 11(6) need not be resorted at all, cannot be accepted. 15. The contention that the writ petition is hit by laches cannot be accepted. Admittedly, Section 11(6) of the Ceiling Act has not been resorted to. The stand of the State Government that unless there is a physical resistance, Section 11(6) need not be resorted at all, cannot be accepted. 15. The contention that the writ petition is hit by laches cannot be accepted. There is no evidence to show that notice under Section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act was served on Mr. Mahendran through affixture. There is also no evidence that the officials went to the land to take over possession under Section 11(6) of the Ceiling Act. In the absence of the same, it cannot be presumed that there was knowledge on the part of the writ petitioners that the possession of the land had been taken over. The learned Single Judge has come to a conclusion that the possession of the land is still with the land owners and as stated earlier, other than documents showing possession being taken only on paper, there is nothing to show that actual physical possession has been taken by the Government. In such event, the principle of laches cannot be invoked by the Government to defeat the writ petition. 16. It is also contended that the land owner in their Appeal Petition had stated that the land had been sold to various persons. This fact has not been stated by the writ petitioners in the writ petition and there is no finding by the learned Single Judge on this aspect. In such a scenario, it was all the more imperative that the Government should have demonstrated as to how the possession of the land was taken over. If the land had actually been sold to third parties, then there would have been obstructions by the purchasers. It is not possible to accept that the subsequent purchasers would have silently given the possession of the land. This indicates that possession was taken over only on paper and that too inside the office of the respondents. 17. The learned Government Pleader has places reliance on State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 321 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- 16. The issue can be viewed from another angle also. 17. The learned Government Pleader has places reliance on State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 321 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- 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.” 18. The facts of the above said judgment are completely distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 321 , initially subsequent purchasers challenged the proceedings under the vesting Act. When they failed, the land owner came up to challenge the vesting. It is in that circumstances, paragraph 16 quoted above, has to be viewed. In the present case, the writ petitioners filed the writ petition after their appeal under the Ceiling Act was rejected, on the ground that on the passing of Repealing Act, the appellate authority had become functus officio. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the writ petitioners to approach the Court. Even according to the respondents, the land owner was Mr.Mahendran. The second respondent is the wife of Mahendran, who has succeeded to the estate. It cannot be said that a third party stranger or a subsequent purchaser is challenging the proceedings under the vesting Act or is claiming abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act. Even according to the respondents, the land owner was Mr.Mahendran. The second respondent is the wife of Mahendran, who has succeeded to the estate. It cannot be said that a third party stranger or a subsequent purchaser is challenging the proceedings under the vesting Act or is claiming abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act. The reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 5 SCC 321 State of Assam Vs. Baskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors., is therefore, misplaced. 19. The Government has also placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i). Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 467 (ii). State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, & 2 others Vs. T.V. Antony 2018 SCC online Mad 541. (iii). State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, & 2 others Vs. V.R. Ramanathan, W.A.No.2485 of 2013. (iv). M/s. Annai Builders Real Estate Private Limited, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Ceiling and Land Tax, Chepauk, Chennai & 3 Ors., W.A.No.1067 OF 2017. (v). The Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai & 2 Ors., Vs. N. Vijayalakshmi, W.A.No.1667 of 2017. (vi). Mani Srinivasan Vs. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & 4 Ors., W.A.No.600 of 2016. (vii). Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 700 . (viii). State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai 9 & 5 Ors. Vs. M/s.Technolab Instruments (Madras), rep. by its Proprietor, Chennai, W.A.No.651 of 2016. (ix). The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax/Competent Authority, Chennai & 3 Ors., Vs. D. Nagarajan, W.A. No.1496 of 2017. (x). The Principal Secretary to Commissioner, Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai & Ors., Vs. B. Govindammal, 2017 SCC Online Mad 22013. (xi). S. Balasubramaniam & Ors., Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai & 2 Ors., 2009 SCC Online Mad 1485. (xii). State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors., (2015) SCC 321. 20. None of these judgments are identical to the facts of the present case. (a). In Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune Minicipal Transport & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 467 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the question of vesting under the Ceiling Act. (xii). State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors., (2015) SCC 321. 20. None of these judgments are identical to the facts of the present case. (a). In Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune Minicipal Transport & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 467 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the question of vesting under the Ceiling Act. In that case, the possession was taken over by the Government and handed over to the Pune Municipal Transport in the year 1978 - 79. A Bus depot was constructed on the part of the land in the year 1988 i.e., after ten years and the revision petition was filed in the year 1998, i.e., after twenty years of the possession. The facts in the present case are entirely different. In the light of the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the Repealing Act would not apply. In that case, the question regarding actual physical possession being handed over did not arise, since a bus depot had been constructed on a part of the land which had been taken over. The said judgment is therefore, distinguishable on facts. (b). Similarly, the case of State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, & 2 others Vs. T.V. Antony 2018 SCC online Mad 541, is also misplaced. The petitioner in this case was a subsequent purchaser. The sale in favour of the writ petitioner therein was therefore, void. (c). The decision rendered in State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, & 2 others Vs. V.R. Ramanathan, W.A.No.2485 of 2013, is also misplaced. In this case, the land owner himself had admitted that he had sold the land to third parties and the third parties had encroached over the land. Since the land was sold, the case will not apply to the facts of the present case. (d). The reliance of The Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai & 2 Ors. Vs. N. Vijayalakshmi, W.A.No.1667 of 2017, is misplaced in as much as the only question that was discussed was whether there was any proceeding pending on the date of the commencement of the Repealing Act or not. The issue regarding service of notice under Section 11 (5) or the need of following the procedure under Section 11 (6) was not discussed. (e). The case of Mani Srinivasan Vs. The issue regarding service of notice under Section 11 (5) or the need of following the procedure under Section 11 (6) was not discussed. (e). The case of Mani Srinivasan Vs. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & 4 Ors., W.A.No.600 of 2016, is also distinguishable on facts. The proceedings under the Ceiling Act, concluded in 1988 and the land had been allotted to Slum Clearance Board. The writ petitioner is a third party purchaser, who approached for regularisation of his purchase of the land in the year 1988 only in 2010. The writ petition by a third party purchaser was therefore, not maintainable. (f). The case of Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 700 , does not deal with the effect of the Repealing Act nor does it deal with the Vesting Act, but deals with Land Acquisition Act. The provisions not being para materia are not applicable to the present case. (g). State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai 9 & 5 Ors. Vs. M/s.Technolab Instruments (Madras), rep. by its Proprietor, Chennai, W.A.No.651 of 2016, was relied on by the State Government is also not applicable in as much as the respondent/writ petitioner in the said writ appeal was a third party purchaser who had no right to challenge. (h). The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax/Competent, Urban Land Ceiling & 3 Ors. Vs. D. Nagarajan, W.A.No.1496 of 2017, The Principal Secretary to Commissioner, Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai & Ors., Vs. B. Govindammal, 2017 SCC Online Mad 22013 and S. Balasubramaniam & Ors. Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai & 2 Ors., 2009 SCC Online Mad 1485, are distinguishable on facts. In the said cases, the High Court, had looked into the files and came to a conclusion that on the requirements under the Ceiling Act had been strictly and meticulously followed unlike in the present cases, the learned Single Judge after going through the records found that the actual physical possession has not been taken over and the Government has not produced any records to substantiate the same. (i). In M/s. Annai Builders Real Estate Private Limited, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Vs. (i). In M/s. Annai Builders Real Estate Private Limited, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Ceiling and Land Tax, Chepauk, Chennai & 3 Ors., W.A.No.1067 of 2017, a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- “There was no resistance for taking possession by the Government and under the said circumstances, the question of taking forcible possession by invoking Section 11 (6) of the Act does not arise.” The said pronouncement is contrary to the law laid down in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram { (2013) 4 SCC 280 }, which states that in case possession is not delivered under Section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act, then actual physical possession must be taken by the authorities. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram (supra) continues to hold the field and has not been overruled by a Larger Bench. 21. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No Costs.