JUDGMENT : T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. This appeal filed by the State is directed against the order passed in W.P.No.7125 of 2004 dated 30.11.2012. 2. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 04.03.2002 in S.R.No.249/96C. By the said proceedings, the competent authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) held that an extent of 3900 square meters of vacant land in Zamin Pallavaram village in Survey Nos.172/1, 172/3 and 172/6B, an extent of 500 square meters are allowed for the family entitlement of the first respondent and the balance extent of 3400 square meters is directed to be acquired under Section 9(5) of the Act. 3. The writ petition was filed raising several grounds and primarily on the ground that the actual physical possession of the land in question continued to remain with the land owner and the Act having been repealed by Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (No.20 of 1999) (hereinafter referred to as “the Repeal Act”) and in terms of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, the entire proceedings initiated under the original Act, stands abated. The writ petition was allowed on 30.11.2012 holding that possession of the land has not been taken from the land owner in the manner provided under the Act and therefore, the first respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act. The State is on appeal before us challenging the said order. 4. We have elaborately heard Mr.S.Thangavel, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant, Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner and Mr.T.N.Rajagopal, learned counsel for Mr.M.Nandha Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent and carefully perused the materials placed on record. 5. Before we move on to the facts on the instant case, we need to take note of the legal position holding the field as on date with regard to the effect of Repeal Act. The earliest of the decision was in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. Mecca Prime Tannery & Ors. [2012-4-LW-289]. 5. Before we move on to the facts on the instant case, we need to take note of the legal position holding the field as on date with regard to the effect of Repeal Act. The earliest of the decision was in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. Mecca Prime Tannery & Ors. [2012-4-LW-289]. In the said decision, it was held that after issuance of the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act to surrender vacant possession n of the land, if the land owner does not surrender vacant possession, then the competent authority under the Act should initiate action under Section 11(6) of the Act for taking delivery of possession. 6. Section 11 of the Act deals with “acquisition of vacant land” in excess of ceiling limit”. It has been held that in cases where after notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, the land owner delivers possession of the land and acknowledges the same in writing and the State after taking possession of land so delivered voluntarily by the land owner either comes into possession or allots the land to other persons, it was held that continued possession could be illegal. However, with regard to the cases where the competent authority issued notice under Section 11(5) of the Act to the land owners or the persons in possession of the land to deliver vacant possession to the competent authority, but the land owner or the person in possession fails to deliver the land and continues to be in possession of such land and the authority of the State did not take any action under Section 11(6) of the Act for taking delivery of possession, then in such cases, the State Government shall not be deemed to be in possession of those lands. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act. The above decision has been followed in several decisions of this Court of which, we may refer to a few of them viz., Government of Tamil Nadu vs. Aalim Muhammed Salegh Trust [ AIR 2015 Mad 47 ]; R.Siddiah & 9 Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department & 3 Ors. [(2015) 2 CWC 20]; A.N.Visalakshi & Ors. vs. Special Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Land Reforms, Chennai & Ors. [ (2015) 5 CTC 823 (DB)]. 7. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department & 3 Ors. [(2015) 2 CWC 20]; A.N.Visalakshi & Ors. vs. Special Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Land Reforms, Chennai & Ors. [ (2015) 5 CTC 823 (DB)]. 7. In the above decisions, the Court has discussed the factual aspect of each of the cases and held that possession of the land in question was not taken from the land owner in the manner provided under the Act and therefore, the provisions of the Repeal Act would have to be extended to those land owners. 8. In the instant case, the learned Single Bench in paragraph 11 of the impugned order, has pointed out that though the writ petition was admitted in 2004 and was pending, till it was taken up for disposal in 2012, no counter affidavit was filed and there is nothing on record to substantiate the claim of the respondent in the counter affidavit stating that they have taken over possession of the vacant land. 9. Before us Mr.S.Thangavel, learned Special Government Pleader has produced the original file. Thus, we are in a position to examine the facts of the case. 10. One of the arguments of Mr.S.Thangavelu, learned Special Government Pleader, is that the writ petition was filed in the year 2004, when proceedings under the Act were commenced in the year 1996 by issuance of notice under Section 7(2) of the Act and followed by draft statement under Section 9(1) of the Act on 13.01.1997, followed by order under Section 9(5) of the Act on 31.01.1997 and final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act on 27.11.1997 and notification under Section 11(1) of the Act on 08.04.1998, notification under Section 11(3) of the Act on 08.07.1998 and notice under Section 11(5) on 08.09.1998. Therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 11. Further, it is submitted that the notices were served on the brother's son of the land owner, which is evident from the endorsement in the notice under Section 7(2), which is found in page 7 of the original file. Therefore, it is submitted that the land owners were aware of the proceedings under the Act and having not been diligent at the appropriate time, are not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. 12. Therefore, it is submitted that the land owners were aware of the proceedings under the Act and having not been diligent at the appropriate time, are not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. 12. Further, Mr.S.Thangavel, learned Special Government Pleader submits that in page 93 of the original file, the land delivery receipt is found and possession has been taken in the proper manner and handed over to the Firka Revenue Inspector, Alandur Firka, Tambaram Taluk and therefore, the provisions of the Repeal Act would not apply. 13. It is pointed out by Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/land owner that in the writ petition filed by the first respondent, the appellants in their counter affidavit, have not indicated on whom the notices were served, but in the writ petition filed by the second respondent herein, who is a purchaser of a portion of the land, viz., Survey No.172/3, the Department has taken a stand that the notice was served on Mr.P.N.Mohan, brother of the urban land owner. 14. It is emphatically submitted by Mr.A.Palaniappan that the first respondent/writ petitioner does not have any brother in the name of Mr.P.N.Mohan, but the brothers are Mr.Gopalakrishnan and Mr.Balakrishnan and the name of the first respondent's father is Mr.Raji Naicker and therefore, it is submitted that the notices were never served on the land owner and therefore, the writ petition was rightly entertained and not rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Furthermore, it is submitted that actual physical possession was not taken from the erstwhile land owner. 15. Mr.T.N.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, the purchaser of a portion of the land, submitted that his client is an innocent purchaser and the Government had brought about a scheme to regularise such purchases and the second respondent had submitted representation to extend the benefit of the said scheme and since the representation was not considered, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1048 of 2017 to dispose of his representation dated 16.02.2016. In the said writ petition, counter affidavit was filed by the competent authority stating that as against the writ petition filed by the first respondent/land owner in W.P.No.7125 of 2004, dated 30.11.2012, the Government has filed a writ appeal and the same is in the SR stage. This counter affidavit was filed in the year 2017. In the said writ petition, counter affidavit was filed by the competent authority stating that as against the writ petition filed by the first respondent/land owner in W.P.No.7125 of 2004, dated 30.11.2012, the Government has filed a writ appeal and the same is in the SR stage. This counter affidavit was filed in the year 2017. The said writ petition filed by the second respondent was disposed of by order dated 20.09.2019 directing the concerned authority to consider the representation wherein, the second respondent claimed that he should be treated as an innocent buyer. 16. Further, it is submitted that the first respondent, who is the land owner, was in actual physical possession of the land and the second respondent was not aware of any of the urban land ceiling proceedings and the second respondent has purchased portion of the property for valuable consideration and the sale document has been registered and in the light of the present legal position, the benefit of the Repeal Act has to be extended to the first respondent and consequently, the second respondent is entitled to enjoy the property purchased by him free from all encumbrances. 17. In page 7 of the original file, a copy of the notice under Section 7(2) is available, which shows that it has been acknowledged by one Mr.P.N.Mohan. The first respondent would state that he does not have any such brother. In any event, this question cannot be now adjudicated and it appears that the said Mr.P.N.Mohan has received all the notices and proceedings under the Act. However, there is nothing on record before us to show that Mr.P.N.Mohan was the brother of the first respondent. 18. Be that as it may, the entire proceedings proceeded ex-parte and ultimately, the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued. A copy of the said notice under Section 11(5) was addressed to the second respondent, care of Mr.P.N.Mohan. 19. From pages 77 to 83 of the original file, which are all the notices under Section 11(5), we find that there is no acknowledgement from the land owner, viz., the first respondent. Page 85 is a proceedings by which, the competent authority states that excess vacant land has been taken possession by the Urban Land Tax and Urban Land Ceiling Department. Page 85 is a proceedings by which, the competent authority states that excess vacant land has been taken possession by the Urban Land Tax and Urban Land Ceiling Department. This has been signed by the Deputy Tahsildar, office of the Assistant Commissioner (ULT), Tambaram and a sketch has also been appended to the said document. The land delivery receipt contains the signature of the Assistant Commissioner (ULT), Tambaram dated 30.03.1999, who is said to have handed over possession of the land to the Firka Revenue Inspector, Alandur. The correctness of such procedure was tested in all the aforementioned decisions and it has been held that if the land owner fails to voluntarily surrender the land in pursuance to the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, then the authorities have to necessarily proceed under Section 11(6) of the Act and it cannot be stated that the land has been deemed to have been handed over possession to the Department. It was held that such land delivery receipt, can at best, be construed as a paper delivery, which is not authorised under the Act. 20. If such is the factual position in the case on hand, then it goes without saying that the land continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the first respondent/land owner on the date when the Act was repealed and consequently, the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act would apply and all proceedings initiated under the Parent Act stands abated. 21. For the above reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed in the writ petition and while sustaining the relief granted in the writ petition, quashing the proceedings, we have also given our independent reasons as to why the order needs to be upheld. 22. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.