JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent in Rc.No.A1/1728/87, dated 19.05.1988 and quash the same insofar as an extent of 2385 sq.ft of land as Plot No.2 in a total extent of 61 ½ cents in Sy.No.112/1 in Ko.Abishekapuram Village, Trichy Taluk and District.) Common Order: 1. The writ petitions have been filed challenging a notification issued under Section 11(3) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows: 2. The properties in dispute originally belonged to one Chinnammal and Chan Bibi. They have executed a registered sale deed on 12.07.1971 and 14.03.1973 in favour of Paulraj Pandurar for an extent of 61 ½ cents. After such purchase, the said Paulraj Pandurar has formed a lay out and started selling plots. According to the petitioners, Plot No.7 was purchased by one Saraswathy, the petitioner in WP(MD).No.16186 of 2009 by way of a registered sale deed dated 22.08.1984. On the same day, Plot No.6 was sold to one Raman and Plot No.8 was sold to Rathinam. The purchasers Raman and Rathinam sold the same to one Periyasamy and Jeyaraman by registered sale deeds dated 08.04.1985 and 19.11.1993. One Muthu Chezian and his brother Elangovan have purchased Plot No.2 on 27.08.1997 who are the writ petitioners in W.P(MD).No.9545 of 2011.The petitioners in W.P(MD).No. 9546 of 2011 namely Ramasamy had purchased Plot No.6 on 17.01.1997. One Mrs.Usha, the petitioner in WP(MD).No.9547 of 2011 had purchased Plot No.8 on 29.11.1993. 3. According to the petitioners, based upon the above sale deeds, the purchasers have obtained building plan permission and they have put up construction in the property. The encumbrance certificate from the year 1971-1996 would indicate that apart from the petitioners and their vendors, no other name is found in the encumbrance certificate. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that in May 2008, an attempt was made by the respondent authorities to measure the properties and only thereafter, they came to know that the lands in dispute have been subjected to Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that in May 2008, an attempt was made by the respondent authorities to measure the properties and only thereafter, they came to know that the lands in dispute have been subjected to Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978. Thereafter, they have started giving representations to the respondent authorities contending that the properties do not belong to Thangamani Vanathirayar and the properties belonged to Chinnammal and Chan Bibi. Only after great efforts, the impugned order was served upon the petitioners on 10.03.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the respondent authorities in their reply dated 29.09.2010 had specifically pointed out that 2468 sq.meters of land in Survey No.112/1 has not been taken possession but the rest of the lands have been taken possession by the Government on the ground that they were declared as urban land excess. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that though the petitioners have called for the proof of title of Thangamani Vanathirayar, the respondent authorities have refused to divulge the same and their only contention is that the title of Thangamani Vanathirayar was confirmed by way of an enquiry conducted by the revenue officials. The petitioners have further contended that all the notices and proceedings initiated under Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 have been issued only to Thangamani Vanathirayar and not to the petitioners or their vendors. Since there was no objection from the Thangamani Vanathirayar, the authorities have proceeded under the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further pointed out that Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 has been repealed under Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999. As per Repeal Act, if possession has not been taken by the authorities, on a date of Repeal Act, the entire legal proceedings should abated. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners have put up construction and they are residing therein. The authorities have also admitted in their reply dated 29.09.2010 that as far as an extent of 2468 sq.m. in Survey No.112/1 is concerned, they have not taken possession. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners have put up construction and they are residing therein. The authorities have also admitted in their reply dated 29.09.2010 that as far as an extent of 2468 sq.m. in Survey No.112/1 is concerned, they have not taken possession. Hence, the entire proceedings have to be quashed on the ground that the proceedings have been initiated as against the person who did not have any title and also on the ground that the said proceedings will get abated due to Repeal Act namely Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that Thangamani Vanathirayar who was residing in Trichy was holding urban vacant land to an extent of 23,328 sq.meters. Since he did not file any statement voluntarily as contemplated under Section 7(1) of the Act, a notice was issued to him. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader had contended that the properties originally belonged to Thangamani Vanathirayar. Though a notice was issued under Section 7(2) of the Act, there was no response from the land owners. Hence, the particulars were gathered under Section 7(5) of the Act. Based upon the said particulars, the authorities arrived at a conclusion that the said Thangamani Vanathirayar is having excess land and a draft statement was published under Section 9(1) of the Act. Though a draft statement was served upon him, no objection was received from the said land owner. Hence, a final statement was issued under Section 10(1) of the Act dated 28.05.1987. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader had further contended based upon the said final statement, acquisition were initiated under Section 11(1) of the Act and a notification was also issued on 17.02.1988. Since no claim petition was filed either by the land owner or by any third party, the land was deemed to have been acquired under Section 11(3) of the Act as per Notification dated 22.06.1988. He had further contended that the possession of the above said vacant lands were handed over to Tahsildar on behalf of the District Collector, Trichy on 13.09.1988 and mutation in the revenue records were effected in the name of the Government. He had further contended that the possession of the above said vacant lands were handed over to Tahsildar on behalf of the District Collector, Trichy on 13.09.1988 and mutation in the revenue records were effected in the name of the Government. The learned Additional Government Pleader had further contended that the present petitioners have purchased the land after they have been declared and notified as urban vacant land and the possession has also been taken. Since the possession has already been taken on 13.09.1988, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, namely Act 20 of 1999. Hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11. The main contention of the writ petitioners is that the properties belong to one Chinnammal and Chan Bibi and the same was purchased by Paulraj Pandurar by way of two registered sale deeds dated 12.07.1971 and 14.03.1973. Admittedly, these two sale deeds are registered sale deeds and they are prior to the proceedings initiated by the authorities under the Land Reforms Act. 12. A perusal of the above said two sale deeds indicate that Survey No. 112/1 has been dealt with under these two documents. However, it is the case of the respondent authorities that the above said extent of land in Survey No. 112/1 belongs to one Thangamani Vanathirayar. However, no document has been placed before the Court to establish how the said Thangamani Vanathirayar was the owner of the said land at the time of initiating proceedings under Act 24 of 1978. 13. A perusal of the counter filed by the respondent authorities indicate that the said Thangamani Vanathirayar has not filed any statement as contemplated under Section 7(1) of the Act. Though a notice has been issued to the said Thangamani Vanathirayar under Section 7(2) of the Act, the same was not responded. The authorities have invoked their powers under Section 7(5) of the Act and after obtaining necessary information, they have arrived at a finding that the property belongs to Thangamani Vanathirayar and he is having lands in excess of the ceiling limit as contemplated under Act 24 of 1978. The authorities have invoked their powers under Section 7(5) of the Act and after obtaining necessary information, they have arrived at a finding that the property belongs to Thangamani Vanathirayar and he is having lands in excess of the ceiling limit as contemplated under Act 24 of 1978. The proceedings adopted by the respondent authorities under Section 7(5) of the Act will clearly indicate that no document was produced either by the alleged owner namely Thangamani Vanathirayar or the authorities who gathered any registered document to establish the ownership on the said Thangamani Vanathirayar. 14. The petitioners have filed the encumbrance certificate relating to the period between 01.01.1977 and 14.05.1996. The said encumbrance certificate does not reveal the ownership of Thangamani Vanathirayar. Hence, it is clear that the entire proceedings initiated by the authorities under Act 24 of 1978 has been targeted against a person who is not the real owner of the property. Had the authorities looked into the encumbrance certificate, they could have very well arrived at a conclusion that the properties stand in the name of Paulraj Pandurar in the year 1973 itself from whom the petitioners have purchased the properties. Hence, it is clear that the entire proceedings have been initiated behind the back of the real owner of the property. 15. The petitioners have specifically contended that their vendor Paulraj Pandurar has formed a lay out and thereafter, sold the plots to various third parties. The petitioners are purchasers of the housing plots. The petitioners have obtained a building plan permission and put up houses in the said plots. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners is that the possession was not taken by the authorities under Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978. The third respondent herein by his proceedings dated 29.09.2010 has categorically admitted that except an extent of 2468 sq.meters in Survey No.112/1, the rest of the extent, possession has already been taken. The counter filed by the third respondent herein in WP(MD).No.9545 of 2011, in Paragraph No.11 will clearly indicate that during the property inspection conducted by the fourth respondent in Survey No.112/1, there was a building and the name of the building owner could not be traced out. But, the land was acquired and treated as surplus land. The counter filed by the third respondent herein in WP(MD).No.9545 of 2011, in Paragraph No.11 will clearly indicate that during the property inspection conducted by the fourth respondent in Survey No.112/1, there was a building and the name of the building owner could not be traced out. But, the land was acquired and treated as surplus land. The third respondent has further admitted that since details of the encroachers could not be traced, the vacant possession could not be taken over at that point of time. The counter silent whether at later point of time possession was taken or not. The respondents in their common counter in Paragraph No.9 had contended that they have taken possession on 13.09.1988. However, no record had placed before this Court with regard to taking over of the possession. The counter is silent with regard to the fact that whether any notice was issued under Section 11(5) of Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 for taking possession. 16. A combined reading of the counter affidavit and proceedings of the third respondent dated 29.09.2010 would clearly establish that the respondents have not taken physical possession of the properties in dispute till Repeal Act namely Act 20 of 1999 came into force on 16.06.1999. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of our High Court reported in 2012-4-L.W.289 (The Government of Tamil Nadu & others Vs.M/s. Mecca Prime Tannery and others) in Paragraph No.33 has held as follows: “33. The phrases shall be deemed to have been acquired and shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the State Government occurring in Section 11(3) of the Act, in our considered opinion, mean that the right, title and interest in respect of the land shall be deemed to have been vested in the State Government and not possession of the land. After the right, title and invested is vested in the State Government by notification under Section 11(3), the State Government has to take further action for taking possession of the land, if the land owner or any person in possession refuses or fails to surrender or deliver possession of the land so vested in the Government”. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme in a judgment reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 ( State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme in a judgment reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 ( State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram) while dealing with the Central Act namely Urban Land ( Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in Paragraph No.42 has held as follows: “42. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act”. 19. Our High Court in a judgment reported in (2021) 8 MLJ 218 ( M.Muthiah Pandian and others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others) in Paragraph Nos.20 and 21 are held as follows: “20. The Hon'ble Divisional Bench of this Court categorically held that when the subject procedure is contemplated under the Act for taking physical possession of the subject property, the Government ought to have followed the procedure laid down under the Act. If the owner refuse to hand over the possession, the authorities were entitled to dispossess the same forcibly. In instant case on hand, the physical possession of the subject property is very much with the petitioners. Even according to the respondents, the notice under Section 11(5) was served by affixture. 21. Thereafter, there is no records to show that the physical possession was handed over by the Urban Land Owner to the parties concerned. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the physical possession of the subject land was not vested with the Government on the date of the Repeal Act came into force namely 16.06.1999. As such since the physical possession has not been taken as required under the Repeal Act, the entire proceedings stands abated.” 20. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the physical possession of the subject land was not vested with the Government on the date of the Repeal Act came into force namely 16.06.1999. As such since the physical possession has not been taken as required under the Repeal Act, the entire proceedings stands abated.” 20. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Division Bench Judgment of our High Court and another Judgement of our High Court cited supra will clearly indicate that unless physical possession is taken prior to 16.06.1999, the entire legal proceedings initiated under Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 will get abated. The notification for acquisition of the property or deemed vesting of the property in the State Government cannot be considered to be a possession in the hands of the State Government. In the present case, even as per the proceedings of the third party herein, a portion of Survey No. 112/1 has not been taken possession. The counter affidavit clearly indicate that since there were encroachment, and the name of the encroachers could not be identified, possession could not be taken at that point of time. No records have been placed before the Court to indicate that the plots which are in possession of the writ petitioners have been taken possession by the Government pursuant to the proceedings of Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 prior to 16.06.1999. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits under Section 4 of Repeal Act 20 of 1999. 21. In view of the above said facts, the order impugned in the writ petitions are set aside. The proceedings initiated under Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 as against the properties of the petitioners shall stand abated. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.