ORDER : N. Anand Venkatesh, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 17.08.1989 issued under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 [hereinafter 'said Act' for brevity] and to treat the proceedings as abated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, (Act 20 of 1999) [for brevity 'Repeal Act']. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property is an agricultural land and it originally belonged to one Punniyakodi Pillai, who in turn had sold the properties to Tajuddin on 08.09.1982, who is one of the partner under the partnership firm known as "Mars Brick Works". The said Tajuddin released his share to his co-partners who are five in number, and by subsequent sale, the total extent of 1.68 acres of property was allotted to M/s.Salem Polloteine Society, who had raised banana plantation in the said property, from whom, the property came to the hands of the petitioner vide five registered sale deeds dated 16.03.2007 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Kundathur, and ever since, he has been in continuous enjoyment of the said property. 3. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.01.1986 has issued under Sec.9(5) of the Act in the name of erstwhile owner Punniyakodi Pillai declaring excess vacant land of 20,500 sq.mtr., after entitlement of 1500 sq.mtr., in Sy.Nos.511/1, 511/2 and 521 measuring a total extent of 22,000 sq.mtr., This was challenged in an appeal before the first respondent herein and that came to be allowed in part, vide order dated 29.06.1987, dismissing the proceedings of the second respondent. Even thereafter, though the subject property is now under the ownership of the petitioner, the second respondent had passed the impugned revised proceedings dated 17.08.1989, in the name of the erstwhile owner Punniyakodi Pillai, declaring excess vacant land of 7,950 sq.mtr after the entitlement of 1500 sq.mtr. in Survey Nos.511/1 and 511/2 measuring an total extent of 9,450 sq.mtr. The said acquisition is challenged in the present writ petition. 4. in Survey Nos.511/1 and 511/2 measuring an total extent of 9,450 sq.mtr. The said acquisition is challenged in the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner would contend that though Act 24 of 1978 was repealed by the State Act 20 of 1999, the proceedings of the second respondent in the name of the erstwhile owner is abated, as the petitioner is now in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject property. 5. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that one Punniyakotti Pillai had filed returns under Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 for the lands held by him in R.S.Nos.511/1 & 511/2 . A notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was issued on 16.08.1983 to Punniyakoti and he appeared in person on 19.04.1984 and 13.09.1984. The Adangal extract from Fasli 1389 to 1394 showed that the lands were not continuously cultivated and sales made after 03.08.1976 were null and void as per Section 6 of the Act. Thereafter, notice under Sec.9(4) and draft statement under Sec.9(1) was served on him on 08.07.1985 by registered post. Since no objection was received from Punniyakoti, subsequent notices dated 27.09.1985 and 18.10.1985 were sent to him through RPAD and in response to the same, he appeared before the competent authority and furnished the statement on 13.09.1984. Admittedly, an appeal was filed by the erstwhile land owner and the proceedings of the second respondent originally issued was set aside vide by order dated 29.06.1987. Following which, several enquiry notices were issued to the erstwhile owner, who responded to it and appeared before the Competent Authority on 18.8.1988 and submitted his written statement requiring the authority to treat his land measuring 3.10 acres in S.No.511/2 as agricultural lands. Thereafter, the second respondent had passed the impugned proceedings dated 17.09.1989 deleting the aforementioned 3.10 acres of land and arrived at the total holding of 9,450 sq.mtrs., of which, 1,500 sq.mtr. was allowed for family entitlement and determined the excess land as 7,950 sq.mtrs., Thereafter, final statement under Sec.10(1) of the Act was issued on 14.02.1990. Since the land owner refused to receive the same, it was served by affixture through the VAO, Kundrathur. Finally, the excess lands came to be vested with the Government under Sec.11(3) of the Act and the lands were taken over by the Government on 24.07.1991. Since the land owner refused to receive the same, it was served by affixture through the VAO, Kundrathur. Finally, the excess lands came to be vested with the Government under Sec.11(3) of the Act and the lands were taken over by the Government on 24.07.1991. This acquisition was published in the Gazette vide Gazette Notification dated 30.01.1991. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that since the lands were acquired by the Government as early as 1991 and that the petitioner had purchased the subject property only in the year 2007, and that too when the subject property stands in the name of 'Government of Tamil Nadu, at the time of his purchase, the said sale is not legally valid. This apart, though the Government have also made a platform to those purchasers who have purchased the lands without the knowledge of the lands being acquired by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.565 Revenue Department, dated 26.09.2008, the petitioner also failed to avail the relief. 7. In the light of the above stands taken by the respondents, they have sought for dismissal of this petition. 8. Heard Mr.A.Ramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents. 9. Various issues were raised by the counsel for the petitioner questioning the proceedings of the second respondent. It is not necessary for this Court to go into all the issues since this Court finds that the possession was not taken in line with Section 11(5) of the Act r/w. Rule 8 of 1978 Rules. If possession has not been taken as mandated, the Repeal Act will automatically come into play. 10. This Court had the advantage of going through the original files that were submitted in the Court today. Even though the notice under Section 11(5) is available, there is absolutely no indication that this notice was served on the owner of the property. 11. The land in question is a vacant site. Hence, the notice must first be sent by registered post to the owner/occupier, and inspite of sending such notice, no objection having been received, the authorities can proceed further. For resorting to affixture, it is a condition precedent that a notice must first be sent through registered post to the owner of the property. Hence, the notice must first be sent by registered post to the owner/occupier, and inspite of sending such notice, no objection having been received, the authorities can proceed further. For resorting to affixture, it is a condition precedent that a notice must first be sent through registered post to the owner of the property. If that step has not been taken, mere affixture of notice on the vacant site, pales into insignificance. Once the possession is not taken as mandated under Section 11(5) of the Act, it will not be taken as a valid taking over of the possession in the eye of law. Hence, the moment the Repeal Act comes into force, the proceeding itself abates. The law on this issue is too well settled by a catena of judgments passed by this Court and the Apex Court. 12. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the second respondent on the simple ground that the possession was not validly taken by following the procedure under Section 11(5) r/w. Rule 8 of the Rules and therefore, the benefit of the Repeal Act must enure in favour of the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. In the light of interfering with the proceedings of the second respondent, the revenue records have to be mutated in the name of the petitioner by the concerned authority within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.