Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioners are the owners or the erstwhile owners of the property, which is the subject matter of the writ petition. It has been stated that one Egathammal was the owner of the property, which was bearing S.No.49/11 and 49/14, corresponding to S.No.82/3 of Vellappan Savadi Village, measuring a total extent of 1.56 acres. She had obtained the property by means of a sale deed, dated 10.3.1959, vide Document No.713/1959. The said property had been purchased pursuant to a Court decree, in O.S.No.8 of 1955. By virtue of another sale deed, dated 14.9.56, Egathammal had purchased an additional extent of 99 cents of agricultural land, in S.No.49/3 and 49/4, corresponding to S.No.82/3. The total holding of Egathammal was about 2.55 acres. Egathammal had settled her property in favour of Sagunthala, Krishnamoorthy and Kanniyappan, by way of a sale deed, dated 5.9.85. An extent of about 50 cents of agricultural land in S.No.49/14, had been settled in favour of Sagunthala and an extent of about 42 cents in S.No.49/3 and an extent of 57 cents in S.No.49/4, had been settled in favour of Krishnamoorthy. Similarly, an extent of 87 cents in S.No.49/11 and an extent of 19 cents in S.No.49/14, had been settled in favour of Kanniyappa Naicker, father of the first petitioner herein. Thus, the entire extent of 2.55 acres of land had been settled by Egathammal in favour of three different persons.
3. It has been further stated that Krishnamoorthy had sold the land in S.No.49/4, measuring an extent of 42 cents, by a registered sale deed, dated 20.1.1996, vide Document No.1795/1997, to the third petitioner. Similarly, an extent of 47 cents of S.No.49/3 had been sold to the second petitioner, by a sale deed, dated 20.2.96, vide Document No.1796/1997. The second and third petitioners had in turn sold the land purchased by them, by way of five sale deeds, dated 9.4.2001, to six different persons. The second and the third petitioners, while selling the land in question, have undertaken to clear the defects, if any, in the title conveyed to third parties.
4. Similarly, Sagunthala, by a sale deed, dated 4.9.96, vide Document No.1797/1997, had sold 50 cents, in S.No.49/14A to Sathyanarayana and two others. What was sold, during the year, 1996, are only agricultural lands and none of them had converted the lands for any non-agricultural purposes. While the matter stood thus, proceedings had been initiated by the respondents in the name of Egathammal, without reference to the settlement deed, executed by her in the year, 1985 and sale deeds had been executed thereafter. By virtue of the settlement deed Sagunthala, Krishnamoorthy and Kanniyappan became the absolute owners of the property. The land was purely agricultural in character and it was in the possession and enjoyment of Egathammal. Thereafter, it was in the hands of the settlees. The settlement deed had been acted upon, as the settlees were dealing with the properties in their own right. By virtue of the proceedings under the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) the Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority, by an order, dated 20.10.94, had declared an extent of about 9850 Sq.Mts, as excess vacant land, in S.No.82/3, after allowing an extent of about 500 Sq.Mts. towards the family entitlement of Egathammal. The said order was followed by a final statement, under
Section 10(1) and a notice, under
Section 11(5), dated 15.10.97. The first petitioner and the other settlees had questioned the acquisition before the first respondent, by way of an appeal filed, on 26.12.97, under
Section 33 of the Act. No orders had been passed in the appeal until the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, had come into force, with effect from 16.6.99.
5. It has been further stated that the erstwhile land owners had questioned the acquisition proceedings, mainly on the ground that Egathammal was not the owner of the property and that, by virtue of the settlement deed, which had been acted upon, they had become the absolute owners of the property. Further, the land sought to be acquired by the respondents is an agricultural land and therefore, the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, would not be applicable to the said land. Even before the appeal, filed by the petitioners before the first respondent, had been decided, Act 24 of 1978, had been repealed, with effect from 16.6.99, by Act 20 of 1999. Thus, the acquisition proceedings, which were pending, had abated, in accordance with
Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999.
6. It has been stated that the land in S.Nos.49/11 and 49/14 etc., corresponding to S.No.82/3, is the subject matter of the settlement deed executed by Egathammal of Noombal Village. Pursuant to the settlement deed, the beneficiaries of the settlement deed are in possession and enjoyment of the land. Thus, the land had never vested with the respondents. None of the notices, contemplated under the various provisions of Act 24 of 1978, were served on the petitioners or on the previous land owners of the settlees. Therefore, neither the petitioners nor the settlees could object to the same. In fact, the notice, under
Section 11(5) of the Act, had not been served even on Egathammal. The said notice had been served only by affixture. Affixture is not the proper mode of service, under Rule 8 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978. According to the said Rule, all notices shall be served on the land owner or the occupier of the land by registered post, with acknowledgment due. When the notices had not been served on the land owners, it shall be construed as though the land had never vested with the Government and that the land had continued to be in the possession of its owners or occupiers. If the possession of the land was with its owners, the acquisition proceedings shall abate, under
Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999. Since the appeal filed by the petitioners, under
Section 33 of Act 24 of 1978, was pending at the time when the Repeal Act, Act 20 of 1999, had come into force, the acquisition proceedings, with regard to the land in question, had abated.
7. It has been further stated that unless actual physical possession had been taken by the respondents, the mere recording that possession had been taken, cannot take away the rights of the petitioners in the land sought to be acquired by the respondents. Unless the respondents had acquired the land in question, in accordance with the procedures established by law, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents would be infringing Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
8. It has been further stated that Section 11(5) of the Act contemplates issuance of notice for the voluntary surrender of the land. If the land owner or the person in possession of the land fails to surrender the same, the respondents would invoke the power conferred on them, under
Section 11(6) of the Act, to take possession of the land by use of force. The petitioners had not been served with any notice, under Section 11(5). No proceedings had been drawn up, under
Section 11(6) of the Act. Thus, the possession of the land in question continued to be with the petitioners till the date of the coming into force of Act 20 of 1999 and even thereafter.
9. It has been further stated that the notice, under
Section 11(5) of the Act, appears to have been served, on 28.10.97, by affixture, and the appeal had been filed by the petitioners, under
Section 33 of Act 24 of 1978, on 26.12.97. The delay in filing the appeal had been condoned by the first respondent. Since the appeal was pending before the first respondent at the time when Act 20 of 1999 had come into force, the land acquisition proceedings, initiated by the respondents, had abated, in terms of
Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999. In such circumstances, the petitioners have been constrained to file the present writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the averments made by the petitioners have been denied. It has been stated that one Egathammal of Noombal Village was the owner of the Urban Land in Survey No.82/3, measuring an extent of 10,350 Sq.Mts. of Noombal Village, as per the revenue records. She had not filed the statement, under Section 7(1) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Therefore, a notice, under
Section 7(2) had been issued, on 1.12.98. The notice had been received by her son, on 23.2.93. Since no objections were received, a notice, under Section 9(4), along with the draft statement, under Section 9(1) of the Act, had been sent, in S.R.No.762/92, dated 4.4.94, calling for objections, if any, for the proposed acquisition of the excess vacant land, measuring an extent of 9850 Sq.Mts., in S.No.82/3 of Noombal Village, after allowing an extent of 500 Sq.Mts. towards family entitlement. It was served on her grand son, on 12.5.94. The urban land owner has not filed any objections. Hence, orders were passed in S.R.No.762/92, dated 20.10.94, to acquire the excess vacant land, measuring an extent of 9850 Sq.mts. in Survey No.82/3A of Noombal Village, under
Section 9(5) of the Act. The said order had been served on Egathammal of Noombal Village. The final statement, under
Section 10(1) had been issued, on 28.2.95 and it was served on her son, on 9.5.95. The notification, under Section 11(1), had been published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, dated 25.10.95, and the notification, under
Section 11(3), vesting the excess vacant land in the Government, was published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, on 7.2.96.
11. It has been further stated that the notice, under
Section 11(5) had been been issued, in Rc.134/95(D), dated 15.10.97, requesting Egathammal to hand over possession of the excess vacant land. Since she had refused to receive the said notice, it was served by affixture, on 28.10.97. The possession of the excess vacant land had been taken over, on 8.6.99. The petitioners had filed an appeal before the first respondent, under
Section 33 of the Act, on 24.12.97. Meanwhile, the Act had been repealed, on 16.6.99. The second respondent, in his letter No.J1/34347/97, dated 22.1.2000, had instructed to proceed further, since Symbolic possession had been taken prior to the introduction of the Repeal Act. Hence, the possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to the revenue authorities, on 9.1.2003, after making necessary changes in the village accounts, on 16.5.2002.
12. It has been further stated that acquisition proceedings had been initiated against Egathammal for the excess vacant land held by her. A notice, under
Section 7(2) had been issued, on 1.12.92 and it was served on her son, on 23.3.93. Since no objections had been received from her, a notice, under Section 9(4), along with a draft statement, under Section 9(1), had been issued, on 4.4.94. The said notice had been served on Egathammal, on 12.5.94. Thereafter, an order, under
Section 9(5) had been passed, on 20.10.94, and it had been served on her. The Urban Land owner had not filed her objections, even after the receipt of the above notices and the subsequent order. The settlement said to have been made in the year, 1985, cannot be considered to be valid, in view of
Section 6 of the Act. It has been further stated that the contention of the petitioners, that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question, cannot be accepted. After the publication of the notification, under
Section 11(3) of the Act, the land shall be deemed to have vested, absolutely, in the Government, free from all encumbrances, with effect from the date specified in the notification. The notification, under
Section 11(3) of the Act, had been published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, dated 25.10.95, and the land stood vested in the Government, with effect from 1.2.96. The possession of the acquired land was taken over, on 8.6.99. Thereafter, both Egathammal and the others claiming through her cannot have any right in the land in question. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. The main contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are that actual physical possession of the land in question had not been taken by the respondents, as per the provisions of Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Further, no compensation had been paid to the petitioners by the respondents. The land in question is an agricultural land and it does not come under the category of Urban Land. Therefore, the question of acquiring the said land, by invoking the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, does not arise. Even though the land in question had been settled by Egathammal to various persons, by way of a settlement deed, dated 5.9.85, the land acquisition proceedings had commenced only in the year, 1995. The notice regarding the acquisition proceedings had been served on Egathammal, her husband and her son. The order, under
Section 9(5) of the Act, dated 20.10.94, had been issued in a printed form. Thus, it shows the non-application of mind by the competent authority. Even if no reply was received from the land owner a second opportunity ought to have been provided to the land owner to put forth her case. The notice issued, under Section 9(4) of the Act, along with the draft statement and the order, under
Section 9(5), are important stages of the acquisition proceedings. Unless the procedures contemplated under the said provisions had been strictly followed, the land acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be valid. Even though the respondents had claimed that the necessary notices had been served on Egathammal, her husband and her son, there is nothing shown by the respondents as to why only 500 Sq.mts. have been exempted from the acquisition proceedings as their entitlement, in stead of 1500 Sq.Mts., as provided, under Section 5 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, read with Clause (f) of
Section 3 of the Act. Further, according to Section 11(5) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, a notice, in writing, should have been issued to the person in possession of the land, asking him or her to surrender or deliver possession thereof, to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government, within 30 days of the service of the notice. Thereafter, if any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made, under Sub-section 5 of Section 11, the competent authority could 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, by use of such force, as may be necessary. In fact, none of the procedures contemplated by the Act had been followed by the respondents.
14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had pointed out, from the original records produced before this Court, that the notice, under
Section 7(2) of the Act, addressed to Egathammal, had been served on one Alagiri and there is nothing to show as to who Alagiri was. In the draft statement, under Section 9(1) of the Act, Egathammal's address is not given. The notice, under Section 9(4) of the Act, dated 4.4.94, had been served on the grandson of Egathammal. The original
Section 9(5) order is in a printed form showing non-application of mind by the authority concerned. From the adangal extract for fasli 1403, for the years 1993-1994, ending on 30.6.94, the land is shown to be fallow. The final statement prepared by the competent authority, under
Section 10(1) of the Act, is shown to have been served on Kanniyappan, Son of Egathammal, clearly showing the existence of another member of the family. However, only an extent of 500 Sq.mts. has been allowed towards the family entitlement of Egathammal, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. It has been pointed out from the original records produced on behalf of the respondents that
Section 11(5) notice was refused and therefore, it was served by affixture. However, it does not say as to who had refused to receive the said notice. The learned counsel for the petitioners had also submitted that the proceedings, under
Section 6 stops with the issuing of Section 11(1) notice. Thereafter,
Section 11(5) notice should be served on the land owner.
15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that an appeal had been filed by the petitioners in the year, 1997, before the Commissioner of Land Reforms. All the records relating to the land acquisition proceedings were with the Commissioner of land Reforms, from the time of the filing of the appeal, till 16.6.1999, when the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been repealed by Act 20 of 1999. From the official communication, dated 17.8.2000, with reference No.Na.Ka.134/95/C, sent to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Land Reforms, Chennai, it is found that the possession of the land in question had not been handed over to the Revenue Department. Even though it has been recorded in the land delivery receipt, dated 8.6.99, that symbolic possession of the land had been taken over, on 8.6.99, independent witnesses have not attested the land delivery receipt, dated 8.6.99, as required. From the land delivery receipts Rc.No.134/95 8A No.1642/1, it has been shown that changes have been made in the village accounts, on 6.5.2002. However, it has been signed only on 9.1.2003, as if the land has been taken over by the Revenue Inspector, Maduravoyal Firka, Ambattur Taluk, Tirvallur District.
16. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, with regard to the same acquisition proceedings in respect of the adjacent lands, this Court, by an order, dated 21.7.2006, made in W.P.No.20699 of 2004 (batch), the land acquisition proceedings had been quashed and the said order has become final, since no appeal had been filed by the respondents therein.
17. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the acquisition proceedings, initiated in respect of the urban land in question, was in accordance with law. All the procedures contemplated by the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been followed by the authorities concerned. The land sought to be acquired by the respondents was in the name of Egathammal of Noombal Village. The urban land in Survey No.82/3, measuring an extent of 10,350 Sq.Mts. was in the name of Egathammal of Noombal village, as per the revenue records. Therefore, since she had not filed the statement, under Section 7(1) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, a notice, under
Section 7(2) had been issued to her, on 1.12.98. The notice had been received by her son, on 23.2.93. Since no objections were received, a notice , under Section 9(4), along with the draft statement, under
Section 9(1) of the Act, had been sent, in S.R.No.762/92, dated 4.4.94, calling for objections, if any, for the proposed acquisition of the excess vacant land, after allowing an extent of 500 Sq.Mts. towards family entitlement. It was served on her grand son, on 12.5.94.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents had further submitted that in spite of the necessary notices having been served the urban land owner had not filed any objection. Therefore, an order, under
Section 9(5) of the Act was passed, in S.R.No.762/92, dated 20.10.94, to acquire the excess vacant land, measuring 9850 Sq.Mts.,in Survey No.82/3A of Noombal Village. After the said orders had been served on Egathammal, the final statement, under
Section 10(1) had been issued, on 28.2.95, and it was served on her son, on 9.5.95. The notification, under Section 11(1) had been published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, dated 25.10.95, and the notification, under 11(3) of the Act, vesting the excess vacant land in the Government, had been published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, on 7.2.96. The notice, under
Section 11(5) had been issued, in Rc.134/95(D), dated 15.10.97, requesting the urban land owner to hand over the possession of the excess vacant land. She had refused to receive the said notice and therefore, it was served by affixture, on 28.10.97. The possession of the excess vacant land had been taken over, on 8.6.99. After necessary changes had been made in the village accounts ,on 16.5.2002, the possession of the excess vacant land had been handed over to the revenue authorities, on 9.1.2003. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
19. The averments made on behalf of the petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the averments made on behalf of the respondents, in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf and the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned have been carefully considered. The original records produced before this Court by the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, have been perused.
20. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the notice, under Section 7(2) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been issued on 1.12.98, in respect of the Urban land, in Survey No.82/3, of Noombal Village. The notice had been served on the son of Egathammal, on 23.2.93. Since no objections were received, a notice, under Section 9(4), along with the draft statement, under Section 9(1) of the Act, calling for objections, if any, with regard to the proposed acquisition of the excess vacant land, had been served on the grandson of Egathammal, on 12.5.94. Thereafter, orders, under
Section 9(5), dated 20.10.94, had been passed, to acquire the excess vacant land, measuring an extent of 9850 Sq.Mts., in Survey No.82/3 of Noombal Village. The final statement, under
Section 10(1) of the Act, is said to have been issued, on 28.2.95, and it had been served on Egathammal's son, on 9.5.95. The notification, under Section 11(1), had been published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, dated 25.10.95, and the notification, under Section 11(3), vesting the excess vacant land in the Government, had been published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, on 7.2.96. It has been further stated that the notice, under
Section 11(5) of the Act, issued in Rc.134/95(D), dated 15.10.97, had been served by affixture, on 28.10.97, since the urban land owner Egathammal had refused to receive the said notice. The possession of the excess vacant land had been taken over, on 8.6.99. The possession of the excess vacant land had been handed over to the revenue authorities, on 9.1.2003, after making necessary changes in the village accounts, on 16.5.2002.
21. The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the possession of the land in question had not been taken over by the respondents, as per the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, and that no compensation had been paid to the petitioners, in respect of the acquired land. The land in question is only an agricultural land and not an urban land, as claimed by the respondents. The relevant provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1978, and the rules made thereunder, have not been followed by the respondents, while acquiring the land in question. Notices required to be served on the land owner, in accordance with the Act, have not been served by following the procedures prescribed, under Rule 8 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978.
22. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied on the decisions of this Court in V.Somasundaram and others Vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and Others (2007(2) L.W.109) and the decision of this Court in Om Prakash and others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others (MANU/TN/9871/2007), wherein it has been held that the land acquisition proceedings would stand abated, since the notice, under
Section 11(5) of the Act, had been issued to the erstwhile owner of the property and not to those who were the real owners at the time of the taking over of the possession.
23. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of this Court, reported in Saraswathi and another V. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms (2007(4) CTC 714), wherein it had been held that the land acquisition proceedings would stand abated, if the respondents are not in a position to show that actual physical possession of the land in question had been taken over by the respondents and due compensation had been paid to the urban land owner concerned.
24. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had also relied on the decision of this Court in Allind Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Secretary to The Government (2002 CTC 716), wherein this Court, following the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Angoori Devi Vs. State of U.P. (JT 2000 Supp 1 (SC) 295), had held that if the possession of the land had not been taken prior to the repeal, such possession cannot be taken thereafter, no proceedings can be initiated under the repealed enactment. In the present case, since the actual physical possession had not been taken by the respondents, the acquisition proceedings stood abated. Further, according to Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, even if a land was deemed to have been vested in the State Government, if possession had not been taken over by the State Government, such land would not be affected, under Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act.
25. On a perusal of the original records placed before this Court, it is clear that the respondents had attempted to serve the notices, as contemplated under the Act, on one Egathammal, who is said to be the Urban Land owner. The land in question is said to have been settled in favour of the petitioners, by a settlement deed, dated 5.9.85. Even if the contention of the respondents that the land in question had belonged to Egathammal of Noombal Village, it has to be shown that the necessary notices and orders, issued in the course of the acquisition proceedings, had been served on her, in accordance with the procedures prescribed for such service. The draft statement, as regards the vacant lands, shall be served only in the manner prescribed, under Rule 8 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978. In fact the draft statement, together with the notice referred to in sub section (4) of section 9, ought to have been served on the holder of the vacant land, as well as on all other persons, who have or are likely to have any claim or interest in the ownership or possession of the land in question. The respondents have not shown that such procedures had been followed. Further, it has been accepted by the respondents that the notice, under
Section 7(2) of the Act issued, on 1.12.98, had been served on the son of Egathammal, on 23.2.93, even though Egathammal is said to be the erstwhile owner of the land sought to be acquired by the respondents. The notice, under Section 9(4) of the Act, along with the draft statement, under
Section 9(1) of the Act, had been served on the grand son of Egathammal, on 12.5.94, and the final statement, under
Section 10(1) of the Act, issued on 28.2.95, had been served on the son of Egathammal, on 9.5.95.
26. It is also seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been repealed on 16.6.99, by the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The possession of the excess vacant land had been handed over to the revenue authorities only on 9.1.2003. In the meantime the petitioners and some others had filed an appeal before the first respondent, under Section 33 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, on 24.12.97, and it was pending on the file of the first respondent till the Act 24 of 1978, had been repealed, on 16.6.99. Further, the respondents have not stated that the compensation for the acquired land had been paid to the land owner, in accordance with the provisions of law. Further, various discrepancies could be noted from the original records relating to the acquisition proceedings, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If actual possession had not been taken from the land owner before the 1978 Act had been repealed, the land acquisition proceedings would be deemed to have abated, in view of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. Even though the original owner of the land, Egathammal, had not come before this Court, the persons who were said to be the owners of the land in question, have preferred the present writ petition, as persons interested in the said land, since they are said to be the beneficiaries, in accordance with the settlement deed, dated 5.9.85.
27. In such circumstances, in view of the reasons stated above and in view of the decided cases cited before this Court, the land acquisition proceedings, initiated by the respondents, in respect of the land in the possession of the petitioners, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Even otherwise, in view of the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the proceedings would stand abated. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
csh
1.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, No.5, Sannadhi Street, 2nd Floor, Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056