IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 14.07.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P. NO. 16518 OF 2004 . . . . . . Mr. Unnamalai Ammal ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.9. 2.The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai.5. 3. The Assistant Commissioner/ Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, No. 16 Sannathi Street, Poonamallee, Chennai.56. ...Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents especially that of the third respondent dated 17.6.97 and 30.9.97 vide reference No. 164/96D, under Section 9(5) and 10(1) respectively and notice dated 28.8.98 vide ref. No. 890/98 under Section 11(5) of Act 24 of 78 in respect of land in survey No.67/2 of Karunakarancherry village, Poonamallee Taluk, measuring abdout 3950 sq. mtrs. And quash the same and further direct the respondents to treat the proceedings of acquisition as abated under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act 20/99. For Petitioner : Mr. V. Ramesh For Respondents: Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Govt. Advocate – R1 & R2 No Appearance – R3. O R D E R Petitioner is the owner of the land in S.No.67/2 of Karunakarancherry Village, Sriperumbadur Taluk. According to the respondents, she hold certain extent of land in excess as per the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 (hereinafter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referred to as "The Act"). Since the petitioner did not file the return under Section 7(1) of the Act, notice under Section 7(2) was issued on 16.7.1996. It appears that the petitioner has not filed any objection. Notice under Section 9(4) of the Act was issued enclosing the statement in terms of Section 9(1) of the Act and served on the petitioner on 29.4.1997. It is stated that no objection was filed by the petitioner and an order in terms of Section 9 (5) of the Act was passed declaring the land to an extent of 3540 sq.mts. as excess vacant land, to be acquired. Such order it is stated as served on the petitioner on 25.6.1997. The final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 30.9.97 and served on the petitioner on 11.12.1997. It is also stated by the respondent that notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act was issued on 11.2.1998. A notification under Section 11 (3) of the Act vesting the land with the Government with effect from 1.6.1998 was issued on 27.4.1998 and published in the Government Gazettee on 17.6.1998. Thereafter, the proceedings for taking over the land was initiated. 2. According to the respondents, the notice in terms of Section 11(5) of the Act was issued on 28.8.1998 on the petitioner in form VII calling upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the excess vacant land. 3. The contention of the Department is that the petitioner/ land owner refused to receive the delivery notice and therefore, the same was served by affixture. The department contents that the excess land was handed over to the Revenue Inspector on 3.5.1999. 4. The petitioner on the other hand contended that the notice under Section 11(5) in form VII was not served in the manner prescribed and there was no service at all on the petitioner. The question of refusal does not arise as can be seen from the records. It is seen that the notice under Section 11(5) has been served by way of affixture at the land site and not at the residence of the petitioner. It is therefore apparent that the notice in terms of Section 11(5) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to hand over the excess vacant land has not been served on the petitioner. Therefore, the question of taking possession does not arise in view of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999, more particularly, Section 4, reads as follows:- " 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 authority shall abate. Provided that this Section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 12,13,14, 15, 15-B and 16 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Principal Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government of any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority." 5. Since the possession of the land in question has not been taken over from the petitioner, proceedings under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 abates in terms of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1. The Secretary to Government, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.9. 2. The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai.5. 3. The Assistant Commissioner/ Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, No. 16 Sannathi Street, Poonamallee, Chennai.56. 1 cc To Mr.V.Ramesh, Advocate, SR.31749 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.31372 WP No. 16518/2004 KU(CO) SRA(11/08/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/