The main legal point established is that proceedings initiated against a deceased person without serving notice on the legal heirs are null and void, and the possession continued with the petitioner.

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Consituttion of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, Directing the respondents to declare the particulars of lands in Survey No.529/2 to an extent of 0.93 acres stand in petitioner’s name in patta No.393, the land in survey No.530/1 to an extent of 1.01 acres, land in survey No.529/1 to an extent of 1.13 acres stand in the petitioner's father's name situated at Velacherry Village, Guindy Mambalam Taluk, Chennai District is absolute land of the petitioner by effecting a Gazettee publication in view of the repealed Act 20 of 1999 as abated.)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus coupled with declaration to the effect that the disputed land which was standing in the name of the petitioner's father is the property of the petitioner.

3. The facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows:

The disputed property purchased by the father of the petitioner was partitioned among the family members as per the Registered deed of partition-dated 31.7.1981. The 'A' schedule property in such partition deed was allotted to the parents of the petitioner; 'B' schedule was allotted to the petitioner and 'C' schedule was allotted to the younger brother of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner expired on 17.2.1982, leaving behind his widow and the two sons as the only legal heirs. Without taking into account the factum of death of the father of the petitioner, the second respondent (Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act) passed an order dated 10.1.1992 as per proceedings No.C-2/5800/90. Such proceedings was in the name of the dead person namely Ramakrishnan, the deceased father of the petitioner. While passing such an order under section 9(5) of the Act, the authority had not taken into account the Registered Deed of Partition. The petitioner claims that he continues to be in physical possession of the land in Survey No.529/2 to an extent of 0.93 acres which stands in the name of the petitioner in patta No.393, the land in Survey No.530/1 to an extent of 1.01 acres and Survey No.529/1 to an extent of 1.13 acres are standing in the name of the petitioner's father in Patta No.559. The petitioner's father claims that he has paid Urban Land Tax in respect of the aforesaid land as demanded by the Special Tahsildar, Urban Land Tax on 22.11.2003. The contention of the petitioner is that on the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act (Act 24 of 1978), proceedings under such act are deemed to have abated and the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of such land. It is further contended that the State Government is bound to publish in the official gazettee regarding such abatement. The main contention of the petitioner is to the effect that proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, had been initiated against the dead person and the order passed in such proceedings without serving notice on the legal representative must be taken to be non-est, null and void and therefore, on the repeal of such Act, the petitioner who was in possession of such land by virtue of the deed of partition, must be allowed to continue as such without any hindrance from the State Government.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. In such counter affidavit, it has been contended that the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 came into force with effect from 3.8.1976. Ramakrishnan was the owner of the disputed land. Since the land owner had failed to file return under section 7(1) of the Act, competent authority issued notice under section 7(2) of the Act on 20.3.1990. Such Notice was served on R.Manivannan, son of Ramakrishnan on 16.6.1990. However, no return was filed. Subsequently, the Special Tahsildar recorded the statement of Manivannan to the effect that the properties was in the name of several members of the family as per registered documents. Even