(The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.)

The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents, especially the order of the third respondent, dated 15.12.1995, vide Ref.NA.Ka.No.845/95/C, in respect of lands of the petitioners measuring 3950 Sq.mts. in survey No.70 of Ayapakkam Village, and quash the same, and direct the respondents to treat the proceedings as abated under Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999, viz., The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are brothers who are the owners of the land in Survey No.70 of Ayapakkam Village measuring about 3950 Sq.mts. The said land had been purchased by the petitioners by a registered sale deed, dated 18.02.1988. From the chitta and adangal extracts, it is clear that the petitioners are the owners of the petition property.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that acquisition proceedings under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), Act, 1978 , (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were initiated with regard to the petition land in the name of one Mr.Raghavan, who is not the owner of the said property. The petitioners came to know about the said proceedings when they wanted to remit the kist for the fasali 1410. Further, when the petitioners had applied for certified copies of the acquisition proceedings, the third respondent had issued a copy of the order, dated 15.12.1995, made under Section 9(5) of the Act. The petitioners had filed an appeal before the second respondent under Section 33 of the Act. However, the appeal was returned by the second respondent by an endorsement, dated 31.07.2001, vide R.C.No.8730/2 001-J1. Since the second respondent had failed to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. It is further submitted that the lands in question are purely agricultural lands as seen from the chitta and adangal extracts and therefore, not liable to be quashed under the Act. Even though the respondents were aware of the fact that the petitioners are the owners of the land, the land acquisition proceedings were taken against one Mr.Raghavan. This is clear from the fact that a notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was issued by the third respondent to the petitioners for which they had replied stating that the lands were agricultural lands and therefore, it cannot be acquired under the Act. Further, the third respondent by an endorsement, dated 26.07.1994, vide Ref.Rc.C/218/93, dropped all further proceedings against the said lands on the ground that they were agricultural lands. Therefore, the order of the third respondent, dated 15.12.1995, in the name of Mr.Raghvan, inspite of the fact that the petitioners were the actual owners of the property cannot be sustained in law. Further, the land was assessed for urban land tax in the name of one Mr.Arasan Naicker, and the demand of urban land tax was raised against the petitioners. The petitioners had moved the second respondent by a petition, dated 03.02.199 3, and by an endorsement, dated 12.03.1993, vide Ref.K1/4415/93, the second respondent had directed the petitioners to file a revision under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act with regard to the assessment of tax.

6. It is contended by the petitioners that the acquisition proceedings, dated 15.12.1995, refers to a notice under Section 7(2) of the Act, dated 3.1.1994, which has been closed by the third respondent, on 26.07.1994 itself. This clearly shows the lack of application of mind on the part of the third respondent in passing the impugned order, dated 15.12.1995. It is further contended by the petitioners that the notice under Section 7(2) vide Ref.953/94, dated