Petitioners are entitled to benefits of Repeal Act.

As the issues involved and the respondents in all these writ petitions are one and the same, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. Heard both sides.

2. The facts involved in these writ petitions are as follows:

The petitioners are related to each other and originally they owned lands jointly comprised in S.No.268 in Tarnbaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalput MGR District and the same was partitioned by them on 7.11.1979 and that in the said partition, they were allotted 56 cents of lands each comprised in S.Nos.268/4, 268/3A and 268/2 and 268/5 towards their respective shares and that as the respondents felt that the lands in the possession of the petitioners exceeded the ceiling limit, they initiated proceedings by issuing notifications under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in C.Nos.4301/94-C, 4300/94-C and 4299/94-C published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 30.9.1998 and hence, for quashing the said notifications dated 30.9.1998, these writ petitions have been filed.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that nevertheless the proceedings initiated under the said Act, the petitioners retained possession continuously up to date, in other words, they have not parted with the same, at any point of time to any one and hence, they are entitled to the benefits of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 dated 16.6.1999.

4. In view of the above said submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this Court files that it is not necessary to go into the details of the proceedings initiated under the Act.

5. The learned senior counsel for the peti­tioners has further contended that though the respondents claimed that possession of the lands in dispute was taken on 28.4.1999 by them, the documents produced by the petition­ers viz., Chittaadangal for the Fasli years from 1405 to 1409, the property tax receipts for the years from 1997-98 to 2nd Half 2005­ 2006 and the electricity consumption cards, which stand in the name of the petitioners, relating to the electricity service connections installed at the lands in dispute, for the period from 30.3.2001 to 25.11.2005, are valid evi­dence to show that the possession of the lands in dispute are not parted with by the petitioners at any point of time and that further the said claim of the respondents that the possession was taken as early as on 28.4.1999 by the respondents is not at all supported by any valid evidence.

6. In support of the said contention, the learned senior counsel brought to the notice of this Court the two inconsistent dates mentioned in the counter affidavits filed in W.P.No.20577/01 and W.P.No. 20578, viz. 1.9.1998 and 1.3.1999 respectively, but whereas, admittedly, proceedings in all the three cases, under various Sections were initiated on the same date and that the contention of the respondents is that the possession of the lands in dispute was taken by them on 28.4.1999 in all three cases and hence, the said inconsistency in mentioning the dates, on which the proceedings initiated, disproves the said contention of the respondents.

7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that even the respondents are not able to point out from the records as to the correct date, on which the possession was taken from the petitioners and that on the contrary, the petitioners proved that they are in continuous possession of the lands in dispute, by producing the above said documents and hence, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 dated 16.6.1999 and that Section 3 of he Repeal Act 20 of 1999 should not be read in isolation and it should be read along with Section 4 of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 and that on such a combined reading of Sections 3 and 4, the only conclusion to be arrived at is that if the possession is retained by the land owners, notwithstanding the procee