The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the mandatory conditions for acquiring vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, and the consequences of failing to adhere to these statutory requirements.

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.)

This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the connected records of the second respondent issued in his Proceedings Na.Ka.S.R.154/98 dt.24.2.1998 under Section 9(5) of the Principal Act declaring the petitioner's land in S.No.429/1C of Perumbakkam village measuring to an extent of 3550 sq.mts. as excess vacant and the notice issued by him in 2nd respondent's proceedings R.C.No.154/98 in Form VII dated 30.11.1998 under Section 11(5) of the said Act requiring to surrender possession of the said land with the Tahsildar, Tambaram and the proceedings of the 1st respondent in his Endt. R.C.2896/2001-J1 dated 20.2.2003, quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and direct the second respondent to declare that all proceedings taken by the second respondent to acquire the lands as excess vacant land shall abate under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999).

2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The property comprised in Survey No.429/1C Perumbakkam Village to an extent of 1 acre is the subject matter of the writ petition. The said land was originally belonged to one Krishnan. The said Krishnan sold 75 cents by executing three sale deeds dated 21.12.1984 each 25 cents to one J.Venkata Subba Reddy, Sudha and Balakrishna Reddy. The said three persons sold their respective 25 cents of land under separate sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 21.07.1995, 08.08.1995 and 18.07.1995 respectively. The said Krishnan also sold 25 cents retained by him to the petitioner on 18.08.1995. Though The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was introduced in the year 1978, the same was extended to Perumbakkam village only on 09.08.1995 by a notification in Government gazette under Section 48(2) of the Act. After extending the application of the said Act to Perumbakkam village, the respondents issued notice under Section 9(5) of the Act to the said Krishnan on 24.02.1998. It is stated that the said Krishnan was not available and hence it was served by affixure. Similarly, notices under Sections 10(1) and 11(5) were also served on the said Krishnan on 15.04.1998 and 30.11.1998 respectively by way of affixure. It is stated by the petitioner that despite the issuance of the said notices and the orders passed by the respondents, the property has been in the possession of the petitioner ever since from the date of purchase in the year 1995 from their vendors. The petitioner came to know about the proceedings initiated by the respondents against the said Krishnan only in the year 1999 and immediately they filed a writ petition in W.P.930 of 2001 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare that all proceedings taken to acquire the said land shall abate as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The said writ petition was dismissed on 18.01.2001 permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority invoking Section 33 of the said Act. The petitioner also filed an appeal under Section 33 of the Act before the appellate authority on 20.02.2001. It is to be remembered that the said Act was repealed on 01.06.1999. Hence the appellate authority found that the appeal cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the Act was already repealed, by order dated 22.02.2003. The present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order of the appellate authority dated 22.02.2003 and ceiling proceedings.

3. The learned senior counsel Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy appearing for the petitioner submitted that all the proceedings were initiated only against the said Krishnan, who sold major portion of the property as early as in the