Non-compliance of Section 11(5) cannot be rectified at a later stage.

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.6975 of 2000 dated 211. 2001 in and by which the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978, initiated against the appellants were upheld.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows,

(a) The third respondent, who owns two acres of dry land in S.F.No.130/21 at Piratiyur village, Srirangam Taluk, converted the said land into house plots and sold the same. The first appellant purchased a plot measuring 5.51 cents as per document No.4235/1991 dated 19. 1991. The second appellant, who is the wife of the first appellant, purchased two plots one measuring 5.55 cents and another 4.79 cents from the third respondent as per the document Nos.4310/94 and 768/95. The first appellants cousin sister, the third appellant herein also purchased one plot measuring 5.51 cents under document No.573/1993. All the four plots situate in S.F.No.130/21 of Piratiyur Village and the same has been later on renumbered as S.F.No.158/21 in the updating survey.

(b) The case of the appellants is that when they have taken steps to put up live fencing around the plots, the Village Administrative Officer (Thalayari) of the village informed that the officials from the Srirangam Taluk Office came to the land and took measurement of the lands owned by the third respondent, two to three months ago. Thereafter the first appellant contacted the third respondent, who in turn informed that the second respondent had initiated proceedings on the land under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and handed over the copy of the order dated 17. 1992 under section 9(5) of the Act and the final statement dated 30.6.1996 issued under section 10(1) of the Act.

(c) Thereafter the first appellant enquired in the office of the second respondent and came to know that after determining a fact that the third respondent was holding vacant land to the extent of 6590 sq.mtrs in excess over the Ceiling limit of 1500 sq.mtrs, had passed orders and issued notification under section 11(3) of the Act, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee, vesting the excess land with the Government. The appellants land measuring 21.36 cents falls within the said extent of 6590 sq.mtrs of land declared as excess by the second respondent, which was previously owned by the third respondent.

(d) The case of the appellants is that they were not informed of this proceedings at any point of time either by the second respondent or by the third respondent and the impugned orders have been sent only to the third respondent and not to the appellants. It is further stated in the affidavit that the second respondent in his order dated 17. 1992 stated that he had initiated proceedings under the Act only on the basis of the statement he received from the Sub-Registrar in Form-13 under section 27(1) of the Act read with Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the Act in respect of the lands sold by the third respondent to the appellants and others. Therefore it is contended that the second respondent, who is fully aware of the appellants land holds in S.F.No.130/21 has failed to issue notices to the appellants.

(e) It is the further case of the appellant that the second respondent had issued the final statement under section 10(1) of the Act, determining the extent of vacant land held by the third respondent in excess of the ceiling limit only on 30.6.1996, that is after the purchase of the lands by the appellants in the years 1991, 1993, 1994 and 1995. The appellants are interested persons over an extent of 868.52 sq.mtrs of land in S.F.No.130/21 (new No.158/21) in terms of ownership and possession. However, no notice was issued by the second respondent before taking over the said lands owned by the appellant and no opportunity was given to them and therefore the impugned