Acquisition proceedings stood abated.

The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the connected records of the first respondent relating to his order U/S.9(5) of the Principal Act, in his proceedings R.C.7794/88-B, dated 12.07.1990, declaring an extent of 1400 Sq.Mts. of land as excess vacant land in S.No.192 of pozhichalur village, the notice issued by the first respondent in his Ref.R.C.7794/88-B, dated 11.03.1993, in Form VII requiring the land owner to deliver vacant possession to the Tahsildar, Saidapet (Certified copies issued on 111. 2003) and the notice issued by him in his Ref.B/1779/95.C, in form XIV U/S.12(7) of the Act, dated 20.09.2003, directing the land owner to attend the enquiry for claiming compensation and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned and declaring that all proceedings taken by the first respondent to acquire the alleged excess vacant land shall abate U/S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 20 of 1999.

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

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:-

The land in Survey No.192 of pozhichalur village measuring to an extent of 72 cents or 2900 Sq.Mts. was owned by the petitioner on the date of the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it has been put to use for locating and running a blue metal industry in the name of "Sri Vinayaga Agencies" and registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit, which was leased out to one Natarajan for running the Unit. Consequent to the commencement of the Act, necessary returns were filed and the petitioner had sought for exemption by applying to the State Government. The application had been processed by the Director of Industries and Commerce. By his letter R.C.No.2404/GA4/96, dated 08.04.1996. The General Manager District Industries Centre had recommended the firms proposal for exemption to hold the excess vacant land under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. While the matter was under process, the first respondent had issued a notice under Section 9(4) of the Act duly preparing the statement under Section 9(1) of the Act arriving at an excess extent of 900 Sq.Mts., allowing the petitioner to hold 2000 Sq.Mts. of land , as the entitlement area. He had sent the notice to the land owner, on 14.09.1981, calling him to attend the enquiry and to file his objections, if any, with regard to the said notice. Without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard in person as contemplated under Section 9(5) of the Act, an ex parte order had been passed by the first respondent in his proceedings, dated 19.08.1989. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the Act and the appellate authority had set aside the ex parte order and remanded the case for fresh disposal as stated in the Special Commissioners Order Letter No.J2/52948/89, dated 010. 1990. Accordingly, the revised orders had been passed in the first respondents proceedings R.C.7794/88/B, dated 12.07.1990. Further, in pursuance of the said order, notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, dated 11.03.1993, is said to have been sent to the petitioner with the wrong address. However, no notice under Section 11(6) of the Act was issued to the person in occupation of the land and actual possession of the land had not been taken from the land owner.

4. The petitioner had submitted a representation in his letter, dated 26.04.1994, requesting the State Government to grant exemption to hold the alleged excess vacant land and to use the same for industrial purposes, after taking into consideration the total number of his family members and the extent of entitlement of area. The State Government, in their letter No.70872/Na.Nee.03(i) 94-4-Revenue, dated 110. 1998, had rejected the request of the land owner. Thereafter, the petitioner land owner