Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and lack of valid evidence supporting alleged possession influenced the court's decision.

1. The case of the Petitioners is as follows:-

The lands comprised in S.Nos.101/1, 101/2, 102, 103/1A in Voyalanallur Village, Poonamallee Taluk to an extent of 16 acres were purchased by the Petitioners and one Sheshadri under two sale deeds both dated 27. 1992. The said Seshadri executed a release deed in favour of the Petitioners, releasing his right, title and interest over the land covered by the said sale deeds. The Petitioners started using a portion of the said lands for manufacture of bricks under the brand name M/s. Mohan Brick Industries and one of the Petitioners is an Architect and the 3rd Petitioner is a building contractor. Even though a small portion of the said lands was used for manufacture of bricks, the remaining larger extent of lands were used only for agricultural purposes. The Respondents passed an order under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (herein after referred to as the Act) dated 4. 1997 allowing an extent of 500 sq.metres towards family entitlement and an extent of 36,600 sq.metres comprised in S.Nos.101/1, 2, 102 and 103/1A was found excess; that the 3rd Respondent proceeded under Section 10(1) and no notice under Section 11(5) of the Act have been served, but it was alleged by the Respondents that it was served by way of affixture and later possession was taken over on 16. 1999 from the Petitioners. The Petitioners are in possession all along, which is evidenced from the Adangal extracts issued by the Revenue Officials concerned for Fasli 1409 and 1410 and never part with possession at any time. In view of the facts that the Petitioner are in continuous possession and that the Respondents did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the said Act and Rules, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

2. The case of the Respondents is that notice dated 12. 1996 under Section 7(2) of the Act was served on the Petitioners on 12. 1996 and the order under Section 9(5) of the Act rejecting the objection of the Petitioner was also served on the Petitioners by way of affixture and that the final statement under Section 10(1) was made on 27. 1998, which was also served on the Petitioners and that the notice under Section 11(5) dated 30.4.1999 was also served on the Petitioners by way of affixture and that after the period of 30 days provided to surrender possession, the Respondents took possession of the said lands on 16. 1999 from the Petitioners well prior to the date of introduction of the Repeal Act i.e. 16. 1999.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Respondents failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the said Act, which contemplates that the notices shall be served on the land owners by Registered Post With Acknowledgement Due, which was not at all complied with and that the land in dispute is utilised by the Petitioners for the purpose of manufacture of bricks and hence, the same cannot be treated as a vacant land and not at all fit for construction of houses and that the possession of the lands all along with the Petitioners and that though the Respondents alleged that they took possession on 16. 1999, the same is false and not supported by any valid evidence and on the contrary, the Petitioners have produced adangal extracts for Fasli 1409 and 1410 issued by the revenue officials to show that even prior and after the date of introduction of the Repeal Act, the possession was with the Petitioners and that the alleged service of notice by way of affixture is bad in law and that in view of the fact that the Petitioners are always in possession of the said lands even before and after the Repeal Act, which was protected by the interim orders granted by this court till date and the Petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the Repeal Act, 1999 and prayed for allowing of this Writ Petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate for the Respondents has submitted that the notice under Section 7(2) was served on the