Land cannot be possessed without opportunity given to petitioners to file objection.

The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the proceedings initiated by the second respondent under the provisions of the Principal Act, Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 as abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 in respect of the petitioners land comprised in Survey Nos. 73/2, 74/12 and 74/3, measuring to an extent of 6550 sq.mts., situate at Selavoyal Village, Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

The agricultural lands comprised in Survey Nos. 73/2, 74/12 and 74/3, measuring to an extent of 6550 sq.mts., situate at Selavoyal Village, Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District originally belonged to Govindasamy Naicker, father of the petitioners herein, who died in the year 1972 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. Thereafter, the petitioners have been cultivating the said lands and are in continuous possession of the same ever since the date of death of their father, however, the Chitta and Adangal Extract stands in the name of their father Govindasamy Naicker all along. It is stated that the second respondent said to have issued a notice dated 22.08.1985 addressed to Govindasamy Mudaliar instead of Govindasamy Naicker, indeed, at that time, their father was not alive. In the year 1998, the petitioners have approached the respondents for mutation of their names in the revenue records and for transfer of patta and at that time they were informed by the second respondent that except 500 square meters of land in Survey No.73/2, the remaining lands are in possession of the Government and the said possession was taken in accordance with the order passed under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1978, immediately, the petitioners have applied for certified copy of the proceedings, which were served on them on 110. 1998 and thereafter, they have filed an appeal on 111. 1998 to the first respondent. The first respondent rejected the appeal by order dated 17.03.2003 stating that "the Act was repealed with effect from 16.06.1999, hence, the appeal could not be entertained now on merits. " It is also stated by the first respondent in the said order that "the Honble Division Bench, while disposing of the petition has viewed that since the Principal Act has been repealed, the question of Appellate Authority hearing the appeal does not arise". Thereafter, the petitioner also sent representations to the second respondent requesting to exclude their lands as the proceedings initiated were invalid as no notice was served on them, besides that the possession of the lands is with them and also abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999, but no reply has been received from the second respondent, hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent has initiated proceedings against a person namely Govindasamy Mudaliar, who is neither an owner nor in possession of the lands. Assuming the name Govindasamy Mudaliar is wrongly mentioned instead of Govindasamy Naicker, who died in the year 1972, the notice dated 22.08.1985 issued under Section 7 (2) in the name of a dead person is invalid. The statement under Section 9 (1) dated 31.05.1989; Order U/sec. 9 (5) dated 21.09.1990; Final statement u/sec. 10 (1) dated 211. 1990; notification U/sec. 11 (1) dated 27.03.1991; notification U/sec. 11 (3) dated 30.09.1991; notice U/sec. 11 (5) dated 30.12.1991 were all stated to have issued by the second respondent only in the name of dead person; that admittedly, the said notices were not even served on the petitioners;that the stand taken by the second respondent that notices were served by way of affixture is not valid at all; that the averment that the second respondent has allegedly taken possession on 210. 1992 is concerned, the possession remains only with the petit