The main legal point established in the judgment is that the receipt of compensation for acquired land indicates the taking over of possession by the government, and the landowner cannot claim continued possession after accepting compensation.

1. Writ Petition is for a Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land to an extent of 1480 sq. metre in T.S. Nos.45 and 46, Block 16, Kottur Village, Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District, in the light of the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999.

2. The power agent of the petitioner has sworn an affidavit and filed this present Writ Petition. The case of the petitioner is that originally lands in question belonged to one Susai, S/o. J. Thamullusamy Pillai. The petitioner is the grand son of the elder brother of said Susai. The lands in question were settled in his favour by a registered Settlement Deed dated 11. 1972 and as Document No.53 of 1972. Since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. In the year 1988, he obtained patta from the Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk. Due to water scarcity, cultivation was stopped and after cessation of agricultural activity, the land was lying vacant. At that time, some persons approached him for lease of the said lands and he permitted them to put up superstructure with a specific understanding that they shall not put up any permanent structure and the rent was fixed at Rs.100/-per month. The petitioner has further submitted that he had plans to construct a hospital in the lands and due to insufficiency of funds, he could not do so and therefore, he allowed them to continue as tenants and even today, they are in possession. By collecting rents from them, the petitioner contended that he is in constructive possession of the land.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that just few days before filing of the Writ Petition, some officials from the respondents measured the extent of land and they also instructed the tenants to hand over the possession of the land to the Government. When the tenants reported the matter to him, he contacted his counsel and thereafter, made an enquiry and found that the lands were acquired by the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. It is the further case of the petitioner that neither the Tahsildar nor any other authority approached him or issued him any notice, directing him to surrender the possession and that there was no disturbance till filing of the Writ Petition. Referring to the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, No.20 of 1999, published in Gazette on 16th June 1999, the petitioner has submitted that the acquisition of the land under 1978 Act cannot affect the rights of the petitioner to own or possess or enjoy the above said property, inasmuch as, the physical possession of the land is still with him. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he has not received any compensation so far and even if any compensation was paid, he is willing to return the same with interest.

4.The grounds raised in the Writ Petition are as follows:

i) As per Section 3 of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999, the land is deemed to have vested with the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Principal Act, but the possession has not been taken by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority, then, such land shall not be restored, unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government. Further, as per Section 4 of the Repeal Act, all the proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act, pending immediately before the commencement of the Repeal Act, before any Court, Tribunal or any other authority shall abate.

ii) As per the Repeal Act, the specific aspects as contained in the Saving Clause, Section 3 alone would continue to operate and the effect of the Repeal Act should be in consonance with the objects and the reasons given in the Repeal Act, which states that the Principal Act, 19