The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale of land in violation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 is null and void, and possession should be taken in accordance with the law.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

In the writ petition, the learned single Judge observed that the facts revealed that even prior to the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Repeal Act in short) with effect from 16. 1999, possession had been taken by the Government on 22. 1997 and therefore, the case of the writ petitioners that that they were still in possession cannot be taken as a legal possession and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Against that, this appeal has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had bona fide purchased the property in Plot Nos.19 and 20, subject matter of the writ petition, on 14. 1989 and on 23. 1993. There is a small scale industry in the said land and the appellants are in possession of the land; by the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 (Act in short), 350 sq. mts. had been declared as excess; the order under Section 9(5) had been passed on 310. 1995 and the final statement was dated 112. 1997; it is only the vendor of the appellants who recieved the notice in these proceedings; but what had grievously prejudiced the appellants is that, while Section 11(5) of the Act mandatorily requires that notice should be issued not only to the owner, but any person in possession, then regardless of the circumstances under which the person in possession may have come into possession thereof, still he is entitled to the notice. According to the learned counsel, the notice under Sections 11 (5) and 11(6) of the Act were not given. Learned counsel also submitted that possession of the land could not have been taken from them in a manner known to law since no Panchnama was prepared; the recording of the taking of possession was not effected before witnesses; and the respondents cannot create records as if possession had been taken sitting in their office. Learned counsel submitted that even assuming that the purchase by the appellants was not a valid purchase in the eye of law, in view of the provisions of the Act, yet the appellants were entitled to notice and when there is illegality in the procedure, the Government could not have taken possession of the land and the appellants are entitled to the benefits of the Repeal Act. Learned counsel referred to the following judgments, reported as well as unreported :

(2007) 1 M.L.J. 750 [V. Somasundaram vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department] (1999) 1 S.C.C. 215 [Anurag Virmani vs. State of M.P.] A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1767 [B.N. Bhagde vs. M.D. Bhagwat] W.P. No.1584 of 2009 dated 8. 2009 [Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Industries vs. Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department]

3. Per contra, Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the appellants are not bona fide purchasers; they were fully aware of the proceedings initiated under the Act; the vendor of the appellants M/s. Kasaka Engineering had claimed exemption from the Act and the same was granted subject to certain conditions, but since the vendor had not complied with the conditions, proceedings were initiated for withdrawal of the exemption and even the, it was brought to the notice of the appellants that the withdrawal of exemption was pending enquiry and it was open to the appellants to make their submissions; therefore, the operation of the Act and the consequent declaration of excess land had been postponed only beause there was a protection of exemption, and once that exemption was withdrawn, it was open to the State to declare how much was excess. Learned Special Government Pleader would point out that it is not as if the entire land belonging to the appellants was declared as excess, but it was only a small portion of 350 sq. mts. He submitted that even assuming that the appellants had a small scale industry, which was admittedly only in Plot Nos.15 and 16 as seen from the writ affidavit, while the property in question is situated in Plot Nos.19 and 20, t