The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, land does not vest with the Government unless physical possession has been taken and due compensation paid.

The writ petition is filed for direction against the respondents 1 to 3 to restore legal possession of the property in Survey No.187/1A1B in Pammal village, covered under G.O.Ms.No.58 (Revenue) dated 1. 1982 and the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner (ULT), Tambaram dated 24. 1983 issued under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, to the petitioners.

2. Late M.Ahmed Basha was the absolute owner of the land to an extent of 2.01 acres comprised in survey No.187/1A1, having purchased under sale deeds dated 24. 1974 and 4. 1976 and obtained patta in his name and he had been in possession till his death on 15. 1996 and after his death, the first petitioner being his wife and all other petitioners as children stated to be in possession and enjoyment of the land, now reclassified as survey Nos.182/1A1B.

2(a). It was in 2005, when the petitioners approached the Tahsildar for mutation of records, they were informed that certain proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, had been initiated in respect of the property. On enquiry, it was revealed that proceedings were initiated to acquire the land of an extent of 4896 sq.mts. under the said Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, which appeared to have been objected to by late M.Ahmed Basha and when the objection was overruled, an appeal was filed before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai. It is stated that when the said appeal was pending, an order was passed allotting the said land to M/s.Arvind Leather Exports (Private) Limited, which has been impleaded as 4th respondent, on 6. 1995.

2(b). W.P.No.10563 of 1995 was filed challenging the said allotment, in which there was an order of interim stay of the said allotment. However, the appellate authority in the appeal filed by M.Ahmed Basha did not pass any order on the basis of pendency of the said writ petition. After the death of M.Ahmed Basha on 15. 1996, the writ petition was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and re-numbered as TRP No.383 of 1999 and on the advent of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the said petition came to be closed as abated.

2(c). It is the case of the petitioners that possession of the said land is still with them and they have never been paid any compensation. In the meantime, it appears that the impleaded 4th respondent is said to have executed various documents to third parties, about which certain criminal as well as civil proceedings are pending. It is stated that late M.Ahmed Basha, husband of 1st petitioner and father of other petitioners had been paying the urban land tax as well as the property tax and subsequently, the petitioners are paying all the taxes. Under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, (Act 20 of 1999), the lands in respect of which proceedings were initiated under the Land Ceiling Act are deemed to have been vested with the Government and if compensation has been paid to the owners, the same has to be returned to the Government.

2(d). According to the petitioners, no physical possession of the property was ever taken from them or from late M.Ahmed Bhasa or no compensation has been paid in respect of the land and therefore, the property does not vest with the Government. Inspite of explaining the same to the third respondent, the Tahsildar has refused to mutate the revenue records by incorporating the petitioners names as owners. According to the petitioners, inasmuch as physical possession is with them, it cannot be allotted to any third party. The writ petition in W.P.No.23732 of 2005 for declaration in respect of the property was filed and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is filed on the basis that the respondents have statutory obligation to restore legal posses