The main legal point established is the requirement for effective notice and valid possession under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, as well as the interpretation of the provisions of the Repeal Act to grant relief to the petitioners.

1. Heard both sides.

2. This writ petition arises out of a Special Revision (SRP.49 of 2000) filed by the petitioners before the Special Appellate Tribunal under Section 15 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short Act). The petitioners challenged the Order passed by the first respondent dated 111. 1991 in S.R.A.68/91 in that Special Revision Petition.

3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as CRP No.1921 of 2003. However, a learned Judge of this court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge were not a Court but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRP was converted into a writ petition and notice was ordered.

4. Even before the Tribunal, a counter affidavit dated Nil" was filed by the respondent. The original records were also circulated for perusal by this court. An additional affidavit dated Nil (June 2010) was also filed by the petitioners.

5. Thecontentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners were as follows:

a)No notice was given to the original owners under Sections 7(2), 9(4) and 11(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.

b)The notice claimed to have been sent is not in accordance with law and more particularly prescribed under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978.

c)In any event, the possession alleged to have been taken was not valid and no notice was ordered as per Section 11(5) of the Act.

d)Without prejudice to these contentions, it was also submitted that inasmuch as the possession of the land continues to be with the petitioner, the benefit of Sections 2 and 4 of the TN Act 20/1999 (w.e.f.16.06.1999) will enure to the benefit of the petitioner(s).

6. The case of the petitioners was that they are bonafide purchasers of plots in S.No.424/3, Ammapet Village measuring an extent of 3.12 acres coming within the Salem Urban Aglomeration belonging to Veerappa Padaiyachi and his wife Ammuni Ammal. M/s.Kuppusamy Goundar and Alamelu Ammal purchased the lands by virtue of a sale deed dated 05.09.1995 and they were in possession of the same. In 1984, there was a family arrangement between Kuppusamy Goundar and his wife Alameluammal along with their two sons M/s.Perumal and Ramasamy. The said four persons executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one P.Ramadoss who made layouts out of the said lands into 57 house sites. The petitioners have purchased the house sites between 012. 1984 and 19.08.1986. They have also obtained patta in respect of the plots on 112. 1985.

7. In the meanwhile, a notice under Section 7(1) of the Act was served on one Kuppan on 14.08.1987 and further notice under Sections 9(1) and 9(4) of the Act was also served on the said person on 010. 1991. Subsequently, an order under Section 9(5) of the Act was passed on 111. 1991. After coming to know about the same, the petitioners challenged the said proceedings.

8. In the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, it was alleged that there are vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in S.No.424/3 of Ammapet Village in Salem Taluk. The lands stood in the name of one Kuppan s/o Mannangatti. Therefore, notices were served under Section 7(2) of the Act on the said person. Since no reply was received, notice under Section 9(4) of the Act was issued on 20.08.1991. Since the owner refused to receive the notice, it was served by Affixture on 010. 1991. Despite notice, no objections were raised before the Authority. Therefore, once again notice under Section 9(5) of the Act was issued and served by Affixture. As there was no objection filed by the land owner, after following the usual procedure, the land to the extent of 15. 0 hectares were declared as surplus was taken possession and handed over to the Revenue Department. It is further alleged that the petitioners are not the original owners. It is also claimed