The interpretation of statutory provisions and government orders plays a crucial role in determining the validity of administrative actions under land acquisition laws.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. It has been stated that the second petitioner is the daughter of the first petitioner. The first petitioner had purchased the property measuring 3645 Sq.ft comprised in Survey Nos.163 (Part), 164 (Part), 165/2 (part 2) in Athipattu Village, Chengalpattu Taluk from M.Shanmugam, under a registered sale deed, dated 3. 97, as Document No.976/97, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Konnur. The first petitioner and his daughter S.Priya, the second petitioner herein had started an industry in the said property in the name and style of `Sivakami Engineering Works in the year 1999. The first petitioner had obtained electricity service connection for running the said industry and he has also been paying the property tax. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. While so, the first petitioner had received an order from the respondent, on 112. 2002, stating that 35,355 Sq.Mts in Athipattu Village, comprised in Survey Nos.162, 163, 164, 165/2, 168/1 & 2, 169, 170/3, 174/1 & 2 and 175 are excess vacant lands and therefore, they were to be acquired under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. From the said communication, it was gathered that the Government had granted exemption to M/s.Friends Brick Industries under sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, for retaining 35,355 Sq.Mts. of excess vacant land in Athipattu Village. As per the said communication, a show cause notice is alleged to have been issued to the said Brick Industries, on 30.8.2000, and it had been served, on 1. 2001. Since the said Brick Industries did not respondent the Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.466, Revenue (ULC) Department, dated 11. 2001, withdrawing the exemption already granted and to acquire the excess vacant land, as per Section 3 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Celing and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

.3. It has been further stated that from the said communication it was noted that a notice under Section 9(4) and a draft statement under 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been issued to one Vasudevan of Sivagami Engineering Company. Even though the first petitioner is owner of the land and the second petitioner is the proprietrix of the Sivagami Engineering Works established in the said land, no notice had been served on the petitioners either under Section (4) or under section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. However, the impugned order, dated 112. 2002, had been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case. Further, as per Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, all proceedings pending on the date of the commencement of the said Act would stand abated. In the present case, since the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the property in question, the benefit of Section 4 of the the Repeal Act, 1999, would be applicable to the petitioners and therefore, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 112. 2002, would be without jurisdiction and contrary to the law applicable to the case. It would also be arbitrary, as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, a copy of G.O.Ms.No.111 Revenue (ULC I(1) Department, dated 3. 2007, has been placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The said Government Order, dated 3. 2007, reads as follows:

ORDER

The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, was enacted with a view to imposing ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations and to prevent the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons. The said Act was implemented in Chennai, Coim