The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Land Ceiling Proceedings were vitiated due to the non-compliance with statutory procedures, including the violation of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978.

1. By consent of counsel for both sides, both the writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. In so far as WP No. 10471 of 2009 is concerned, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the property comprised in SF No.8/2A in an extent of 2.13 acres (Hect.0.86.3 ares) and 8/2B in an extent of 0.58 acres (Hec.0.24.0 ares) totally in an extent of 2.71 acres, Voyanallur Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District originally belonged to one Devaraj. During his life time, the said Devaraj had executed a Registered Will dated 03.03.1997 registered as document No. 24 of 1997 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Avadi in favour of his four sons namely D. Jayabalan, D.Panchanathan, D. Aruldoss and D.Karunanidhi. The said Devaraj thereafter died on 06.06.1997. As per the Will dated 03.03.1997, his four sons inherited the said property and one of the sons namely D. Karunanidhi died leaving behind him his wife Annammal and two sons K. Hari and K. Alexander. While so, the legal heirs of the deceased Karunanidhi namely Jayabalan and others have executed a sale deed dated 23.06.1995, registered as document No. 1394 of 1995 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Poonamallee, conveying the said property in favour of the petitioners herein and from then on, the petitioners have been in possession of the said property and prior to that, their predecessors were in possession of the said property.

3. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, when the petitioners attempted to change the patta in their favour, they were informed by the Village Administrative Officer that the property was subjected to Land Ceiling Proceedings and they were acquired under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Immediately, the petitioners have contacted their vendors and they have categorically stated that they have not received any notice from the authorities regarding invocation of the Ceiling Proceedings at any point of time. According to the vendors, they have been in possession of the property during the life time of his father Devaraj and even his father did not receive any notice from the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners applied for copies of the orders passed under Sections 9 (5), 10 (1) and 11 (5) of the Act. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the copies of the orders obtained by the petitioners revealed that even the notice under Section 7 (2) of the Act, though addressed to Late. Devaraj, was not served on him and it was only served by means of affixture in the subject matter of the land on 01.03.1996 in the presence of the Village Assistant. As there was no objection from the land owners, a notice under Section 9 (1) and 9 (4) of the Act seems to have been sent to the owner of the land namely Devaraj and an endorsement was made as if the said notice was refused. Thereafter, the final order was passed by the second respondent under Section 9 (5) of the Act. Further, the final statement under Section 10 (1) of the Act was issued on 30.09.1997 and in the column "name of the person" it was stated as V. Devarajulu. The said notice was followed by Form VII notice under sub-section 5 of Section 11 and the said notice was issued to V. Devaraju, Voyanallur, Opposite to Gandhi Nagar Bus Stop, Pattabiram, Chennai. By the said notice, the owner was informed that the excess land, as mentioned in the schedule therein, was vested with the Government under Sub-Section 3 of Section 11 of the Act with effect from 15.08.1998 and the owner was directed to deliver vacant possession of the said excess land to the Tahsildar, Poonamallee. It was also inferred that symbolic possession of the property was taken by the respondents on 03.05.1999. The notices under Section 7 (2), 9 (1) and 11 (5) of the Act were addressed to the said Devaraj even as per the records of the Government, bu