The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the first respondent to consider vital factors and the implications of the repealed Act before making a decision on the petitioner's claim.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 29.5.2000 and consequently to treat the land as falling outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.

2. The short facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows. The petitioner is the owner of the land in R.S. No. 8/3 and 9/9A of Palavakkam Village of an extent of 1 acre. When the proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Government passed an order under Section 9(5) of the said Act, and acquired an extent of 3576 sq.mts and consequently, a notification under Section 9(5) of the Act was also issued. The petitioner made a revision challenging the said acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government. The same was rejected by the first respondent as early as on 18.1.1987. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 34 of the said Act in June, 1997 stating that the Government had earlier exercised its discretion and exempted the land owned by a few from the purview of the said Act and basing upon the said principle, the petitioner also had to be given the same benefit. The said revision was dismissed under the impugned proceedings on the ground that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 had been repealed and as such, there is no provision to re-convey the land under the repealed Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it is stated that the petitioners land in excess of the ceiling limit, was taken over from the petitioner on 2.7.1981. The power of attorney of the petitioner filed a return, which was accepted and the acquisition proceeding was completed. The acquired land was also allotted to the For est Department in G.O.Ms. No. 252, Revenue, dated 21.2.1984. When the petitioners revision was taken up for disposal, the said Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978) was repealed and as such, the petitioners request cannot be conceded. It is further stated that the release in respect of the other persons mentioned by the petitioner was made prior to the repealing of the principal Act and as such, that cannot be taken as a ground to consider the claim of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of the first respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing before ever his claim was rejected. It is further contended that when the claim of the petitioner goes to the root of the matter with regard to the classification of the land as it is claimed that the disputed land did not fall within the term of ‘urban land’ as defined under the said Act, it is for the first respondent to consider the same after getting the report from the revenue authorities, or at least by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to establish the same. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the disputed property, whereas the respondent claims in the counter affidavit that the possession was surrendered by the petitioner and it was taken over by the revenue authorities. This being a factual dispute, requires some consideration in the hands of the first respondent to decide the fact as to whether the claim on the petitioner is barred by virtue of the repealing of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978. It is also contended that the impugned order suffers from non application of mind since the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed without considering the implications of the repealed Act.

5. On the contrary, the Government Pleader vehemently contended that when the possession of the disputed land was taken over by the revenue authorities by virtue of the repealed Act, the entire proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 abated. Hence, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertai