1. Since, in all these writ appeals, which are 27 in number, a common question of interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999 has to be answered, they have been heard together and answered by this common judgment. All these appeals arose out of separate judgements delivered by learned single Judges in various writ petitions filed by aggrieved land owners. Almost all the writ petitions have been allowed mainly on the ground that physical possession of the lands continued with the land owners or the persons claiming through them. The factual details of each case have been discussed in the latter part of this judgment.

2. The State, which is the appellant in all but three appeals, has assailed the impugned judgments rendered by the writ courts as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State advanced elaborate arguments, the crux of which is summarised hereunder :-

(i) The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Repeal Act’) discussed not only vesting under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ceiling Act’), but also the validity of any order granting exemption under Section 21(1) of the Repeal Act. Therefore, the Repeal Act will not affect the vesting under Section 11(3) and also the exemption order or refusal order under Section 21(1) of the Ceiling Act. Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act has also defined the term possession’, which has been termed as lawful, unlawful, legal, illegal, symbolic, actual, physical and permissive and therefore, in the absence of the said term under the Ceiling Act, it can be interpreted according to circumstances. It should be legal and lawful in the eye of law, unlawful possession cannot be recognised by the court of law, and persons holding unlawful possession are not entitled to get any relief from courts of law.

(ii) The Ceiling Act contains penal provision for illegal possession. No person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, and any excess vacant land after the commencement of the date of publication of the notification under Section 11(1) and any such transfer in contravention of the provision shall be deemed to be null and void. The writ petitions are covered under the aforesaid provisions and the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions before this Court.

(iii) The Repeal Act clearly states that the vesting of any vacant land under Section 11(3) shall not be affected by the Repeal Act. The vesting takes place under Section 11(3) of the Ceiling Act and thereafter, possession starts under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Act and therefore, the Government became the owner of the property and the title vests with the Government by way of the notification under Section 11(3) of the Ceiling Act. If still possession is retained by any person, it will be considered as unlawful, illegal and they would be treated as encroachers in the eye of law.

(iv) There is a difference in vesting between the Ceiling Act and the Land Acquisition Act. Under the Ceiling Act, vesting takes place immediately after publication of Section 11(3), but under the Land Acquisition Act, vesting takes place only after taking possession. The Ceiling Act clearly deals about vesting, and if the notification was published in the Gazette under Section 11(3), it is sufficient compliance and the Government becomes the owner of the property free from all encumbrances and all other persons having possession subsequent to Section 11(3) of the Act are encroachers and trespassers in the eye of law. They have no legal right to question the absolute right and title of the Government.

(v) The Repeal Act clearly deals about exemption cases unde