1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. It has been stated that, originally, the land measuring an extent of 4420 square meters, comprised in T.S.No.20/2, Block-8 of Pallipattu Village, was owned and possessed by one Baby Ammal. She had acquired the said land from one R.Venkataramulu Chettiar, under a deed of settlement, dated 29.12.1952, registered as Document No.8/1953, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Saidapet.

3. It has been further stated that Baby Ammal had submitted a statement before the second respondent, on 13.7.1977, with regard to the extent of land held by her. Baby Ammal had died, on 27.10.1978. Baby Ammal had no issues. Her husband had predeceased her. Baby Ammal’s legal heirs, namely, Munuswamy Chettiar, Sundara Babu Chettiar and V.Jayalakshmi had become the absolute owners of the entire extent of land of 4420 square meters, after the death of Baby Ammal. While so, the second respondent had issued a letter No.K.Dis A3/21/PP/79, dated 22.11.1979, informing them that the land in question is well within the prescribed ceiling limit and therefore, the said land is exempted from urban land ceiling proceedings.

4. It has been further stated that, based on the letter, dated 22.11.1979, issued by the second respondent, Munuswamy Chettiar and others had divided the land into a number of small plots. After having obtained the lay out approval from the Corporation of Madras, under Proceedings No.LA 128/1964, they had sold two plots bearing Plot Nos.12 and 12-A, measuring an extent of 4230 square feet and 990 square feet, respectively, to the father of the petitioners, namely, Rajagopalan, by way of two sale deeds, bearing Document Nos.2361/1980 and 2362/1980, dated 18.7.1980, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore. After the purchase of the plots, Rajagopalan, the father of the petitioners, had combined both the plots, bearing Nos.12 and 12-A and had applied for patta before the authority concerned. The patta had been issued in his name, vide C.A.No.40/80-81, dated 11.9.1980.

5. It has been further stated that the second respondent, vide notice, dated 04.10.1980, had informed that the orders declaring the land in question as being within the ceiling limit, was kept in abeyance and that the subsequent transaction, in respect of T.S.No.20/2, Pallipattu Village, was not valid. Following the said notice the District Collector, Chennai, vide letter, dated 1.6.1988, had informed that the sub divisions effected by the third respondent, in respect of T.S.No.20/2, is not valid and therefore, it was being revoked. Thereafter, Rajagopalan, the father of the petitioners had made a representation, dated 8.10.1988, requesting the District Collector, not to cancel the patta issued in his favour. However, the District Collector, vide letter No.G-2/91568/88, dated 28.2.1989, had held that the revocation was made, as the land in T.S.No.20/2 was in excess of the ceiling limit, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’).

6. It has been further stated that no proceedings or communications had been received from the respondents. Physical possession of the land in question had not been taken by the respondents. The father of the petitioners, namely, Rajagopalan, had obtained the building plan permission from the Corporation of Chennai, and had constructed a building in the said land, in the year, 1981. The building had been assessed by the Corporation of Chennai for the levying of property tax and water tax, and the said taxes had been paid, regularly. Further, the District Collector, Chennai, vide letter, dated 21.9.1990, had clarified that the purchasers of the land in question had valid titles and that they were indisputable in nature. Thereafter, Rajagopalan, the father of the petitioners had applied for the demolition and reconstruction of the building in the