K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.

1. The appellants are the respondents in Writ Petition No. 17445 of 2004 and they are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in allowing the above Writ Petition, which was filed challenging the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court and also the relevant original files produced by the appellants.

3. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner. It is a registered minority Trust, registered under the Societies Registration Act. The object of the Trust is to promote and develop education in the field of Engineering. They purchased the subject matter lands and established certain educational institutions therein. It is their claim that the lands so purchased by them are agricultural lands and they are not coming under the purview of the Act. However, they came to know from the Revenue officials that the subject matter lands had been proceeded under the Act by initiating proceedings against one Baskara Pillai. On further verification and enquiry, the respondent came to know that proceedings under Section 9(5) and notice under Section 11(3) of the Act have been issued in the name of Baskara Pillai. Consequently, the respondent-Trust filed the above Writ Petition challenging those proceedings mainly on the ground that the possession of the lands is with them all along and not taken away by the appellants herein at any point of time, and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated under the Act will get abated.

4. The appellants herein as the respondents before the Writ Court contested the Writ Petition. It is their specific case that the possession of the lands was already taken from the hands of the owner, and therefore, the respondent-writ petitioner cannot seek for quashing the proceedings as abated.

5. The learned single Judge, after considering the rival pleadings of the respective parties and upon perusal of the records made available, allowed the Writ Petition by observing that the lands in question are agricultural lands and that the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act had not been served on the respondent-Trust. The learned single Judge found that the impugned proceedings had been issued without application of mind and without giving sufficient opportunity to the writ petitioner-Trust.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the possession of the lands in dispute, has already been taken and therefore, the wit petitioner-Trust is not entitled to the benefit of the Repealing Act.

7. On the other hand, it is the specific contention of the respondent-Trust that the possession of the lands is still with them and not taken away at any point of time, and therefore, they are entitled to have the benefit of the Repealing Act to get an order that the entire proceedings get abated under the Act.

8. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. In order to satisfy ourselves as to whether the possession was taken over from the land owner or not, as contended by the appellants, we called for the relevant original files and on production, perused the same.

9. It is not in dispute that the entire proceedings at various stages have been initiated and culminated into passing of Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act against one Baskara Pillai and the writ petitioner-Trust was not at all brought into the picture at any point of time. It is the case of the writ petitioner-Trust that the subject matter lands belong to several persons, out of whom, the said Baskara Pillai was only one of the vendors.

10. In our considered view, all the above issues need not be gone into at this stage, as the only