T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of one Mr.A.S.Nagarajan, have filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in TRP No.70 of 1999, dated 15.11.2000, by which the Revision Petition filed challenging the order passed by the Special Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Land Reforms/ first respondent dated 16.04.1990, was rejected.

2. This petition was filed to reconsider an order passed by the first respondent rejecting an appeal filed under Section 33 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978, (Act) which was dismissed by the first respondent as time barred. This appeal petition filed by the petitioners was challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Land Reforms/second respondent dated 31.10.1985, declaring an extent of 550 sq mts., as excess vacant land in the hands of the original land owner.

3. We have heard Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents and considered submissions made on either side and perused the records placed before this Court.

4. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the proceedings under the Act stood abated after coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999?

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the possession of the land continues to remain with the land owners and by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, all proceedings initiated under the Parent Act stood abated. It is further submitted that when the proceedings acquiring the land under the Parent Act was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal, the Parent Act was repealed and the only question which had to be considered by the Tribunal was whether the respondents have taken actual physical possession of the land pursuant to the order under Section 11(5) of the Act, dated 30.12.1987. It is submitted that the Tribunal on perusal of the records observed that the Revenue Department has taken over the lands as early as on 07.03.1988, sub-division has taken place and proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the Act for disbursing the compensation amount. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it cannot be said that possession was not taken over by the Revenue Department in the year 1988. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that possession continues to remain with the land owner and mere paper possession does not mean actual taking over of physical possession and therefore, the Tribunal fell in error in rejecting the petitioners' Review Petition. Further, it is submitted that the very same Officer who passed the order in the capacity of the competent authority under the Land Ceiling Act, is also the officer under the provisions of the Urban Land Tax Act, who has recognised the possession of the land owner and levied urban land tax on the land owner during 1989 i.e., much after the alleged date on which the respondents are said to have taken possession of the land in question, which would establish that the land owner is in actual physical possession of the land. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.Krishnamoorthy and Ors., vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, in W.P.No.3749 of 2001, dated 07.08.2009, where the Division Bench pointed out that taking over possession is complete only when it is signed by the land owner while delivering the excess land pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Section 11(5) of the Act. Reference was also made to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu vs. Mecca Prime Tannery and another reported in 2012-4-L.W.289, in the support of the contention that if action is not taken under Section 11(