The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to update revenue records, a significant lapse of time, and the deposition of compensation can render a writ petition not maintainable in a land acquisition case under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1978.

The petitioner has submitted that she is the only daughter of her father Late Balaiah Naidu and her only brother Kothandan predeceased her father. The petitioner has further submitted that certain lands in Survey No.108/1 with an extent of 1.95 acres in No.5, Vilinjiambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, the then Chengalpet District now added in Greater Chennai was owned by her family. Her father's mother Chinnammal was the original owner. The petitioner has further submitted that her father Ballaiah Naidu, as the only heir of his mother inherited the said extent with full legal right. Thereafter, her father settled the extent of 35 cents in the property out of total extent of 1.95 acres mentioned above in favour of her by registered settlement deed dated 17.07.1972 registered as Document No.1704/1972, on the file of Sub Registrar of Poonamallee. The petitioner has further submitted that when her father was in possession and enjoyment as exclusive owner of the above mentioned 1.95 acres, he conveyed a portion of it viz., another 31 cents by a registered sale deed dated 19.02.1986 and registered as document No.861/1986, on the file of SRO, Poonamallee in favour of one K.Sukumaran Thambi S/o.Krishnan Pillai. The petitioner has further submitted that as an exclusive owner, her father created a mortgage of the lands in his possession which was also discharged subsequently.

2. The petitioner has further submitted that thus after dealing with 66 cents of land her father was owning and enjoying 1.29 acres of land in S.No.108/1 in Vilinjiambakkam Village. The petitioner has further submitted that even before her brother's death his wife left the family several years back and her whereabouts are not known till now. The petitioner has further submitted that since she was the only legal-heir of her father, she was looking after him and she was living with him along with her family viz., with her husband, two sons and one daughter. The petitioner has further submitted that before his death, her father by a registered Will dated 31.01.1994 and registered as Document No.10/1994, on the file of SRO Poonamallee bequeathed his property to her viz., the above mentioned 1.29 acres and another house site in the same village. The petitioner has further submitted that her father died on 13.07.2009 and after his death, she became entitled to an extent of 1.64 acres of land in Survey No.108/1 of No.5, Vilinjiambakkam Village (35 cents settled in favour and 1.29 Acre through Will). The petitioner became the owner of the property by way of settlement and Will.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that as exclusive owner of 1.64 acres of land, she is in possession and enjoyment of same till today. The petitioner has further submitted that while so, all of a sudden very much to her surprise and shock on 01.03.2014, several persons claiming themselves as subordinates of the second respondent herein entered into her land and started fencing. When the petitioner questioned them, she was directed to go over to the Office of the second respondent. On going there, she was told several proceedings were initiated in the name of her deceased father behind his back. The Authority without verifying the ownership of the land had issued an order only against Late Balaiah Naidu (her father), the previous owner. When the petitioner applied for copies of the proceedings, she came to know that several proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1978 without following the procedure as laid down in the said Act. From the copies obtained by her, she came to know that by proceedings in R.C.No.108/14C NK 1294/93D, dated 29.05.1995, the second respondent herein seems to have passed an order under Section 9(5) of the said Act. In the said communication itself, it is mentioned that an earlier notice under Section 9(4) and notice under Section 9(1), the draft statement was passed by affixing the same in the land