The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of land acquisition and possession under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, and the impact of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999 on the rights of the landowner.

Originally, the above writ petition has been filed by Mr. S.Sethuraman, the first petitioner. Since the said Sethuraman had died, the petitioners 2 to 5 have been brought on record as legal-heirs on 19.12.2014 in M.P.No.3 of 2014 in W.P.No.25636 of 2008. Initially, the first petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a direction to forbear the respondents, their subordinates from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land to an extent of 1 ground 1848 sq.ft. comprised in Old R.S.No.26/1D and 24/3A4 New R.S.No.24/3A4, T.S.No.20/2, Block No.8, (Old Door No.7, Ventarathanam Street, Adayar, Chennai-20) at Pallipattu Village, Venkatrathinanagar Extension-II, Chennai, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk in the light of the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999. Thereafter, the first petitioner has filed an amendment petition to amend the prayer in the above writ petition for a declaration or any other writ or order like nature, that the land to an extent of 1 ground 1848 sq.ft. comprised in Old R.S.No.26/1D and 24/3A4 New R.S.No.24/3A4, T.S.No.20/2, Block No.8, (Old Door No.7, Ventarathanam Street, Adayar, Chennai-20) at Pallipattu Village, Venkatrathinanagar Extension-II, Chennai, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk belonging to the petitioner, do not attract the provision contained in Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 or Section 3(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999 and the same was ordered by this Court on 09.06.2010 in M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.25636 of 2008.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioners have submitted that the property bearing Plot No.20, Lay Out No.128/4, Old R.S.No.26/1B and 24/3A4 and now in R.S.No.243/A in T.S.No.20/2 in Block No.8, at Pallipatu Village, Adayar, Chennai-20, originally belonged to one R.Munusamy Chettiar and others. The said R.Munusamy Chettiar and others through their Power of Attorney Agent Mrs. S.Indrani under the registered deed of Power of Attorney dated 26.11.1979 and registered as Document No.191/79, at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, sold the said property to the first petitioner under the registered deed of sale dated 28.01.1980 and registered as Document No.163/80 at the Office of the Joint Sub-Registrar-Ii, Saidapet, Chennai-15. The petitioners have further submitted that the said property was purchased by the first petitioner on due verification of title deeds and records. In fact, patta in respect of the said property also stood in the name of the said vendors viz., R.Munusamy Chettiar and others. In fact, the first petitioner has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that the predecessors in title to the said property viz., Munusamy Chettiar and others had already obtained necessary orders from the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Saidapet in K.Dis.A3-21/PPT/79 in and by which the aforesaid property was exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act) which was in force by that time. Moreover, the first petitioner had put up an additional construction over the said property by obtaining necessary planning permission from the Corporation of Chennai in PPA No.7038/96, dated 10.01.1997. The petitioners further submitted that the property tax pertaining to the said property has been assessed in the name of the first petitioner and he has been paying the property tax, metro water tax in his name. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the said property was in his absolute possession and enjoyment from the date of the aforesaid purchase i.e., from 28.01.1980 onwards till date without any interruption whatsoever from any quarters.

3. The petitioners have further submitted that subsequently the first petit