JUDGMENT

(Prayer in W.A.No.970 of 2017: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.32025 of 2005, dated 18/4/2011.

W.A.No.1738 of 2017: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 18/4/2011 in W.P.No.32202 of 2005.)

Common Judgment

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. These appeals are directed against a common order dated 18.04.2011 passed in WP.Nos.970 and 1738 of 2005. The State Government is the appellant. The writ petitions were directed against the notification declaring the subject matter lands as excess vacant land under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (herein after called as Ceiling Act, for short) and also to direct the appellant to restrain them from interfering the peaceful possession of the land in question.

2. The writ petitioners / respondents claimed to have purchased the property from one Tmt.Lakshmiammal, w/o.Govindaraju Reddy by different sale deeds dated 24.03.1983, 31.03.1983, 28.03.1983 and 02.04.1983. The descriptions of lands are not being given in this judgment for the reason that they are not material.

3. Section 6 of the Ceiling Act specifies that no person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit immediately before the commencement of this Act shall transfer any such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise until he has furnished a statement under section 7 and a notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published under sub-section (1) of section 11 ; and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void.

4. Admittedly, the vendor has not followed the mandate given in Section 6 of the Ceiling Act. Proceedings by the competent authority were initiated under the “Ceiling Act”. It is brought to the knowledge of the competent authority that lands had been sold to the writ petitioners. The competent authority ignored the sales effected by the vendor of the petitioners on the ground that the sales are null and void, since they have been made in violation of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act. Consequent to the proceedings of the competent authority determining the excess vacant land sold by the vendor of the petitioners, orders were passed under Section 11(3) of the Act, declaring the lands in possession of the petitioners as excess lands and that the lands are deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances.

5. It is pertinent to mention that consequent to the order declaring the land in possession of the petitioners are excess and consequent to the notification in Tamil Nadu Gazette, the land delivery receipt was issued by which it is shown that the property was handed over by the Sub Inspector of Survey, Urban Land Tax Department, Ambattur and possession was taken over by the Inspector, Ambattur.

6. The Ceiling Act was repealed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,1999 (herein after called as Repeal Act). The Repeal Act was came into force on 14.06.1999. The respondents herein filed the instant writ petitions as stated earlier challenging the order passed under Section 11(3) and also for a direction to restrain the respondents from interfering from the possession of the land on the ground that the lands are in possession of the respondent writ petitioners.

7. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment found that the procedure prescribed under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Ceiling Act, for taking possession of the land had not been followed. The learned Single Judge held that the so called possession taken over by the Government is non est in the eyes of law and then consequently writ petition was allowed. The present writ appeals have been filed by the State Government assailing the order of the learned Single Judge.

8. It is further pertinent to mention at this juncture that after the Repeal Act was passed, the writ petitioner respondents