JUDGMENT :

R.N. MANJULA, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order of the Single Judge dated 24.07.2017 passed in W.P. No. 28873 of 2013.

1. This intra Court Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2017 passed in W.P. No. 28873 of 2013.

2. The appellants are the unsuccessful Writ Petitioners who have filed the Writ Petition for declaring that the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent vide R.C.D. No. 2026/84 dated 30.03.1988 got abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act (Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act), due to the failure of the Government to take the physical possession of the subject lands.

3. The short facts which led to filing of this Writ Appeal by the appellants is that the subject land measuring an extent of 1 acre 38 cents in S. No. 258/2 is situated at Thiruneermalai Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpet District. It originally belonged to one N. Sivaraman S/o V. Naganatha Iyer. The said Sivaraman sold the said land to the appellants/writ petitioners in the year 1984 through a registered Sale Deed. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 for acquisition of the excess land of 5100 sq. mts. comprised in the said land was issued to the original owner and he has filed a return under Section 6(1) of the Act. Subsequent to that the proceedings for acquiring the above mentioned excess land deducting a concession of 500 sq. ft. was issued. Though the Appellants were the owners of the subject land at the time of issuing the above proceedings, no notices were issued to them. Hence, they filed the Writ Petition seeking appropriate relief. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition by denying the relief prayed by the Appellants. Aggrieved over that this Writ Appeal has been filed.

4. The submissions made by Mr. E. Omprakash, learned senior counsel for Mr. A. Ramu, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. S. Arumugam, learned Government Advocate for the official respondents were heard.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the previous owner did not have any locus-standi to receive notices after he sold the lands to the appellants and even if he had appeared in response to the notice issued to him, it should be in complete suppression of the subsequent transfer effected in favour of the appellants. The Act itself got repealed by virtue of the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Regulation and Ceiling) Repeal Act, 1999. It is further submitted that no physical possession was taken by the Government until the Repeal Act came into force and hence as per Section 4 of the Repeal Act, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have got abated.

6. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that originally a notice was served on the father of the vendor of the appellants namely Naganatha Iyer in the year 1978 and subsequent notices were also sent to him to appear for enquiry. After coming to know that Naganatha Iyer was not alive, a subsequent notice under Section 9(4) along with statement under Section 9(1) was issued on 22.09.1987 to Sivaraman, who is the son of Naganatha Iyer. After inspecting the land on 30.03.1998, an extent of 5100 sq. mts. is declared as excess land after leaving a concession of 500 sq. mts. through an order dated 30.03.1988. Subsequent notifications under Sections 11(1) and 11(5) were issued and they were served on the owners by affixture. On 09.06.1989, the land was handed over to the revenue inspector. Hence, the appellants are not entitled to the relief prayed for.

7. The submission of the learned Government Advocate and the counter of the respondents would show that the first notice was issued to Naganatha Iyer. Before issuing the notice, the respondent authorities did not ascertain whether the said person was alive and whether the property was still owned by him. Those n