JUDGMENT :

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

1. This appeal filed by the State is directed against the order passed in W.P.No.7125 of 2004 dated 30.11.2012.

2. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 04.03.2002 in S.R.No.249/96C. By the said proceedings, the competent authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) held that an extent of 3900 square meters of vacant land in Zamin Pallavaram village in Survey Nos.172/1, 172/3 and 172/6B, an extent of 500 square meters are allowed for the family entitlement of the first respondent and the balance extent of 3400 square meters is directed to be acquired under Section 9(5) of the Act.

3. The writ petition was filed raising several grounds and primarily on the ground that the actual physical possession of the land in question continued to remain with the land owner and the Act having been repealed by Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (No.20 of 1999) (hereinafter referred to as “the Repeal Act”) and in terms of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, the entire proceedings initiated under the original Act, stands abated. The writ petition was allowed on 30.11.2012 holding that possession of the land has not been taken from the land owner in the manner provided under the Act and therefore, the first respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act. The State is on appeal before us challenging the said order.

4. We have elaborately heard Mr.S.Thangavel, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant, Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner and Mr.T.N.Rajagopal, learned counsel for Mr.M.Nandha Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent and carefully perused the materials placed on record.

5. Before we move on to the facts on the instant case, we need to take note of the legal position holding the field as on date with regard to the effect of Repeal Act. The earliest of the decision was in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. Mecca Prime Tannery & Ors. [2012-4-LW-289]. In the said decision, it was held that after issuance of the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act to surrender vacant possession n of the land, if the land owner does not surrender vacant possession, then the competent authority under the Act should initiate action under Section 11(6) of the Act for taking delivery of possession.

6. Section 11 of the Act deals with “acquisition of vacant land” in excess of ceiling limit”. It has been held that in cases where after notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, the land owner delivers possession of the land and acknowledges the same in writing and the State after taking possession of land so delivered voluntarily by the land owner either comes into possession or allots the land to other persons, it was held that continued possession could be illegal. However, with regard to the cases where the competent authority issued notice under Section 11(5) of the Act to the land owners or the persons in possession of the land to deliver vacant possession to the competent authority, but the land owner or the person in possession fails to deliver the land and continues to be in possession of such land and the authority of the State did not take any action under Section 11(6) of the Act for taking delivery of possession, then in such cases, the State Government shall not be deemed to be in possession of those lands. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act. The above decision has been followed in several decisions of this Court of which, we may refer to a few of them viz., Government of Tamil Nadu vs. Aalim Muhammed Salegh Trust [AIR 2015 Mad 47]; R.Siddiah & 9 Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department & 3 Ors. [(2015) 2 CWC 20]; A.N.Visalakshi & Ors. vs. Special Commissio