ORDER :

1. Petitioner is a private limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It purchased land, measuring an extent of about 1 acre in Kottivakkam Village, comprised in old Paimash Nos.184/1, 184/3 and 184/5, corresponding to R.S.No.286/3C and new Survey No.286/3C2 as per the registered Sale Deed, dated 27.04.1982. Petitioner states that the land was purchased from M/s.Sri Ram Industries. Since a few constructions were also there in the land, it is stated by the petitioner that their vendor M/s.Sri Ram Industries had filed an application for exemption of certain land from urban land ceiling and that they were conscious that the holding of their vendor did not exceed the ceiling limit. Petitioner also states that they are in possession of the property as absolute owner from the date of purchase i.e., on 27.04.1982 and that they have put up additional constructions, which are assessed in the name of the petitioner by the local body. Physical possession of the property by the petitioner is evidenced by the additional constructions, electricity connection, payment of electricity charges etc.

2. When that be so, the respondents have initiated proceedings to acquire the land under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, hereinafter, referred to as ''the Act''. Petitioner's vendor though raised some objection questioning the urban land ceiling proceedings, it is admitted that an order came to be passed under Section 9 (5) of the Act, vide order, dated 31.03.1987. Though an appeal was filed against the said order by one Mr.S.Ramamurthy, the previous owner, the appeal was not pursued properly and it was dismissed, as the erstwhile owner did not prosecute further.

3. It is stated by the petitioner that he was not aware of the proceedings and that his vendor had not pursued the appeal properly. In connection with the acquisition proceedings by National Highways Department, petitioner had to approach the revenue officials for patta and that he was informed about the acquisition of an extent of 1393 sq.mts. under the provisions of the Act. Hence, petitioner applied to first respondent seeking certified copies of the orders passed under Sections 9 (5) and 11 (5) of the Act. Second respondent furnished certified copies of the orders under Section 9 (5), dated 31.03.1987, and the Notice under Section 11 (5), dated 27.09.1988, during the first week of August,2008. After getting certified copies of the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition, the present Writ Petition was filed to quash the proceedings of the second respondent, as stated supra, in respect of the land, which was declared as surplus and consequently to treat the said proceedings as abated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999), in short, ''the Repeal Act.''

4. Though the petitioner has raised many grounds challenging the validity of the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition, the main point that is urged before this Court is about the abatement of proceedings by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that Notice under Section 11 (5), dated 27.09.1988, was issued to Mr.S.Ramamurthy, the previous owner, to surrender possession of the land. Since possession and enjoyment was with the petitioner, it is stated that it was impossible for the addressee to respond to the notice for surrender of possession. When the addressee of the notice issued under Section 11 (5) of the Act failed to surrender possession as directed by the competent authority, it was open to the competent authority to take action under Section 11 (6), using force. Since no efforts were taken to take possession or to demolish building by using force, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under the Act have now come to an end and, therefore, by virtue of the Repeal Act, proceedings of second respondent impugned in the Writ Petition should be treate