The legal proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 will get abated unless physical possession is taken prior to 16.06.1999.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent in Rc.No.A1/1728/87, dated 19.05.1988 and quash the same insofar as an extent of 2385 sq.ft of land as Plot No.2 in a total extent of 61 ½ cents in Sy.No.112/1 in Ko.Abishekapuram Village, Trichy Taluk and District.)

Common Order:

1. The writ petitions have been filed challenging a notification issued under Section 11(3) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978.

The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows:

2. The properties in dispute originally belonged to one Chinnammal and Chan Bibi. They have executed a registered sale deed on 12.07.1971 and 14.03.1973 in favour of Paulraj Pandurar for an extent of 61 ½ cents. After such purchase, the said Paulraj Pandurar has formed a lay out and started selling plots. According to the petitioners, Plot No.7 was purchased by one Saraswathy, the petitioner in WP(MD).No.16186 of 2009 by way of a registered sale deed dated 22.08.1984. On the same day, Plot No.6 was sold to one Raman and Plot No.8 was sold to Rathinam. The purchasers Raman and Rathinam sold the same to one Periyasamy and Jeyaraman by registered sale deeds dated 08.04.1985 and 19.11.1993. One Muthu Chezian and his brother Elangovan have purchased Plot No.2 on 27.08.1997 who are the writ petitioners in W.P(MD).No.9545 of 2011.The petitioners in W.P(MD).No. 9546 of 2011 namely Ramasamy had purchased Plot No.6 on 17.01.1997. One Mrs.Usha, the petitioner in WP(MD).No.9547 of 2011 had purchased Plot No.8 on 29.11.1993.

3. According to the petitioners, based upon the above sale deeds, the purchasers have obtained building plan permission and they have put up construction in the property. The encumbrance certificate from the year 1971-1996 would indicate that apart from the petitioners and their vendors, no other name is found in the encumbrance certificate.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that in May 2008, an attempt was made by the respondent authorities to measure the properties and only thereafter, they came to know that the lands in dispute have been subjected to Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978. Thereafter, they have started giving representations to the respondent authorities contending that the properties do not belong to Thangamani Vanathirayar and the properties belonged to Chinnammal and Chan Bibi. Only after great efforts, the impugned order was served upon the petitioners on 10.03.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the respondent authorities in their reply dated 29.09.2010 had specifically pointed out that 2468 sq.meters of land in Survey No.112/1 has not been taken possession but the rest of the lands have been taken possession by the Government on the ground that they were declared as urban land excess.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that though the petitioners have called for the proof of title of Thangamani Vanathirayar, the respondent authorities have refused to divulge the same and their only contention is that the title of Thangamani Vanathirayar was confirmed by way of an enquiry conducted by the revenue officials. The petitioners have further contended that all the notices and proceedings initiated under Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 have been issued only to Thangamani Vanathirayar and not to the petitioners or their vendors. Since there was no objection from the Thangamani Vanathirayar, the authorities have proceeded under the Act.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further pointed out that Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978 has been repealed under Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999. As per Repeal Act, if possession has not been taken by the authorities, on a date of Repeal Act, the entire legal proceedings should abated. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners have put up construction and