The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of physical possession under the Repeal Act and the inapplicability of delay and laches after the repeal of the parent Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10553 of 2018 dated 26.04.2018.)

P.B. Balaji, J.

1. This Intra-court appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful writ petitioners.

2. The writ petitioners, contending that they are entitled to the benefits of Section 3(2) of The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,1999 sought for issuance of a writ of declaration in that regard and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent to effect mutation of revenue records pertaining to the property that was subject matter of excess urban land.

3. The case of the writ petitioners was that originally the property belonged to the husband of the 1st writ petitioner, father-in-law of the 2nd writ petitioner and Grandfather of the 3rd and 4th writ petitioners, one Arumugam, who had become entitled to the same way back in the year 1960 in a family partition. The respondents initiated proceedings under The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1978, alleging excess vacant land being available at the hands of the writ petitioners. Proceedings culminated in issuance of Section 11(5) notice under the Act of 1978. It is the specific contention of the writ petitioners that pursuant to the Section 11(5) notice, no steps were taken by the respondents to take physical possession from the petitioners. Moreover, the writ petitioners also did not hand over or deliver possession as required by the respondents vide the Section 11(5) notice issued to them. Though no counter was filed by the respondents, the Writ Court proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners had not produced any order passed by the Ceiling Authorities, determining the excess vacant land and further the petitioners had approached the Writ Court belatedly, despite the repeal Act coming into force in the year 1999 itself.

4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners have preferred the present Writ Appeal on the grounds that

1. The writ petitioners had filed several documents to show that the extent of excess vacant land had been determined by the respondents which was not at all considered by the Learned Single Judge;

2. The Learned Single Judge has erroneously held that the writ petition was belated, which cannot be a ground for rejecting the writ petition when the Act had been repealed and physical possession remained with the land owners, and without adverting to the fact of physical possession, the Writ Court proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on extraneous grounds, which according to the writ petitioners requires interference.

5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter before us. It is the case of the respondents that Section 9(4) notice along with the Draft Statement under Section 9(1) was issued to the land owner on 27.08.1991.The said notice was refused to be received and therefore it was served by affixture on 01.09.1991. Thereafter an order under Section 9(5) came to be passed on 27.09.1991, declaring an extent of 46,050 sq.mts as excess vacant land. The said order was also served by affixture on 12.10.1991 and the Draft Final Statement under Section 10(1) was issued on 05.05.1992, which was also served by affixture on 22.09.1992. Thereafter, Section 11(1) notification came to be issued on 23.07.1993 and the same was published in the Government Gazette on 18.08.1993. The notification under Section 11(3) was issued on 20.01.1994 and duly published in the Government Gazette on 23.02.1994. The excess vacant land vested with the respondents, free of all encumbrances with effect from 01.03.1994. As the land owner did not hand over possession, Section 11(5) was invoked and a notice was issued, calling upon the land owner to surrender or deliver possession of excess vacant land. As the owner did not surrender possession, possession was handed over by the Revenue Authorities on 30.12.1994 and necessary mutation of records was also carr