JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order of this Court dated 29.04.2013 made in W.P.No.6253 of 2008 on the file of this Court.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. The present writ appeal is filed against the order of this Court dated 29.04.2013 made in W.P.No.6253 of 2008 on the file of this Court.

2. Pending appeal, Lakshmidevi, the petitioner in W.P.No.6253 of 2008, who is the respondent in the present writ appeal died and her legal representatives were impladed as respondents 2 & 3 vide order of this Court dated 12.01.2023 in C.M.P.No.18863 of 2022 in W.A.No.3621 of 2019.

3. The 1st respondent is owner of land in S.No.190/2B1(part) measuring an extent of 33 cents in Chitlapakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpet District. The appellants initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 24 of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) alleging that the 1st respondent possessed excess vacant land and passed an order on 31.05.1990 acquiring lands of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed an appeal and the appeal was remanded back to the 2nd appellant. After remand, the 2nd appellant passed an order under Section 9(5) of the Act dated 09.03.1994 holding that the lands in Rajakilpakkam Village are agricultural lands and the extent of 3350 sq.mtrs of land in Chitlapakkam Village is excess vacant land, after allowing 1000 sq.mtrs towards family entitlement.

4. According to the appellants, after order under Section 9(5) of the Act, the 2nd appellant issued notice under Section 11(5) of the Act on 31.10.1996 for handing over possession of excess vacant land by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent did not hand over the said land. The 2nd appellant took possession of the excess vacant land and handed over to the Revenue authorities.

5. It is the case of the 1st respondent that she was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the 2nd appellant after remand and she came to know about the same from the Village Administrative Officer, only when she applied for issue of patta in her favour. The 2nd appellant did not take possession of the land from the 1st respondent and as per Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Repeal Act”), the proceedings initiated under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act by the 2nd appellant lapsed and filed writ petition for the relief stated therein.

6. The appellants filed counter affidavit and submitted that the 1st respondent was aware of the proceedings, at each stage, order passed under Section 9(5) of the Act and notice under Section 11(5) of the Act have been served on the 1st respondent. The possession was taken by the appellants on 12.02.1997 and handed over to the Revenue Authorities. The appellants did not initiate any proceedings till Repeal Act came into force. The 1st respondent filed writ petition only in the year 2008 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The appellants also stated that they took possession of the land from the 1st respondent on 12.02.1997 and therefore, Section 4 of the Repeal Act is not applicable. The 1st respondent is not entitled for the relief sought for and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. The learned Judge considering the materials placed before him and files produced by the appellants, held that 1st respondent did not surrender excess vacant land and appellants have not produced any materials to show that they have taken possession from the 1st respondent and allowed the writ petition.

8. Challenging the said order of this Court dated 29.04.2013 made in W.P.No.6253 of 2008, the present writ appeal is filed.

9. The appellants raised various grounds in the present writ appeal. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay as the 1st respondent has filed the wri