O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The petitioners are the title holders of the petition-mentioned property. It is beyond dispute that the revenue record indicates that it is agricultural in character. But the proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act.

3. The writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the competent authority issued under Section 12(6) of the Act on 21.05.1998. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would state that the proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed, since possession was not taken under Section 11(6) of the Act.

4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned Government Advocate took me through its contents and contended that the petitioner has ceased to have rights over the petition-mentioned property. He pressed for dismissal of this writ petition.

5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the order dated 29.04.2009 made in W.P.No.5874 of

2009. Paragraph No.11 of the said order reads as follows:-

“11. In view of the submissions made by the l