17/2001 and 18/2001. In fact, after the abolition of the Tribunals, the Revision Petitions were transferred to this Court and renumbered as C.R.P.Nos.1923, 1924 and 1925 of 2003. Subsequently, the Civil Revision Petitions were converted as Writ Petitions and renumbered as W.P.Nos.8610, 8611 & 8612 of 2004. In all those writ petitions, the challenge was to the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner cum Competent Authority, (Urban Land Ceiling), Salem in S.R.No.A1/20/93 dated 28.02.1994. The said writ petitions were heard by this Court and by common order dated 07.06.2011, all the writ petitions were allowed. In fact, the Court allowed the Writ Petitions after perusing the original files which were circulated for the consideration of the Court. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: "10. Mr.D.Shivakumaran, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Prathiba Venkataraman v. The Assistant Commissioner and another reported in CDJ 2009 MHC 468 (W.P.No.6931 of 2000) dated 27.01.2009. This is for the purpose of relying upon the finding that if no notice is given to the original land owner or the person in whose name land stands in the records, then the proceedings are invalid. Even otherwise, the issue raised in these writ petitions viz., that no proper notice was given under Section 9(5) of the Act and the lands were agricultural land and hence not covered by the provisions of the ULC Act and that after the repealing Act, if possession continues to vest with the land owner and not taken by the Government, then the land owners are entitled for benefit under Section 4 of T.N.Act 20 of 1999. In this regard, a reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in G.P.Saraswathi and others v. Assistant Commissioner cum Competent Authority
