records clearly show that the possession was taken from Y.K.S. Prakash Rao on 30.01.1990 and subsequently the land was delivered to the Revenue Department on 06.02.1990. That being so, as rightly contended by the Learned Additional Government Pleader, the petitioner, who chose to get a sale deed from the legal heirs of the said Y.K.S. Prakash Rao four years thereafter, has no locus standi to contend that possession was not taken from the said Y.K.S.Prakash Rao. The mere fact that after possession of the land was taken by the first respondent and handed over to the Revenue Department, the petitioner got a sale deed from the legal heirs of Y.K.S.Prakash Rao and managed to get patta and also sanction for the building plan, will not have the effect of taking away the title vested in the government. At any rate, the possession, if any, that would have been secured by the petitioner on the advent of the sale deed in his favour, would amount to a possession of a trespasser, since the vesting of the title on the government became complete on the taking of possession under section 11(6), which was done on 30.01.1990, as evidenced by the records available in the file produced for the perusal of the court. Before ever the Repeal Act came into force, possession was taken by the government and thereby the vesting of title to the property with the government was complete. Hence the exemption provided under section 3 of the Repeal Act for the abatement of the legal proceedings contemplated under section 4 of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999), is squarely attracted to the case on hand. Admittedly, no legal proceeding was initiated before the passing of the Repeal Act (Act 20 of 1999) to attract section 4. The proceedings of the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu
