W/o.Kuppusamy, the appellants relied upon a Land Delivery Receipt, dated 22.01.1993, showing the delivery and acceptance of delivery of possession, respectively, by the Deputy Tahsildar, Urban Land Tax and Revenue Inspector, Madhavaram Firka. This Court, in the case of The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others v. B.Anand Kumar reported in 2016 (3) CTC 668 , held that, record of delivery of possession by way of Land Delivery Receipt or Panchanama is not sufficient and there should be exchange of physical possession as contemplated under the Act and by following the procedure. Again this Court, in the case of T.Kalasalingam and another v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department and others [W.P.No.12354 of 2022, dated 04.11.2022] , following several precedents, has categorically held that, unless physical possession had been taken under Section 11(5) of the Act, repeal of the Act as per the Repealing Act would come into play and the proceedings so far under the Urban Land Ceiling Act would lapse. This Court, in the said judgment, also reiterated that there cannot be paper delivery and there must be actual physical possession being taken after issuing notice to the person in possession.
