T.S.Ravi vs The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.10.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN W.P.Nos.26234 & 26237 of 2018 and WMP Nos. 30463 & 30469 of 2018

T.S.Ravi ... Petitioner in WP 26234/18

T.S.Sulochana ... Petitioner in WP 26237/18

Vs.

1. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

2. Revenue Inspector, Thiruvotriyur, Thiruvotriyur Taluk Office, Thiruvortiyur.

3. District Revenue Officer, CMRL, Koyambedu, Chennai 107. ... Respondents in both the Petitions

Writ Petition Prayers:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a

(i) Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.1762/2017/AA1 dated 14/06/2018 issued by 2nd respondent under Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III/1905) and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and direct the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner adequate

http://www.judis.nic.in -2-

compensation for the demolished portion of the building owned and enjoyed by the petitioner. (in WP 26234/18)

(ii) Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.1762/2017/AA1 dated 09/07/2018 issued by 2nd respondent under Section 6 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III/1905) and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and direct the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner adequate compensation for the demolished portion of the building owned and enjoyed by the petitioner. (in WP 26237/18)

For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Nataraaj (in both the petitions)

For Respondents : Mr. J.Pothiraj, Special Government Pleader

COMMON ORDER

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The prayer in the Writ Petitions is as follows:

(i) Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.1762/2017/AA1 dated 14/06/2018 issued by 2nd respondent under Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III/1905) and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and direct the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner adequate compensation for the demolished portion of the building owned and enjoyed by the petitioner. (in WP 26234/18)

http://www.judis.nic.in -3-

(ii) Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.1762/2017/AA1 dated 09/07/2018 issued by 2nd respondent under Section 6 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III/1905) and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and direct the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner adequate compensation for the demolished portion of the building owned and enjoyed by the petitioner. (in WP 26237/18)

2. The case of the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions is identical.

According to them, the petitioner in WP No.26234 of 2018 had purchased

the subject property measuring about 2575 sq.ft. situate in T.S.No.64/1 at

Thiruvottiyur Village under a sale deed dated 24.08.1987 and after his

purchase patta has also been issued to him by the Special Tahsildar,

Thiruvottiyur, on 03.03.2016.

3. It is also claimed that an extent of 27.5 sq.mts. of the said land

was acquired by the Government for widening and strengthening Chennai

to Ennore Road and an award was passed granting compensation in award

No. 5 of 2011 dated 23.09.2011. The remaining extent is claimed to be in

possession of the petitioner he having put up a building with two shops and

a residential portion.

http://www.judis.nic.in -4-

4. Insofar as, the petitioner in WP No.26237 is concerned, she would

contend that she has purchased an extent of 3809 sq.ft. land in Survey

Number in TS No.65/1, 137 and 138 of Thiruvottiyur Village under Sale

Deed dated 17.02.1972. It is also claimed that she has been granted patta

to the said extent of land purchased by her by the Special Tahsildar,

Thiruvottiyur on 03.03.2016. It is also seen that the Government of Tamil

Nadu has acquired an extent of about 26.5 sq.mts. of land in the said Town

Survey Number in TS No.65/2, and an award has been passed on

23.09.2011 in award No.46 granting a compensation of Rs.7,69,653/- to

her.

5. While things stood thus, the Tahsildar, Thiruvottiyur issued a

notice to both the petitioners on 12.04.2018 requiring them to participate in

a public hearing to be held on 16.04.2018, as it was proposed to acquire

the lands in question for the purposes of Chennai Metro Rail Project.

However, the petitioners were served with a notices dated 14.06.2018 (in

WP No.26234/18) and on 09.07.2018 (in WP No.24237/18), purportedly

under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, claiming

that the petitioners have encroached the Government land. The petitioners

have submitted a representation to the District Revenue Officer/Land

Acquisition Officer, Chennai Metro Rail Scheme on 10.08.2018 asserting

their ownership.

http://www.judis.nic.in -5-

6. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent, namely

Tahsildar, Tiruvottiyur had illegally demolished a portion of the construction

put up by them without even passing an order under Section 6 of the Tamil

Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. It is also the contention of the

petitioners that the land in question has been classified as Grama Natham

and Patta has also been issued by the Competent Authority, w

hile so, the respondents were not justified in treating the petitioners as

encroachers and illegally demolishing the building even without passing an

order under Section 6 of the Act. On the above contentions, the petitioners

would seek a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated supra.

7. When the above Writ Petitions came up for admission on

05.10.2018, Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned Special Government Pleader took notice

on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. We had directed the counsel for the

petitioner to serve notice on the Standing Counsel for Chennai Metro Rail

Limited and further directed the respondents 2 and 3 to appear before us

along with the entire records including the A-Register of Thiruvottiyur

village, on 09.10.2018, as there was a dispute regarding the classification

of the land in question.

8. The Writ Petition was listed before us on 10.10.2018, the http://www.judis.nic.in -6-

Tahsildar, Thiruvottiyur, namely S.Rajkumar/2nd respondent was present in

Court along with A-Register and other connected records. A perusal of the

A-Register of Thiruvottiyur Village, which has been produced in original

before us, shows that the land in question has been classified as Grama

Natham and the names of the petitioners, has also been recorded as the

owners of the same. The 2nd respondent has also produced the original

notices issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act

3 of 1905.

9. It is claimed that Section 7 notice was served on the petitioners

by affixture. It is claimed by the Tahsildar that an order under Section 6 of

the said Act has been passed on 09.07.2018 and the same has been

served on the petitioners. The office copy of the said order has been

produced before us. It is also claimed that the petitioners have signed the

same in acknowledgement of the receipt.

10. To our surprise, we found that the signatures of the petitioners in

the said order under Section 6 dated 09.07.2018 does not tally with the

signatures that are found in the office copy of the notice dated 12.04.2018,

in and by which, the petitioners were required to participate in the meeting

regarding acquisition of the land for Chennai Metro Rail. When the

http://www.judis.nic.in -7-

Tahsildar was questioned about the discrepancy in the signatures, he was

unable to give a convincing reply and he chose to blame the Revenue

Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer, who, according to him,

were entrusted with the job of serving the order under Section 6 on the

petitioners.

11. We find that an attempt is being made to make it appear that an

order of Section 6 was in fact served on the petitioners. We, therefore,

have no hesitation in concluding that the procedure contemplated under

the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, has not been followed and

the petitioners have been illegally dispossessed of their lands.

12. Hence we directed the Tahsildar to restore possession of the

property to the petitioners and file a compliance report. When the matters

were posted today, the Tahsildar, Thiruvottiyur had filed a compliance

report stating that the lands in question have been handed over to the

petitioners. The matter does not end there. Admittedly, the lands in

question are classified as Grama Natham and Pattas have been issued to

the petitioners. A certain portion of the said lands have been acquired by

the Government by paying compensation to the petitioners in the year

2011. This would definitely mean that the Government had accepted the

ownership of the petitioners to the lands in question. http://www.judis.nic.in -8-

13. It is, however, sought to be contended by the learned Special

Government Pleader that though the lands were classified as Grama

natham, the petitioners cannot put the same to commercial use and if

Grama Natham lands are put to commercial use, the Government is

empowered to resume the same. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of

the Division Bench of this Court reported in Zonal Officer, Corporation of

Chennai vs. Nasa Reddy, reported in 2012 (4) MLJ 646, in support of the

said contention.

14. Countering the said submissions, Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that lands classified as

Grama Natham or lands that are meant for the villagers to put up houses

and reside therein do not vest in the Government. Though the word

Grama Natham has not been defined in any enactment. Mr.K.N.Nataraaj,

would draw our attention to the meaning attributed to the “Grama Natham”

in P.Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, which reads as follows:

“Ground set apart, on which the house of a villager may be built”.

15. He would also invite our attention to the following judgments of

this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme court, which have dealt with the nature

of the land that is classifed as Grama Natham in the Revenue Records.

http://www.judis.nic.in -9-

(i) Palani Ammal v. L.Sethurama Aiyangar, reported in AIR

1949 Madras 814;

(ii) S.Rengaraja Iyengar and another v. Achikannu Ammal

and another, reported in 1959 (II) MLJ 513;

(iii) Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya and others v. Paladugu

Anjayya and others, reported in AIR 1972 SCC 1421;

i. (iv) A.K. Thillaivanan and another v. The District Collect,

Chengai Anna District at Kancheepuram, reported in 1998 (3)

LW 603;

(v) The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat, Harur

Taluk, Dharmapuri District v. V.Swaminathan and others,

reported in 2004 (2) MLJ 708 (DB) and

(vi) Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt v. Raghavan and another,

reported in 2012 (1) CTC 280.

16. Relying upon the observations of this Court and the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the judgments, referred to supra, Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, would

contend that historically lands classified as Grama Natham are meant for

villagers to reside therein by putting up houses. He would further contend

that due to Urbanisation, many of the villages have become part of big

Cities and the lands which were classified as Grama Natham and

http://www.judis.nic.in -10-

continued to be in possession of individuals, who had put up houses had

acquired more commercial value. This phenomenon, according to

Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, would not change the character of the land as Grama

Natham.

17. Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, would also rely upon Section 2 of the Tamil

Nadu Land Encroachment Act 3 of 1905, which excludes the vesting of

Grama Natham lands in the Government. He would also seek to

distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench in Zonal Officer-V,

Corporation of Chennai, Chennai 10 and another vs. K. Narasa Reddy,

Kances Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai 17 and others reported in

2012 (4) MLJ 646, by pointing out that the Division Bench had only

observed that the commercial exploitation of Grama Natham land cannot

be permitted. Drawing our attention to the facts of the said case, wherein

an attempt was made by a professional builder to develop a vast extent of

Grama Natham land by putting up a multi storied building with stilt plus

four floors consisting of 256 dwelling units therein. Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, would

contend that the Division Bench did not, as a proposition, lay down the Law

that Grama Natham land cannot be put to any sort of commercial use. He

would add that such commercial use by itself will not have the effect of

vesting the land in the Government, so as to enable the Government to

http://www.judis.nic.in -11-

take possession of the land treating the persons in occupation as

encroachers.

18. We have considered the rival submissions.

19. In the case on hand, the respondents have attempted to invoke

the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act III of 1905 to

dispossess the petitioners. Section 2 of the said Act reads as follows:

“Section 2. Right of Property in Public roads etc.,

waters and lands:-

(i) All public roads, streets, lanes and paths, the

bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the

same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks

below high water mark and of rivers, steams, nalas, lakes

and tanks and all backwaters, canals and water courses

and all standing and flowing water, and all lands,

wherever situated, save in so far as the same are the

property (emphasis supplied)

(a) of any Zamindar, Poligar, mittadar, jagirdar,

shrotriemdar or inamdar or any person aiming through or

holding under any of them, or

(b) of any person paying shist, kattubadi, Jodi, http://www.judis.nic.in -12-

poruppu or quit- rent to any of the aforesaid persons or

(c) of any person holding under ryotwari tenure,

including that of a janmi in the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiri

District and in the transferred territory or in any way

subject to the payment of land revenue direct to

Government or

(d) of any other registered holder of land in

proprietary right, or

(e) of any other person holding land under grant

from the government otherwise than by way of license,

and, as to lands, save also in so far as they are

temple site or owned as house-site or backyard, and

are hereby declared to be the [the property of

Government] except as may be otherwise provided by

any law for the time being in force subject always to all

rights of way and other public rights and to the natural

and easement right of other landowners, and to all

customary rights legally subsisting.

(2) All public roads and streets, vested in any local

authority shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to

be the [the property of Government].

Explanation._ In this Section “high water mark” http://www.judis.nic.in -13-

means the highest point reached by ordinary spring-tides

at any season of the year.”

emphasis supplied

20. A reading of the provisions of the Act 3 of 1905, would show that

the Act was intended to vest all communal lands, Roads and Waterways in

the Government and provide a machinery for evicting the encroachers of

such lands. The vesting provision, namely Section 2, which has been

extracted above would show that lands that are classified as “house site”

(Grama Natham), temple site do not vest in the Government, so as to

enable the Government to invoke the other provisions of the Act to

dispossess the occupants of such lands by following the procedure

prescribed under the said act.

21. The question whether the land is classified as Grama Natham is

communal land belonging to the entire villages or not was considered by

this Court in Palani Ammal v. L.Sethurama Aiyangar, reported in AIR

(36) Madras 814. While considering the said question the learned Single

Judge of this Court after referring to the Judgment of Wadsworth J. in

Chinnathambi Goundan v. Venkatasubramania Iyer, reported in AIR

(26) 1939 Mad, 409, had observed as follows:

“Gramanatham is not communal property in the http://www.judis.nic.in -14-

sense in which thrashing floor or burning grounds or other

property is communal, that is property reserved for the

use of the community. Gramanatham if it is unoccupied

is assigned from time to time by the proprietor whether it

is in zamindari area or in an inam village; and this

practice was referred to by the learned Judge

(Wadsworth J.) in Chinnathambi Goundan v.

Venkatasubramania Iyer, AIR (26) 1939 Mad 409. This, if

I may say so with respect, is the practice obtaining in the

zamindari area and also in inam villages.”

22. The question as to whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Land Encroachment Act, 1905, would apply to the lands that are classified

as Grama Natham was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court

in S.Rengaraja Iyengar and another v. Achikannu Ammal and another,

reported in 1959 (II) MLJ 513. The learned Judge after referring to

Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, as well as the

provisions of Section 3(b) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion

into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, held that the Grama Natham land does not vest

in the Government and the Government is not the paramount owner.

While doing so, the learned Single Judge observed as follows:

“ A house-site owned by a person in what is http://www.judis.nic.in -15-

generally known as gramanatham is not, under Madras

Act III of 1905, property of the Government. Section 2 of

Madras Act III 1905 says, in regard to lands which are

not covered by Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1) of

Section 2, that those lands are and are hereby declared

to be the property of the. Government, save in so far as

they are temple-site or owned as house-site or

backyard. In order that a land may properly be

described as house-site within the meaning of that

expression in Section 2 of Madras Act III of 1905, it is

not necessary that there should be a residential building

actually constructed and standing on that site. A person

may in a village habitation own a house in a street and a

site on the outskirts of the habitation but within the limits

of the gramanatham, which he uses for the purpose of

storing his hay and manure, if he is an agriculturist, or

as a smithy, if he is a smith, or as a brick-kiln if he is a

brick-maker or as a place for weaving if he is a weaver.

On such sites, buildings or sheds may when necessary

be constructed. But whether such buildings or sheds are

constructed or not, such sites are, in my opinion, house-

sites within the meaning of that expression in Section 2 http://www.judis.nic.in -16-

of the Madras Act III of 1905.”

The learned Judge also further observed as follows:

“A building in a gramanatham (or village

habitation) is protected from transfer of title to the

Government both under Section 18(1) of Madras Act

XXVI of 1948 and under the Madras Land

Encroachment Act (III of 1905). The title to a house site

in a gramanatham is protected from transfer to

Government by the operation of Madras Act III of 1905.”

23. In Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya and others v. Paladugu

Anjayya and others, reported in AIR 1972 SCC 1421, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 3(b) of the

Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1948,

had held that while communal lands, promboke and other Ryotwari lands,

waste lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks

and irrigation works etc. will vest in the Government, the land classified as

Grama Natham will not vest in the Government.

24. The Division Bench of this Court in The Executive Officer,

Kadathur Town Panchayat, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District v.

http://www.judis.nic.in -17-

V.Swaminathan and others, reported in 2004 (2) MLJ 708, referring to

almost all the earlier decisions, relating to “Grama Natham”, concluded

that the land classified as Grama Natham does not vest in the

Government. The Division Bench also took note of the definition of the

word “Grama Natham” in P.Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon,

and the meaning attributed to the word “Natham” in the Tamil lexicon

published under the Authority of University of Madras, while coming to the

said conclusion. While doing so, the Division Bench observed as follows:

“13. In the light of the above and in view of the fact that the admitted classification of the land being a 'Grama Natham', it is obvious that the land was never vested with the Government or the Town Panchayat. Inasmuch as the petitioners and their ancestors were in exclusive possession of the lands in question for the past 40 years, the impugned order of the third respondent in canceling the pattas with a view to evict them summary at the instance of the resolution passed by the Panchayat is not sustainable. Further such a summarily eviction is not permissible in law when the disputed question of title is involved for adjudications as laid down by the Apex Court in a number of decisions.”

The Division Bench had in fact held that the summary cancellation of patta

granted to such lands cannot be justified.

http://www.judis.nic.in -18-

25. In A.K. Thillaivanam and another v. The District Collect,

Chengai Anna District at Kancheepuram, reported in 1998 (3) LW 603,

a learned Single Judge on this Court had concluded that the land that is

classified as Grama Natham, does not vest in the Government and the

Government has no right to take action under the Land Encroachment Act

or any other enactment to dispossess the occupants of these lands. After

referring to the earlier decisions, the learned Judge observed as follows:

“27. Thus it is obvious, the admitted classification of the land being a gramanatham, the land was never vested with the respondents nor they could take action under the Land Encroachment Act or any other enactment. The petitioners state they have exclusive right, title, possession, since 1954 onwards. The respondents have no right to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and their action in giving a complaint for alleged offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is total misconception.”

26. In Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt v. Raghavan and another,

reported in 2012 (1) CTC 280, another Division Bench of this Court had

considered the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,

1905 to the lands classified as Grama Natham. After revisiting the Law,

the Division Bench had taken note of the fact that the Government had

introduced a scheme called Natham Nilavari Thittam and issued pattas to

http://www.judis.nic.in -19-

the occupants of Grama Natham lands, while doing so the Division Bench

had observed as follows:

“32. Therefore, Gramanatham is not vested with the Government. Under UDR Scheme (Up Dating Revenue Record scheme) the gramanatham lands were surveyed and survey numbers have been assigned. There was an attempt by the Government to levy tax (Natham Nilavari Thittam). Therefore, under that scheme, the Natham lands were surveyed and resurvey numbers were assigned and pattas were issued. Since gramanatham is the habitation where the land owners may build houses and reside they were known as house sites. They were classified as Gramanatham to differentiate the land from Inam lands Ryotwari lands, pannai lands and waste lands. While the lands under the other classifications vested with the Government, the gramanatham never vested with the State. However, under the UDR scheme, to enforce a tax on the Natham lands, a Thoraya Patta, for tax purporse was issued to those persons who claimed to be the land holders. The land holding is based on the title through the predecessor-in-title. Therefore, the patta issued under UDR scheme is not the patta under the Land Encroachment Act and there is no bar of the jurisdicition of the civil court under Sec.14 of the Land Encroachment Act.”

27. In view of the above decisions and the law laid down by the http://www.judis.nic.in -20-

Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the clear legal position that

emerges is as under:

That the Government has no paramount title to the lands classified

as Grama Natham and such lands do not vest in the Government. If that

be so, the respondents herein could not have invoked the provisions of

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, III of 1905, to evict the petitioners.

As already adverted to the Government had issued pattas to the petitioners

and has also recognised the title of the petitioners by acquiring a portion of

these lands by paying compensation in the year 2011. The fact that the

pattas have been granted to the petitioners as well as the fact that a portion

of these lands were acquired from the petitioners by paying compensation

in the year 2011 is not disputed by the Government. While so, we are at a

loss to understand as to how, the Government can now claim that the

petitioners are encroachers. The one and the only reason that is projected

is that the petitioners have put these lands to commercial use. From the

facts, it is seen that the petitioners have put up shops in the front portion

and residential accommodation in the rear portion. This by itself would not

mean that the lands have lost their character as Grama Natham lands.

28. In fact, the Division Bench judgment which is relied upon by the

learned Government Pleader in support of his submission that Grama

http://www.judis.nic.in -21-

Natham lands cannot be commercially exploited itself makes a distinction

between a normal user and a commercial exploitation. The Division Bench

had in fact recognised the rights of persons who are in occupation of

Grama Natham property as house sites for several years. The Division

Bench, however, taking into account the fact that the 1st respondent in the

said Writ Appeal had proposed to put up construction of multi storied

building with 256 residential units for the purposes sale held that such

commercial exploitation of Grama Natham land cannot be permitted .

29. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the Division

Bench in Zonal Officer v. Corporation of Chennai, Chennai and

another, reported in 2012 (4) MLJ 646, did not conclude that the

construction of a shop along with residential unit in the Grama Natham

land would result in the land losing its character as Grama Natham. We

are, therefore, of the considered view that what was frowned upon by the

Division Bench in the judgment in Zonal Officer v. Corporation of

Chennai, Chennai and another, reported in 2012 (4) MLJ 646, was a

large scale commercial exploitation of Grama Natham land and the same

would not take in a owner or an occupier, who has been issued patta

under the Natham Nilavari Thittam or any other scheme of the

Government, who puts up a small shop in the front portion of his residential

http://www.judis.nic.in -22-

accommodation. It is not the case of the respondents that the lands have

been reclassified. We are afraid such re-classification cannot also be

done, insofar as, the lands that are classified as Grama Natham, since the

Government is not the owner of the property and it cannot deprive the

rights acquired by the citizen by reclassifying the property, which is already

classified as Grama Natham.

30. We, therefore, conclude that the Government has no right to

evict persons who are in occupation of lands classified as Grama Natham

in the Revenue records by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land

Encroachment Act, 1905, or any other enactment. It is always open to the

Government to acquire the lands by paying compensation, if they are

needed for any public purpose.

31. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed, the notices

issued under Section 7 and the orders passed under Section 6 of the Tamil

Nadu Act, III of 1905 are quashed, leaving it open to the Government to

acquire the lands in question, if the Government requires it for any public

purpose. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions

are closed.

http://www.judis.nic.in -23-

(K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.) (R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) jv 11.10.2018

Index: Yes/no Internet: Yes/no speaking order/non speaking order

To

1. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

2. Revenue Inspector, Thiruvotriyur, Thiruvotriyur Taluk Office, Thiruvortiyur.

3. District Revenue Officer, CMRL, Koyambedu, Chennai 107.

http://www.judis.nic.in -24-

K.K.SASIDHARAN, J. and R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

(jv)

W.P.Nos.26234 & 26237 of 2018 and WMP Nos. 30463 & 30469 of 2018

11.10.2018

http://www.judis.nic.in