MTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Chithra2.Geetha3.Prithiviraj @ V.K.Raja4.Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.11.2009C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997andA.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000The Special Tahsildar (RC)SaidapetMadras 15...Appellant in A.S.Nos.959 to 962/1997 and respondents in A.S.Nos.262 to 265/2000/Referring OfficerVs.1.Chithra2.Geetha3.Prithiviraj @ V.K.Raja4.Kumar...Respondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962/1997resply. andappellants in AS.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 respectively/ClaimantsThese appeal suits have been filed under Section 54 of theLand Acquisition Act as against the common judgment and decrees ofthe learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in L.A.O.P.Nos.204, 206,207 and 209 of 1988 dated 26.10.1995.For Appellant/ : Mr.V.Ravi, Respondent Special Govt. Pleader (AS)For Respondents/ : Mr.M.S.SubramanianappellantsJ U D G M E N TThe referring officer is the appellant in A.S.Nos.959 to 962of 1997. The claimants figure as respondents in the said appeals.A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 are the appeals preferred by theclaimants in which the referring figures as respondent.2. An extent of 26 cents comprised in Survey No.604/1A1A1 andan extent of 1.29 acres comprised in Survey No.604/1A1A3 making atotal area of 1 acre 55 cents in Ambattur village was acquired bythe Tamil Nadu Government for use as Villivakkam - Avadi Road andAmbattur Byepass Road, based on the requisition made by theHighways and Rural Works Department. After the decision to acquirethe land was approved and declaration under Section 6 of the Land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Acquisition Act, 1894 was published, the Land Acquisition Officerconducted award enquiry and passed an award in his award No.2/1988dated 04.03.1988 awarding compensation as per the provisions of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 fixing the market value of the acquiredland at the rate of Rs.872/- per cent. The total market value ofthe land was fixed at Rs.1,35,160/-. A sum of Rs.40,548/- wasadded as solatium @ 30% of the market value. A sum ofRs.48,568.70P was awarded as additional market value @ 12% perannum from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of award andthus a total sum of Rs.2,24,276.70P was awarded as totalcompensation payable to the land owners/ interested persons. Aseach one of the claimants was entitled to 1/4 share in the abovesaid property acquired by the government, the said amount wasapportioned equally among them. The claimants received the amountunder protest claiming that the amount awarded as compensation wastoo low and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to make areference to the court under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 for fixing a reasonable amount as compensation.Accordingly, four references were made to the Sub-court,Poonamallee under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and thesame were taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge,Poonamallee as LAOP Nos.204, 206, 207 and 209 of 1988. After claimstatements and objections were received, the learned SubordinateJudge, Poonamallee conducted a common trial in which one witnesswas examined as C.W.1 and five documents were marked as Ex.C1 to C5on the side of the claimants. One witness was examined as R.W.1and three documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R3 on the side of theReferring Officer.3. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Subordinate Judge,Poonamallee, heard the arguments advanced on either side andconsidered the evidence in the light of such arguments. Upon suchconsideration, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusionthat the market value of the acquired land should be fixed on thebasis of Ex.C2 after allowing a deduction of 20% for conversion oflarger extent into house sites or commercial sites and fordevelopmental charges. Thus, the learned Subordinate Judge,Poonamallee fixed the market value of the acquired land atRs.5,600/- per cent and awarded enhanced compensation whichincluded 30% solatium on the market value and increase in themarket value at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1)Notification till the date of Collector's award. The learnedSubordinate Judge also directed payment of interest on the enhancedcompensation @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession fora period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum.4. Aggrieved by the common judgment and decrees of the trialcourt, the State through the Referring Officer, has preferredA.S.Nos.959 to 962/1997 for reduction of the compensation amountawarded by the court below. The claimants have come forward withA.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 for further enhancement of thecompensation. All the eight appeals have been heard together andare now being disposed of by a common judgment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The arguments advanced by Mr.V.Ravi, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader (AS) representing the appellant in A.S.Nos.959to 962 of 1997 and respondent in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 and byMr.M.S.Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondents inA.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 and claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262to 265 of 2000 were heard. The material records were also perused.6. Admittedly, the claimants, who figure as appellants inA.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 and respondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of1997 preferred by the Referring Officer, were the land owners andinterested persons from whom the land concerned in these appeals,measuring a total extent of 1.55 acre was compulsorily acquired bythe State for a public purpose, namely for Villivakkam - Avadi Roadand Ambattur Bye-pass Road. The Notification under Section 4(1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act was published on 08.03.1985. The awardenquiry was completed and award was passed by the Land AcquisitionOfficer on 04.03.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer, afterconsidering the statistics regarding the sales that had taken placewithin a period of three years prior to the date of 4(1)Notification in respect of the properties situated in theneighbourhood, relied on a sale deed dated 29.09.1984 under whichan extent of 1822 sq.ft. of land was sold for a sum of Rs.4,555/-as a vacant unapproved house site as the data sale and based on thesaid sale deed, fixed the market value of the acquired land at therate of Rs.872/- per cent. This was done after allowing adeduction of 20% from the market value reflected in the data saletowards conversion of larger extent into smaller house sites andreclamation charges. The claimants chose to receive the amountawarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer underprotest and made a request for making a reference under Section 18of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the court for fixingreasonable amount as compensation. Accordingly, the referencesmade by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of all the fourclaimants were taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge,Poonamallee as LAOP Nos.204, 206, 207 and 209 of 1988. Thecorrectness of the market value fixed by the learned SubordinateJudge is being questioned by the appellant in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of1997 contending that the same is excessive whereas the challenge tothe said fixation of market value by the learned Subordinate Judgehas been made by the claimants (appellants in A.S.Nos.259 to 262 of1997) contending that the same is less than the actual marketvalue.7. The points that arise for consideration are: " 1. whether the market value fixed by thelearned Subordinate Judge is not reasonable?2. Whether the compensation awarded by thecourt below deserves reduction?3. Whether the compensation awarded by thecourt below deserves to be enhanced?". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. The learned Special Government Pleader representing theappellant in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 and respondent inA.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000, argued that the amount awarded by thecourt below is highly excessive and exorbitant and hence the samedeserved drastic reduction in the hands of this court. The learnedSpecial Government Pleader pointed out the fact that as againstRs.872/- fixed as the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer,the court below chose to fix Rs.5,600/- as the market value whichresulted in more than six fold increase and the vast differencefound in the valuation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer andthe court below would give an indication that the market valueadopted by the court below was unreasonably higher. The learnedSpecial Government Pleader also advanced arguments to the effectthat the selection of the sale under Ex.R2 as the data salereflecting the market value should have been upheld by the courtbelow and that the court below should also have adopted the verysame market value to deny enhanced amount of compensation claimedby the claimants.9. It is the further contention of the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader that though the court below has rightly rejectedEx.C4 and C5 as sales not reflecting the correct market value ofthe acquired land, it has committed an error in relying on the saleunder Ex.C2, as the data sale reflecting the market value.According to his contention, the said property concerned in Ex.C2is situated far away from the acquired land and is in the midst ofdeveloped residential area, whereas the acquired land was notdeveloped to such an extent and hence the comparison of theacquired land with the land sold under Ex.C2 was improper. It isthe further contention of the learned Special Government Pleaderthat even assuming that the sale under Ex.R2 could not be relied onas the correct market value of the acquired land, the learnedSubordinate Judge ought to have relied on Ex.C1 and taken a lesseramount as market value of the acquired land. According to hissubmission, under Ex.C1 a land measuring 4,800 sq.ft with abuilding put up in an extent of 900 sq.ft. was sold for a sum ofRs.70,000/- and when the nature of construction is taken intoconsideration, only Rs.35,000/- can be fixed as the land cost andif such calculation is adopted, the land value shall come to alittle more than Rs.1,000/- per cent.10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants,who figure as appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 andrespondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997, would submit that Ex.C1was produced to show that the land value adopted by the LandAcquisition Officer relying on Ex.R2 could not be sustained andthat the other documents produced by the claimants are capable ofproving that the value of the acquired land, as on the date of 4(1)Notification, was not less than Rs.15,000/- per cent. The learnedcounsel for the claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000and respondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 argued further thatthe court below committed an error in not relying on Exs.C4 and C5and that the court below failed to consider the escalation trend inthe market value. It is the further contention of the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel for the claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 andrespondents in A.S.Nos.962 to 965 of 1997 that the market valueshould have been fixed not below Rs.15,000/- per cent relying onEx.C5 and that at least the market value should have been fixed atRs.13,200/- per cent on the basis of the award of the Sub-court,Poonamallee passed in LAOP No.1/1989, a copy of which has beenmarked as Ex.C4. It is also his contention that when many saleshave taken place in the vicinity of the acquired land within theperiod of scrutiny and all sales are proved to be genuinetransactions, it shall not be proper to rely on the sale deed whichreflected the least value or to strike an average between the leastand the highest value and that in such cases the higher valueshould be adopted as the market value of the acquired land unlessthere are special reasons for deviating from the same.11. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants inA.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 and respondents in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of1997 relied on the following judgments in support of his contentionthat a higher amount should be fixed as the market value of theacquired land as on the date of 4(1) Notification.1)Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaunthrough its Secretary Vs. Bipin Kumar and Another reported in(2004) 2 SCC 283;2)Ravinder Narain and Another Vs. Union of India reported in(2003) 4 SCC 481;3)Sri Rani M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur v.The Collector of Madras reported in 1969 (1) MLJ 45; and4)The State of Madras, represented by the Collector of Madras,Madras-1 v. P.Seetharamammal, represented by her Advocate SriS.Krishnaswami Iyer and others reported in 1972(1) MLJ 58.12. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaunthrough its Secretary Vs. Bipin Kumar and Another reported in(2004) 2 SCC 283 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that comparablesales method is the best acceptable method for determining themarket value of the acquired land. Similar view was expressed bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Narain and Another Vs. Unionof India reported in (2003) 4 SCC 481. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Rani M.VijayalakshmammaRao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras reported in1969 (1) MLJ 45 has held that the market value of the acquired landshould be determined on the basis of sales of similar lands in thelocality and in doing so higher value fetched by those lands andnot the average of the values reflected in those sales should beadopted as the market value of the acquired land. In the saidjudgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the followingobservations:-"Whatever that may be, it seems to us to beonly fair that where sale deeds pertaining todifferent transactions are relied on behalf of theGovernment, that representing the highest value https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ should be preferred to the rest unless there arestrong circumstances justifying a differentcourse."The said proposition was relied on and followed by a Division Benchof this court in The State of Madras, represented by the Collectorof Madras, Madras-1 v. P.Seetharamammal, represented by herAdvocate Sri S.Krishnaswami Iyer and others reported in 1972(1) MLJ58. 14. In this case, though the Land Acquisition Officer mighthave included hundreds of sales in his sales statistics for fixingthe market value of the acquired land, ultimately he has rejectedall other sales as not reflecting the market value of the acquiredland and relied on the sale under Ex.R2 as the one reflecting thecorrect market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1)Notification. It should be kept in mind that a reference underSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not an appealagainst the award of the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) andthe court dealing with a reference under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 is not an appellate forum to give a verdictas to the correctness or legality of the award passed by theCollector (Land Acquisition Officer). The proceedings in the LAOPon the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 is akin to a suit, wherein claimants occupy the positionequivalent to plaintiff and Referring Officer occupies theposition equivalent to defendant. When such is the case, the courtdealing with the reference and of course the appellate forum,cannot look into any document which has not been admitted andproved in evidence in the concerned case. 15. In the case on hand, the only document produced on theside of the Referring Officer to prove the market value as on thedate of 4(1) Notification is Ex.R2. Ex.R1 is the award of the LandAcquisition Officer and Ex.R3 is the plan. Therefore, theclaimants cannot rely on the particulars found in the sales datacollected by the Land Acquisition Officer to prove the market valueof the acquired land. If at all the claimants have got any cluefrom the said data sales, they could have obtained certified copiesof the sale deeds reflecting higher value and prove the transactionunder the sale deed to be genuine by producing the same and leadingevidence. In this case, except Exs.C1, C2, C4 and C5, theclaimants have not relied on any other sale that is found in thesales data collected by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore,we have to consider the comparability of the sales under Ex.C1, C2,C5 and R2 and also the comparability of the market value fixed inanother LAOP as found in Ex.C4 with the acquired land. 16. Ex.C1 is a sale deed pertaining to a piece of landmeasuring 4,800 sq.ft wherein there was a RCC construction to theextent of 900 sq.ft. The said sale was effected on 23.02.1982.Section 4(1) Notification was published on 08.03.1985. Normallysales that have taken place within three years prior to the date of4(1) Notification alone should be taken into consideration to fix https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the market value of the acquired land by adopting the comparisonmethod. Ex.C1 came into existence more than three years prior tothe date of 4(1) Notification. On that ground alone Ex.C1 can beexcluded from the purview of consideration for the purpose offixing the market value of the acquired land. In addition to thatthe sale was in respect of a land with building. The land valueand building value have not been separately provided therein.Therefore, it shall be difficult to ascertain the land value alone.The learned counsel for the claimants have made it clear that thesaid document was produced only to show that the Land AcquisitionOfficer searched for a document which reflected the least valuerather than selecting a sale data which took place in respect of anadjoining land. The claimants have also produced other documentsto show that lands in the vicinity were sold at higher rates duringthe period of scrutiny. Therefore, this court finds no defect orinfirmity in the exclusion of the sale under Ex.C1 as the basis forfixing the market value of the acquired land.17. Ex.C4 is the certified copy of the judgment of the learnedSubordinate Judge, Poonamallee dated 13.06.1989 made in LAOPNo.1/1989. The property concerned in the said LAOP is the onecomprised in Survey No.666/96 in Ambattur village. With the Blueprint plan marked as Ex.C3, this court is able to find that thesaid property is located far away from the acquired land, that too,in a well developed thick residential area. Therefore, the saidland cannot be taken as the data land having equal facilities withthe acquired land to say that the market value of both the landsshould have been equal as on the date of 4(1) Notification.Furthermore, the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the landconcerned in the said LAOP, namely Survey No.666/96, was startedonly on 16.05.1986 (the date on which the 4(1) Notification wasissued in that case) which was more than one year since theacquisition proceedings in the case on hand was started.Therefore, the market rate fixed in the said LAOP cannot becompared with the market value of the land acquired in the case onhand as on the date of 4(1) Notification. Hence, this court findsno defect or infirmity in the judgment of the court below inplacing no reliance on Ex.C4 for fixing the market value of theacquired land.18. So far as Ex.C5 is concerned, the same cannot be taken asa sale genuinely reflecting the correct market value. A smallpiece of land having an extent of 150 sq.ft. was sold under theoriginal of Ex.C5 on 31.01.1983 for a sum of Rs.5,500/-. It cannotbe stated that the price for which the sale was effected was theprice for which a willing purchaser and a willing vendor wouldagree in the normal course of transaction. On the other hand,there are reasons to believe that such a small piece of land couldbe of strategic importance to the purchaser therein and that couldbe the reason why he had chosen to agree for a higher rate than theactual rate the property could bring in the open market.Furthermore, the land sold under Ex.C5 is comprised in SurveyNo.204/1B in Varadarajapuram, of course a hamlet of Ambatturvillage. The said property is situated at a far off place on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ south of east-west Chennai-Arakkonam railway line whereas theacquired land is situated at a considerable distance on the northof the said railway line. Therefore, the omission of the learnedSubordinate Judge to rely on Ex.C5 as the data sale reflecting themarket value of the acquired land, cannot be termed erroneous ordefective. 19. After eliminating all the above said documents, thereremains two documents for consideration to fix the market value ofthe acquired land. They are Ex.R2 relied on by the ReferringOfficer and Ex.C2 relied on by the claimants. Almost both thedocuments came into existence within a gap of 1½ months, to saythat they are contemporary documents. Ex.R2 is the certified copyof a sale deed dated 29.09.1984. Under Ex.R2 an extent of 1822sq.ft. of land comprised in Survey No.618/6 of Ambattur village wassold for a sum of Rs.4,555/-. It was sold as a manavari dry landdescribing it to me meant for use as a house site. The descriptionof the property would show that the same was an unapproved lay out.Apart from the same, the very fact that the market value of theproperty was shown to be Rs.6,835/- will show that the same couldnot be a genuine sale reflecting the correct market value. None ofthe persons like the vendor, purchaser or attestor of the said saledeed has been examined to prove the genuineness of the transactionand the correctness of the amount quoted as the sale consideration.When compared with the property sold under Ex.C2, the property soldunder Ex.R2 is not nearer to the acquired property. Therefore,this court is of the considered view that the trial court hasrightly held that the said document could not be the one based onwhich the market value of the acquired land could be fixed.20. Under Ex.C2, an extent of 2031 sq.ft. of land was sold fora sale price of Rs.35,340/-. The said property, in all respectsresembles the acquired land. Therefore, this court finds no defector infirmity in the judgment of the trial court selecting Ex.C2 asthe data sale reflecting the market value of the acquired land ason the date of 4(1) Notification. As per Ex.C2, an extent of 2031sq.ft. was sold for a sum of Rs.35,340/-, which works out toRs.7,586.40P per cent. However, the learned Subordinate Judgeerroneously took it as Rs.7,000/- per cent, allowed a deduction of20% and fixed the market value at Rs.5,600/- per cent. Hence thesame deserves interference.21. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, BTDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib reportedin (2002) 3 SCC 688 and in Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LandAcquisition Officer Vs. Shaik Azam Saheb and Others reported in(2009) 4 SCC 395, argued that when a sale deed prior to the date of4(1) Notification is taken as the data sale for fixing the marketvalue, price escalation should also be taken into account and thusa higher rate than the one reflected in Ex.C2-sale deed should havebeen fixed as the market value of the acquired land, as on the dateof 4(1) Notification. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe above said cases has observed that when a sale which took place https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prior to 4(1) Notification is taken as the basis for fixing themarket value, then the market value shall be increased taking intoconsideration the escalation in the market value @ 10% per eachcompleted year. The sale under Ex.C2 took place on 15.11.1984.Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 08.03.1985. Therefore,there is only a gap of four months and hence strictly speaking, itis a case in which we can rule out addition due to escalation inthe market value. However, considering the fact that the acquiredproperty is located in a fast developing area and the propertiessurrounding acquired have been developed into commercial sites forlocating shops, theatres etc., this court deems it fit to allow 4%increase in the market value to offset the escalation. Then themarket value of the property as on the date of 4(1) Notificationcan be worked at Rs.7,889.86, which can be rounded to Rs.7,890/-.As the acquired property is larger extent and the property comparedis a smaller property, as rightly done by the learned SubordinateJudge, 20% deduction must be allowed towards conversion of thelarger property into house sites or commercial sites and fordevelopmental charges. Thus, the market value of the acquired landcan be fixed at Rs.6,312/- per cent. This court comes to theconclusion that the market value as on the date of 4(1)Notification should have been fixed at the rate of Rs.6,312/- percent. In view of the same the total compensation should be workedout as follows:Market value of the land@ Rs.6,312/- per cent x 155 cents= Rs. 9,78,360.0030% solatium as per Section 23(2)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894=Rs. 2,93,508.00Additional market value as perSection 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act calculated at therate of 12% per annum on the marketvalue for the period from the dateof 4(1)notification till the date of award of the land AcquisitionOfficer. i.e.from 08.03.1985 to 04.03.1988 (i.e.1091 days) is =Rs. 3,50,920.15________________The total amount of compensationto which the appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000/claimants are entitled =Rs.16,22,788.15 (Rounded to Rs.16,22,788.00)Out of the said amount, each one of the claimants/appellantsin A.S.Nos.262 to 265/2000 shall be entitled to 1/4 share, that isequal to Rs.4,05,697/-. The amount already received as per theaward of the Land Acquisition Officer by each one of the claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to 265/2000 shall be deducted from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said amount and the balance shall be payable as enhancedcompensation.On the enhanced amount of compensation, the claimants shall beentitled to an interest @ 9% per annum from the date on which theGovernment took possession of the land, namely 05.03.1988, for aperiod of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum tillthe amount is deposited.22. In the result, A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 are dismissed.A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 are allowed in part and the award of thetrial court is modified as follows:a) The total market value of the property is fixed atRs.9,78,360/-b) A sum of Rs.2,93,508.00 being 30% of the market value isawarded as solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land AcquisitionAct.c) A sum of Rs. 3,50,920.15 is awarded as additional marketvalue calculated @ 12% per annum on the market value from the dateof 4(1) notification till the date of award.d) The total amount of compensation, (market value + solatium+ additional market value) is fixed at Rs.16,22,788.00. Thisamount shall be divided equally among the claimants. Each claimantshall be entitled to Rs.4,05,697/- representing 1/4 share. e) From the above said amount shown in clause (d), the amountreceived as per the award of the Land Acquisition Officer by eachone of the claimants (each one of the appellants in A.S.Nos.262 to265 of 2000) shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paidas enhanced compensation.f) On the enhanced amount of compensation, respondents inA.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997 and claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.262to 265 of 2000 shall be entitled to an interest @ 9% per annum fromthe date on which possession was taken by the government, namely05.03.1988 for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of15% per annum till the amount is deposited.Andg) There shall be no order as to cost in these appeals.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.Registrarasr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1)The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee2)The Special Tahsildar (RC) Saidapet, Madras 15Copy to : The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.+ 4 CCs to Mr.M.S.Subramanian,Advocate,SR.59466 to 59468,59472Judgment in A.S.Nos.959to 962 of 1997 andA.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000CK(CO)EM/21.12.09