M/s. GMMCO Limited v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

7.Chennai Metro Rail Limited,rep.by its Managing Director,No.11/6 Seethammal Road,Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.8.The Tahsildar,Alandur Taluk @ Nanganallur,Kancheepuram District,Chennai – 600 065.9.The Executive Officer,St.Thomas Mount Cantonment Board,St.Thomas Mount,Chennai – 600 016.10.The High Power Committee,Government of Tamil Nadu,Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.11.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Tambaram Division, Kancheepuram District,Chennai – 600 045.12.Hindustan Motors Ltd.,1st Floor, R.R.Towers IV,A-16/17, T.V.K.Industrial Estate,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032....RespondentsPrayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarifiedmandamus calling for the records of the 5th respondent comprised inNa.Ka.25308/2010/N2, dated 13.1.2011 and the consequential order ofthe 11th respondent comprised in Na.Ka.2533/2010/A dated 16.8.2011and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently directthe respondents to act pursuant to the petitioner's application forpatta transfer dated 31.12.2008 in accordance with the true andcorrect order passed by the 11th respondent dated 18.6.2011 alsobearing reference Na.Ka.2533/2010/A, wherein the petitioner'sentitlement to the patta have been clearly accepted and transfer thepatta, in terms of the petitioner's applications dated 31.12.2008 tothe name of the petitioner.For Petitioner :Mr.Sathish Parasaran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For RR-1 to 6,8,10 & 11:Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan,Advocate Generalassisted byMr.V.Jayaprakashnarayanan,Additional Government PleaderFor 7th Respondent:Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Sr.Counselfor Mr.V.Rama JegadeesanFor 9th Respondent:Mr.C.Mohanfor M/s.King & PatridgeFor 12th Respondent:Mr.K.SenthilkumarO R D E RThe prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated13.1.2011 passed by the 5th respondent/The District Collector,Kancheepuram District and the consequential order of the 11threspondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram Division,Kancheepuram District dated 16.8.2011 and direct the respondents toact pursuant to the petitioner's application for patta transferdated 31.12.2008.2.The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writpetition as per the pleadings of the petitioner are as follows:(a)Petitioner is a Group of Company, involved inmanufacturing activities including automobile and components,engineering products, building products, cement, castings,electrical pans, lighting products, etc., and it has turnover inexcess of US$ 1.16 billions with human resources comprising of over22,000 employees worldwide.(b)It is claimed in the affidavit that the petitionerpurchased property measuring total extent of 67.14 grounds inR.S.NO.512, Contonment of St.Thomas Mount from M/s.Hindustan MotorsLimited/12th respondent herein, through four different sale deedsvide Document Nos.341/2006 dated 27.2.2006; 1655/2006 dated7.8.2006; 742/2007 dated 30.7.2007; and 1372/2010 dated 31.8.2010,all registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar-II,Saidapet. On 31.12.2008 the petitioner made two applications fortransferring patta in its name. It also purchased another extent ofproperty being land and building, measuring an extent of 16.99grounds in R.S.No.512 (part), St.Thomas Mount contonment, Chennaithrough sale deed dated 31.8.2010 registered as DocumentNo.1732/2010.(c)Due to traffic volumes on the roads of Chennai, theGovernment of Tamil Nadu announced a project by name "Chennai Metro https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rail" and the Government has created a special purpose vehicleimplementing Chennai Metro Rail Project (CMRP). The Chennai MetroRail Limited (CMRL)/7th respondent herein was incorporated on3.12.2007 under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a joint venture ofGovernment of India and Government of Tamil Nadu with equal equityholdings. The above project was proposed to be implemented byacquiring lands from land owners through negotiations and uponnegotiations failing, to invoke the appropriate acquisition laws toacquire the said lands.(d)CMRL issued a letter on 25.11.2008 to the petitionerstating that it intends to procure lands required for Chennai MetroRail Project through negotiations from willing owners and thepetitioner was asked to furnish documents of title pertaining to thepetitioners property for determining the value. Petitionerfurnished the said documents with a covering letter on 2.2.2009,which was acknowledged by the CMRL on 3.2.2009. The petitioner waswilling to negotiate and transfer the required lands in favour ofthe 7th respondent (CMRL) on paying proper market value. (e)The land required for Chennai Metro Rail Project is anextent of 2477.5 sq.mtrs in S.No.512 G.S.T.Road, out of the totalextent of 3 acres and 31,051 sq.ft. According to the petitioner itis in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the subject lands.Before its purchase the land was owned by the M/s.Hindustan MotorsLimited. M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited purchased the property fromM/s.Blackwood Hodge (India) Private Limited through a sale deeddated 21.3.1967 registered as document No.1463/1967 and the saidM/s.Blackwood Hodge (India) Private Limited purchased the propertyfrom one Hakim Abdul Sattar Khan through sale deed dated 23.8.1957registered as Document No.2286/1957 on the file of the Sub RegistrarOffice, Saidapet.(f)According to the petitioner, the Hindustan Motors Limitedapplied for transfer of patta and obtained patta in their namebearing patta No.907 dated 26.2.1977, which was issued by theadditional Head Quarters Tahsildar, Saidapet. It is also claimed inthe affidavit that as per the records of Contonment Board, theproperty is in possession of the petitioner and its predecessors intitle. The Contonment has muted the property in the name ofM/s.Hindustan Motors Limited for tax purposes and building plan weresanctioned in the year 1978. The petitioner and its predecessorsownership is also claimed to be recognised by the Contonment as wellas by the Government in the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu UrbanLand Ceiling Act, 1978 by granting exemption by G.O.Ms.No.1920Revenue Department dated 30.8.1990 etc. Petitioner claims that itis having records to show the payment of urban land tax from 1981and its ownership right is fully recognised.(g)The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.43 Revenue Departmentdated 2.2.2011 stating that the Government is the owner of thesubject land and the compensation payable to the land should be paidto the Government for taking over the land by the 7th respondent.The said Government Order was challenged by the petitioner in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.3277 of 2011 and the said Government order was set aside bythis Court by order dated 25.4.2011 and remitted the matter forfresh consideration. It was further directed that the petitionerhas to give an undertaking to receive the amount of compensationi.e, a sum of Rs.8,28,40,000/-, without prejudice to file necessaryapplication for enhancement of compensation amount and also to handover possession so as to enable the Chennai Metro Rail Project to goahead.(h)As against the said order the State Government filedW.A.No.1937 of 2011 and the same is pending. According to thepetitioner, during the course of the arguments in writ appeal, theHonourable First Bench was informed that this writ petition filed bythe petitioner is pending and therefore the First bench by orderdated 17.11.2011 directed this Court to dispose of the writpetition, preferably within a period of three weeks. Furtherdirection was issued to the Government to deposit a sum ofRs.8,28,40,000/- with the Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Chennai-104, within one week, which shall be kept in deposit until furtherorders. Based on the said direction this writ petition is heard anddisposed of by this order.(i)The contention raised in the writ petition is that theDistrict Collector/5th respondent has given a direction to cancel thepatta issued in favour of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited after givingnotice to the parties, based on which the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Tambaram/11th respondent herein by order dated 16.8.2011directed the Tahsildar, Alandur/8th respondent herein to cancel thepatta and make necessary changes in the revenue records and send areport. It is further contended, by virtue of the direction givenby the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who wasbound by the direction, in turn, without looking into the documentsand title deeds, has given a finding against the petitioner andordered cancellation of patta and make necessary entries in therevenue records.(j)It is the further contention of the petitioner that oneRevenue Divisional Officer issued notice and conducted hearing, whogave a report against the Government, who was subsequentlytransferred and another Revenue Divisional Officer was posted, whowithout hearing the petitioner and ignoring the earlier report,passed the impugned order. Therefore there is proceduralirregularity in passing the impugned order.(k)It is also the contention of the petitioner that the pattagranted in favour of the erstwhile owner viz., M/s.Hindustan Motorsin the year 1977 has not been challenged by anyone and the wholeaction is initiated based on the application of the petitionerseeking to transfer the patta in its name and the said procedureadopted is without jurisdiction.3.The Tahsildar, Alandur/8th respondent herein has filedcounter affidavit contending as follows:(i)No patta was issued in the name of petitioner company so https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ far and the patta issued in the name of predecessor of thepetitioner company was cancelled on the ground that the patta wasissued to 'Government Time Expired Lease Land'. Patta was issuedon mistaken identity in the year 1977 and the same is rectified now.Petitioner is having alternate remedy of preferring appeal againstthe order and without filing appeal petitioner cannot file the writpetition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.(ii)The land in S.No.512 measuring an extent of 3 acres and31,051 sq.ft. of St.Thomas Mount village are classified as 'TimeExpired Lease Land' in the village account and revenue records andthe said land is a poromboke land vested with the Government. The7th respondent submitted a requisition for alienation of 1924 sq.mtsfor CMRL project by letter dated 14.7.2010. The District Collector,Kancheepuram called for necessary alienation proceedings throughletter dated 20.7.2010. The Tahsildar, Alandur submitted alienationproposal on 13.9.2010, which was recommended to the PrincipalSecretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk on11.11.2010.(iii) The District Revenue Officer also called upon thepetitioner Company to produce records for proving its ownership.The Company appeared before the District Revenue officer andproduced their defence. Petitioner company failed to prove theirpredecessor's ownership/title continuously for the period from 1907to 1957 and the document produced will not confer any legal rightand do not bind the Government. The District Revenue Officer hasobserved that the land is a poromboke land and patta was issuedmistakenly and the Government has accorded temporary permission tothe CMRL to enter upon the land, by G.O.Ms.No.43 PlanningDevelopment and Special Initiative Department, dated 2.2.2011. Eventhough the said Government Order is set aside and remanded,W.A.No.1927 of 2011 is filed by the Government and the same ispending.(iv)It is also stated in the counter affidavit that thepetitioner submitted a petition to the Commissioner of LandAdministration to consider the issue of patta, who in turn forwardedthe same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, throughDistrict Collector, Kancheepuram to conduct enquiry. The RevenueDivisional Officer, Tambaram conducted enquiry and petitioner alsoproduced records.(v)It is further stated in the counter affidavit that theoriginal lease was granted by East India Company in favour of oneGatheeja Begum Sahiba on 27.4.1906 upto 15.3.1907, which was notrenewed. The Government took a policy decision not to renew thelease and ordered restoration and resumption of such lands. Thelessor at one stage had failed to surrender the land to theGovernment but some party sold the land to persons, who claimed tobe the first vendor. The said irregularity was repeated and finallyvested with the petitioner. Based on the said sale transactions thepatta was managed to be obtained in the year 1977, which was issuedon mistaken identity. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (vi)The classification of the land stands as poromboke land inthe revenue register. The Revenue Divisional Officer having foundthat the land is a poromboke land, initiated the process of enquiryto cancel the irregular/illegal patta. The original lessor hadsuppressed the fact of time expired lease and sold the land formonetary gain which will not bind the Government. The grant ofexemption from Urban Land Ceiling Act and levy of Urban Land Taxwere done based on production of irregular patta. (vii) The previous records were traced including the originalclassification. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, aftergiving opportunity to the petitioner to defend his claim, passed theorder on 16.8.2011 stating that the land in question is a porombokeland and cancelled patta No.907 issued in favour of thepetitioner's predecessor in the year 1977. The said order wasserved on the petitioner on 3.9.2011, against which this writpetition is filed.(viii) It is repeatedly stated in the counter affidavit thatthe patta transfer effected on 26.2.1977 in favour of M/s.HindustanMotors Limited, was by mistake. Petitioner had purchased land fromM/s.Hindustan Motors Limited and applied for transfer of patta. Thepetitioner having purchased land without title from the saidHindustan Motors, it cannot claim any right over the property.(ix)The Contonment Board records classifying the land as B2patta was based on the sale deeds. The approval of plan granted byContonment Board was without verification of the old revenuerecords. The plan approval itself is illegal. The mistake doneearlier was set right by not ordering transfer of patta. The orderof the Collector is only a direction to Revenue Divisional Officerto conduct enquiry by giving opportunity to the occupier of the landand pass orders restoring the government land. As the then RevenueDivisional Officer had not passed order, he sent a report to theDistrict Revenue Officer on the outcome of the enquiry and thepresent Revenue Divisional Officer, after verifying the records haspassed the final orders. Pointing out all these facts, the 8threspondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.4.The 9th respondent/Contonment Board filed a separatecounter affidavit stating that the subject property is classified asB2 land, under the management of the State Government and the TamilNadu government is vested with power under the Tamil Nadu PattaPass Book Act, 1983, based on which patta was issued in the year1977 and further proceedings were taken by the Contonment Board.5.The 12th respondent also filed separate counter affidavitstating that the 12th respondent purchased the property in the year1967 and was in continuous and uninterrupted possession with fullrights of ownership and at no point of time anyone claimed theproperty as poromboke land. Patta was granted not in the year 1977,but in the year 1955 based on the sale deed issued in favour of the12th respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, relying on the voluminous documents submitted that thesubject property was purchased under registered sale deeds based onthe patta issued in favour of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited and thepetitioner is a bona fide purchaser. The Government Order issued inG.O.Ms.No.43 Planning Development and Special Initiative Department,dated 2.2.2011 was not accepted as valid order by this Court and adirection was issued to the 7th respondent to pay the amount ofcompensation to the petitioner and get possession of the land. Thelearned counsel also cited the decision of the Division Bench ofthis Court reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 (Vishwas Footwear CompanyLtd. v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram) and contended that theRevenue Divisional Officer cannot decide title disputes between theparties and parties should be directed to approach the competentcivil court for adjudicating the title disputes. The learnedcounsel pointed out that in the said judgment the Division Bench byjudgment dated 28.7.2011 not agreed with the decision of the learnedsingle Judge in directing the petitioner therein to approach theCivil Court and held that the Revenue Divisional Officer or theDistrict Collector cannot go into the disputed question regardingtitle. The Division Bench cancelled the order passed by the RevenueDivisional Officer holding that the same is without jurisdiction andrestored the patta granted in favour of the appellant and directedthe parties to approach the civil Court to establish title and toseek cancellation of patta. The said decision was subsequentlyfollowed by another Division Bench in the decision reported in 2011(5) CTC 241 (C.Sabesan Chettiar v. The District Revenue Officer,Coimbatore District). The learned counsel also relied on thejudgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1969 (1) SCR 245 : AIR1969 SC 48 (Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India) for theproposition that the higher authority cannot give direction to aquasi-judicial authority to act in a particular manner whiledeciding the dispute and the quasi judicial authority must actindependently and impartially.7.Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General, on theother hand submitted that the writ petition filed is notmaintainable and if the petitioner is aggrieved about the orderpassed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it can only approach theCivil Court to establish its title. The learned Advocate Generalalso submitted that the order passed by this Court setting aside theGovernment Order is pending in W.A.No.1927 of 2011 and therefore thewrit petition is not maintainable and the same is to be dismissed.8.Mr.C.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the 9threspondent submitted that classification of land as B2 land cannotbe taken advantage of by the petitioner as B2 land includes landunder the State Government land leased out to individuals by StateGovernment and land owned by the individuals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.Mr.R.Thyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 7threspondent submitted that it has to be given possession of the landof an extent of 2477.5 sq.mtrs for continuing the Chennai Metro RailProject and as directed by the First Bench of this Court, thecompensation amount is already deposited. The learned Senior Counselfurther submitted that if this writ petition is disposed of, theFirst Bench can be moved for getting appropriate direction in thepending writ petition.10.I have considered the rival submissions made by thelearned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels and SeniorCounsel appearing for the respective respondents.11.It is the contention of the petitioner that it haspurchased the subject lands by sale deeds for valuable considerationand it is in continuous and uninterrupted possession. It is also thecase of the petitioner that the petitioner's predecessors in titleviz., M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited and M/s.Blackwood Hodge (India)Pvt. Ltd. have sold the property as owner and not as lessees of theGovernment. It is also the case of the petitioner that patta wasissued in favour of M/s.Hindustan Motors Ltd in patta No.907 on23.2.1977 by Tahsildar, Saidapet. The said patta was not challengedby any person, including the Government by filing appeal before theRevenue Divisional Officer, District Revenue Officer, or before theGovernment. It is the further case of the petitioner that after thepurchase of the properties it has applied for transfer of patta andthe impugned order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,Tambaram, solely on the direction issued by the District Collector,Kancheepuram through his proceedings dated 13.1.2011. In the saidproceedings the District Collector directed the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Tambaram to take immediate steps to cancel the patta andthe said order was passed by the District Collector without anynotice to the petitioner.12.The then Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram conductedenquiry after giving notice to the petitioner and submitted a reportstating his inability to pass orders. After transfer of the saidRevenue Divisional Officer, the subsequently posted RevenueDivisional Officer, without conducting any enquiry passed the order,which is in violation of the well accepted principle that 'a personhears must decide' in terms of the judgments reported in (2011) 2SCC 258 (Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. DesignatedAuthority) and also against statutory provision under Section 10(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, which reads asfollows:"10(3)(a) Before passing an order on anapplication under sub-section (1), the Tahsildarshall follow such procedure as may be prescribedand shall also give reasonable opportunity to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the parties concerned to make theirrepresentations either orally or in writing. Ifthe Tahsildar decides that any modificationsshould be made in respect of entries in thePatta Pass Book, he shall pass an orderaccordingly and shall make such consequentialchanges in the Patta Pass Book as appear to himto be necessary for giving effect to his order."In the above cited decision reported in (2011) 2 SCC 258 theHonourable Supreme Court considered similar provision under theCustoms Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury)Rules, 1995 and in paragraphs 83 and 84 held thus,"83. The procedure prescribed in the 1995Rules imposes a duty on the DA to afford to allthe parties, who have filed objections andadduced evidence, a personal hearing beforetaking a final decision in the matter. Evenwritten arguments are no substitute for an oralhearing. A personal hearing enables theauthority concerned to watch the demeanour ofthe witnesses, etc. and also clear up his doubtsduring the course of the arguments. Moreover, itwas also observed in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v.A.P.SRTC (AIR 1959 SC 308), if one person hearsand other decides, then personal hearing becomesan empty formality.84. In the present case, admittedly, theentire material had been collected by thepredecessor of the DA; he had allowed theinterested parties and/or their representativesto present the relevant information before himin terms of Rule 6(6) but the final findings inthe form of an order were recorded by thesuccessor DA, who had no occasion to hear theappellants herein. In our opinion, the finalorder passed by the new DA offends the basicprinciple of natural justice. Thus, the impugnednotification having been issued on the basis ofthe final findings of the DA, who failed tofollow the principles of natural justice, cannotbe sustained. It is quashed accordingly."(Emphasis Supplied)13.The petitioner has filed an application seeking transferof patta. While considering the said request, the District Collectorhas given a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram tocancel the patta already issued, which is to be treated as'preemptive action/pre-judging the issue'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.When a dispute is raised regarding the title of theproperty, the parties can establish their right only before theCivil Court by adducing evidence, oral and documentary, to arrive ata just decision.(a)The Division Bench of this Court in 2011 (5) CTC 94(Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. v. The District Collector,Kancheepuram) considered the above said issue elaborately andquashed the order of Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling the pattaissued by the Tahsildar and directed the parties to approach theCivil Court to establish title. (b)Same view is taken in the subsequent Division Benchdecision reported in 2011 (5) CTC 241 (C.Sabesan Chettiar v. TheDistrict Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District).15.In the light of the said judgments, I am of the view thatthe impugned order passed by the 5th respondent dated 13.1.2011 andthe consequential order passed by the 11th respondent dated 16.8.2011cannot be sustained and accordingly they are set aside. As thetitle of the petitioner is now disputed, the prayer sought for totransfer patta in favour of the petitioner by application dated31.12.2008 cannot be ordered. The said issue is well settled in thefollowing decisions:(a)In the decision reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501(P.R.Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar) the SupremeCourt held that jurisdiction under Article 226 would remaineffective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and inappropriate situation, and writ of mandamus cannot be sought for,especially when determination of the questions involved did notmerely involve interpretation of documents alone, but requireadducing of oral evidence, and writ proceedings cannot be asubstitute for a civil suit.(b)In the decisions reported in AIR 1976 SC 475 : (1976) 1SCC 292 (Arya Vyasa Sabha and Others v. Commissioner of HinduCharitable and Religious Institutions & Endowments, Hyderabad andOthers); AIR 2003 SC 1060 : (2003) 2 MLJ 49 : (2003) 4 SCC 317(Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. AndAnother); (2001) 7 SCC 1 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. NationalUnion Waterfront Workers); (2006) 9 SCC 256 (Himmat Singh v. Stateof Haryana and Others); (2007) 7 MLJ 687 (Food Corporation of Indiav. Harmesh Chand); 2005 (5) CTC 695 (SC) (S.D.O.Grid Corporation ofOrissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram) etc., also the Honourable Supreme Courtheld that disputed facts cannot be decided in writ petition andparties can approach the appropriate forum. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.In fine, the writ petition is partly allowed on the aboveterms. The observations made in this order need not be construed asaccepting the case of the petitioner/contesting respondents, in anyfuture proceedings which may be initiated by either party. There isno order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.vrSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Secretary to the Government,Planning, Development and Special Initiatives Department,Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.3.The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.4.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner Land Administration,Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.5.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District,Kancheepuram – 631 501.6.The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District,Kancheepuram – 631 501.7.The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Rail Limited,No.11/6 Seethammal Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.8.The Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk @ Nanganallur,Kancheepuram District, Chennai – 600 065.9.The Executive Officer, St.Thomas Mount Cantonment Board,St.Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.10.The High Power Committee, Government of Tamil Nadu,Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Tambaram Division, Kancheepuram District, Chennai – 600 045.12.Hindustan Motors Ltd.,1st Floor, R.R.Towers IV,A-16/17, T.V.K.Industrial Estate,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.+ 1 cc to M/s. V. Ramajegadeesan, Advocate SR No.77604+ 1 cc to M/s. King & Partridge, Advocate SR No.77535+ 1 cc to M/s. K. Senthilkumar, Advocate SR No.77502CK(CO)SR/20.12.2011 Order inW.P.No.20518 of 2011