Lakshmi Rangamurthi v. Competent Authority of Urban Land Ceiling and Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, T.Nagar

For Petitioner:Mr.R.MuthukumarasamySenior Counselfor M/s.S.RameshFor Respondents :Mr.R.M.MuthukumarGovernment Advocatefor 1st respondentMr.K.MohanamuraliSpecial Panel Counselfor 2nd respondent ORDERThis writ petition came to be posted on being specially orderedby the Hon'ble Chief Justice by order dated 27.7.2011.2. In this writ petition, the original writ petitioner,represented by his Power Agent sought a direction to forbear therespondent from in any manner interfering with the right, possessionand enjoyment of the land to the extent of 1550 Square Meters in PlotNo.27, R.S.No.210/2-A 1-A/23 in Thiruvanmiyur Village in view of theTamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999 (for short, "Act 20 of 1999") repealing theTamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short,"Act 24 of 1978") 3. The writ petition came to be allowed by a learned Judge ofthis Court on 11.9.2004. It was stated that since Act 20 of 1999 hadrepealed Act 24 of 1978 and in the light of the judgment of theSupreme Court in Angoori Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, JT 2000 Supp1 (SC) 295, the writ petition was allowed. But subsequently, thefirst respondent filed a writ appeal, being W.A.No.1198 of 2006. Thesame was dismissed by a Division Bench on 13.9.2006. The Union ofIndia, running the Department of Posts, also filed a review petition,being Review Petition No.64 of 2007 to review the order order passedby the Division Bench. That was also rejected by the Division Benchon 23.4.2008. Thereafter, the Union of India preferred special leavepetitions before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.24582-24586 of 2008.The special leave petitions were converted to civil appeals and werenumbered as Civil Appeal Nos.2424-2428 of 2009. The civil appealswere allowed by final order dated 13.4.2009. The Supreme Court,after setting aside the orders passed by the Single Judge as well asthe Division Bench, directed this Court to rehear the writ petitionafter impleading the Union of India as party respondent and a requestwas also made to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.Subsequently, the Union of India has been made as a party secondrespondent by this Court. However, during the pendency of theproceedings, since the original writ petitioner K.S.Rangamurti hadpassed away, his wife – Lakshmi Rangamurti got herself substituted aswrit petitioner by order dated 5.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the first respondent,a counter affidavit dated 12.7.2011 has been filed. On the side ofthe second respondent, a counter affidavit dated 10.9.2009 has beenfiled. 5. The petitioner had also filed W.P.M.P.Nos.572 and 573 of 2009for amending the original prayer in the writ petition and also forleave to raise additional grounds. Both the petitions are alsoordered today.6. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned SeniorCounsel appearing for Mr.S.Ramesh, counsel for the petitioner andMr.K.Mohanamurali, learned counsel for the second respondent andMr.R.M.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for thefirst respondent. The original file was also circulated and perusedby this Court.7. It is seen from the records that the original petitioner,Late K.S.Rangamurti belonging to I.A. & A.S. service filed a returnunder Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act, 1976 (amended in 1978) before the AssistantCommissioner and Competent Authority on 28.9.1976 in respect of hisholdings in Plot No.27, R.S.No.210 (Part) in Thiruvanmiyur Villagemeasuring 88 Cents. He also requested for an exemption for holdingexcess land in terms of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, by a letter dated 12.9.1978. Therequest of the original petitioner was rejected by the Governmentvide letter dated 16.4.1980. 8. It was thereafter the first respondent/Competent Authority,by a notice dated 13.5.1980 issued under Section 9(4) along withSection 9(1) of Act 24 of 1978, expressed their intention to acquirethe excess vacant land measuring 1550 Square Meters. The originalpetitioner, by a letter dated 10.7.1980, requested that since theland was owned by him as well as his father-in-law, who was the ownerof the Plot No.26, it may allowed to be retained and Plot No.27 maybe taken over by the Government as excess vacant land, as it will beadvantageous to both the Government and the petitioner. But hisrequest was not considered by the then Assistant Commissioner (ULT),who issued a final statement under Section 10(1) of Act 24 of 1978 on5.9.1980.9. After the notice was served, notifications under Section 11(1) and 11(3) of Act 24 of 1978 were published in the governmentgazette on 24.6.1981 and 16.9.1981 respectively. Thereafter, noticeunder Section 11(5) of Act 24 of 1978 was issued on 22.10.1981,directing the original petitioner to deliver possession of the land.The draft notices under Sections 12(7) and 12(6) of Act 24 of 1978were also sent to the petitioner on 27.11.1981. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. Thereafter, the original petitioner, by letter dated30.12.1981, requested the Government to pay the entire amount ofcompensation in one lumpsum for the excess land acquired by them, andby a reply dated 4.1.1982, an advance stamped receipt for payment of25% of the amount payable under Section 12(6) of Act 24 of 1978 wassent to the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent, by hisletter dated 23.2.1982, requested the Tahsildar, Mylapore-TriplicaneTaluk to depute a Revenue Inspector of his office for takingpossession of the excess vacant land from the original petitioner andthe possession of the excess vacant land of 1550 Square Meters washanded over to the Tahsildar on 23.2.1982.11. The then Assistant Commissioner (ULT), by a letter dated29.4.1982, sent a demand draft dated 24.4.1982 paying a sumof ` 5,212.50 towards 25% of the payment for the cost of excessvacant land taken over by the Government. It was received by theowner on 21.5.1982. Subsequently, the entire amount payable underSection 12(6) of Act 24 of 1978 was paid to the original owner.12. Thereafter, the second respondent, by a letter dated27.2.1985, made a request to the first respondent for allotment ofthe said land for constructing a post office and quarters for thestaff. The Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.Ms.No.2774, RevenueDepartment, dated 30.12.1989, allotted the said plot to the secondrespondent for construction of post office and staff quarters oncollection of cost of acquisition plus 40% service charges, subjectto conditions. Subsequently, the amount towards the land cost waspaid by the Postal Department and a transfer certificate was issuedby the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk transferring the land infavour of the Postal Department and it was also taken over by theAssistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai Division on21.9.1993. 13. It was long after this exercise, the State of Tamil Nadurepealed Act 24 of 1978 by the Act 20 of 1999. Act 20 of 1999 wasbrought into force on 16.6.1999 and Section 3 of the Act reads asfollows:"Section 3. Savings: (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not effect:-(a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3)of Section 11, possession of which has been taken overby the State Government and any person duly authorisedby the State Government in this behalf or by theCompetent authority;(b) The validity of any order granting exemption under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sub-section (1) of Section 21 or any action takenthereunder.(2) Where-(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the StateGovernment under Section (3) of Section 11 of thePrincipal Act but possession of which has not been takenover by the State Government or any person dulyauthorised by the State Government in this behalf or bycompetent authority; and(b) any amount has been paid by the State Governmentwith respect to such land, then such land shall not berestored unless the amount paid if any, has beenrefunded to the State Government."14. The name of the land owner has also been recorded in thename of the Postal Department by a communication sent by the RevenueDepartment dated 30.4.2003. In fact, it was also stated thatsubsequent to the taking over of the possession, the PostalDepartment had put up a board in the plot stating that the landbelongs to the Postal Department. The second respondent wassanctioned with funds for proceeding with the construction of postoffice and staff quarters. 15. After receiving the compensation for the excess vacant urbanland taken over from him, the petitioner, on coming to know about theland being allotted to the Postal Department, sent a communication tothe Hon'ble Minister for Postal Communication of the Government ofIndia and requested him to release the land and at this stage, thepetitioner filed the writ petition attempting to take advantage ofSection 3 of Act 20 of 1999. 16. In the affidavit of the power agent, representing theoriginal writ petitioner, he has stated as follows:"4. After the issue of Section 10(1) Statements, withoutfollowing the procedure contemplated under Section 9(5),the respondent proceeded to issue a Notification underSection 11(1) dated 24.6.1981 followed by a furthernotification under Section 11(3) declaring that thelands in question, on and from 23.9.1981, shall bedeemed to have been acquired by the State Government andvested absolutely in the State Government. This wasfollowed by a notice dated 22.10.1981 under Section 11(5) for the surrender of the excess vacant land sodetermine, followed by payment of paltry compensationamount." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Notwithstanding these facts, it was contended that since the originalpetitioner continues to be in physical possession of the propertywithout any interference, he is entitled to take advantage of theTamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999.17. In the original affidavit, there was nowhere any contentionraised regarding the procedure for acquisition not being followed bythe first respondent/State. It is only after the matter was remandedby the Supreme Court, in the petition for raising additional grounds,such contentions are raised.18. Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of a Division Bench ofthis Court in V.Somasundaram and others v. Secretary to Government,Revenue Department, Chennai and others, [2007] 1 MLJ 750. This isfor the purpose of contenting that if no notice was issued in termsof Section 11(5) of Act 24 of 1978, taking possession of the landbecomes non est and subsequent to Act 20 of 1999, no liberty will beavailable for the authorities to proceed to follow the procedure.19. He also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court inG.P.Saraswathi and others v. Assistant Commissioner-cum-CompetentAuthority (Urban Land Ceiling), Salem and another, [2010] 8 MLJ 449,wherein this Court held that if no notice under Section 11(5) of Act24 of 1978 was sent to the original owner and the exercise underSection 11(5) of Act 24 of 1978 was not carried, the question oflawful possession under Section 11(6) of Act 24 of 1978 will notarise. 20. Further reliance was placed upon a subsequent Division Benchjudgment of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by itsSecretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai v. Nandagopaland others, [2011] 4 MLJ 577 for contending that in the event ofphysical possession not being taken in the prescribed manner, theland owners are entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Act 20of 1999 and in paragraph [7], it was observed as follows:"7. In order to find out as to whether the notice asrequired under Section 11(5) of the Act read with Rule 8of the Rules was served on the respondents or not, wecalled for the records and perused. Admittedly, thereis no such notice sent through registered post, exceptthe competent authority affixing the said notice on thevacant site, which should be only a last resort aftermaking an attempt to send the notice by registered postand in spite of the same, they could not be served withthe notice. In that view of the matter, even assumingthat the possession is said to have been taken ascontended by the learned Special Government Pleader,such taking over of possession cannot be considered to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be valid in the eye of law so long as the provisions ofSection 11(5) of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Ruleswas not complied with. On this ground alone, thecontention of the respondents that in the event ofphysical possession not being taken in the prescribedmanner, the provisions of the Repealing Act would cometo the benefit of the respondents must be accepted."21. Per contra, Mr.K.Mohanamurali, learned counsel referred tothe judgment of this Court in G.Sadagopan, rep. by Power of AttorneyD.Sampath v. Special Commissioner, Land Reforms and AssistantCommissioner, ULT and ULC, Egmore, (W.P.No.8604 of 2004, dated7.6.2011), wherein it was stated that if the lands were taken overafter following appropriate procedure and the land owner has alsoreceived compensation, then the land owner cannot come to this Courtlong after such exercise was completed and if he is guilty of delayand laches, the Court should not entertain any review of the exercisealready undergone.22. He has also referred to a judgment of a Division Bench inS.Balasubramaniam and another v. The Special Commissioner andCommissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai and others, 2009-4-LW826 for contending that in case of long delay in challenging theacquisition, the Court can deny the relief and even on the questionof physical possession, in paragraph 9(c), the Court distinguishedthe judgment of the Supreme Court in B.N.Bhagde v. M.D.Bhagwat, AIR1975 SC 1767 in the following words:"9(c) In AIR 1975 SC 1767 (supra), the Supreme Courtheld that there can be no question of symbolicalpossession and there should be actual possession. Thatwas in relation to the Land Acquisition Act. But in thesame decision, the Supreme Court had held, "the presenceof the owner or the occupier of the land is notnecessary to effectuate the taking of possession. It isalso not strictly necessary as a matter of legalrequirement that notice should be given to the owner orthe occupant of the land that possession would be takenat a particular time....". The Supreme Court also heldin that case that it is not an absolute and inviolablerule that a declaration by beat of drum or otherwisewould be sufficient to constitute the taking ofpossession. They held that it would depend on the factsof the case. Therefore, this decision also does nothelp the appellants."23. He further referred to a judgment of this Court in MariaJoseph Roy v. Competent Authority, Chennai, [2008] 2 MLJ 143, whereinthis Court denied relief to a land owner who came to the Court afteraccepting the compensation and long after the proceedings were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ completed. 24. Even on the question of vesting of the land, he referred toa judgment of this Court in N.Seethalakshmi v. The Secretary toGovernment and others (W.P.(MD) No.25 of 2009, dated 3.11.2010),wherein this Court held that if the land has been taken over underthe provisions of Act 24 of 1978 and had got vested with theGovernment and then if it is allotted to some third party, the thirdparty is entitled to proceed with the possession of the land andcarry out the work for which they have acquired the land and in caseit was able to prove that subsequent to the allotment the third partyhad proceeded by issuing appropriate tender and also incurredexpenditure, it will prove the fact that possession was taken over bythe third party and it was also held that if the cause of actionarose on the basis of non issuance of notice under Section 11(5) ofAct 24 of 1978, the writ petition cannot be filed belatedly by takingadvantage of Act 20 of 1999.25. A perusal of the original file shows that the petitioner hadaddressed several letters to the officer concerned regarding thetaking over of the land and is fully aware of the proceedingsinitiated by the respondents. The notices addressed to thepetitioner residing at No.15, Srinivasan Street, St.Mary Road,Chennai – 600 028 were received on his behalf and the acknowledgmentis also found enclosed in page [255] of the original file. Even thedemand draft for having received the 25% of the amount was receivedby the petitioner at his Hyderabad office, where he was working atthe relevant time, and the acknowledgment card is found at page[265]. The final payment was also received by the petitioner, asaverred in the counter affidavit, and there is no denial of the same.The first respondent has put up a note stating that on inspection thenotice board put up by the Postal Department was found in the land inquestion and also the postal authorities have informed that they havetaken possession of the land. It was also stated that the originalpetitioner was not in possession of the land the possession has beenhanded over to the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk even in theyear 1982 itself and that Act 20 of 1999 will not apply to them.26. Therefore, faced with these undenied facts, the learnedSenior Counsel contended that under Section 3(1)(a) of Act 20 of 1999if the possession is not taken over by the State Government pursuantto the vesting under Section 11(3) of the Act 24 of 1978, then Act20 of 1999 will come into operation and the possession containedtherein is only physical possession and not symbolic possession. 27. The nature of taking possession of the acquired land cameto be considered by the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs.Viswam (D) by Lrs, JT 1996 (2) SC 549. In that case, afterconsidering the judgment in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat,AIR 1975 SC 1767, this Court observed that while taking possession of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a large area of land (in this case 339 acres) a pragmatic andrealistic approach had to be taken. This Court then examined thecontext under which the judgment in Narayan Bhagde's case had beenrendered and held as under:"It is settled law by series of judgments of thisCourt that one of the accepted modes of takingpossession of the acquired land is recording of amemorandum or Panchanama by the LAO in thepresence of witnesses signed by him/them and thatwould constitute taking possession of the land asit would be impossible to take physicalpossession of the acquired land. It is commonknowledge that in some cases the owner/interestedperson may not cooperative in taking possessionof the land."28. The said judgment came to be quoted with approval andfollowed by the Supreme Court recently in Sita Ram Bhandar Society,New Delhi Vs. Lt.Governor, Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi and others, JT 2009(12) SC 324, where after referring to Viswam's case (supra), inparagraph [9], it was observed as follows:"9. It would, thus, be seen from a cumulativereading of the aforesaid judgments, that whiletaking possession of a large area of land with alarge number of owners, it would be impossible forthe Collector or the Revenue Official to entereach bigha or biswas and to take possessionthereof and that a pragmatic approach has to beadopted by the Court. It is also clear that oneof the methods of taking possession and handing itover to the beneficiary department is therecording of a Panchnama which can in itselfconstitute evidence of the fact that possessionhad been taken and the land had vested absolutelyin the Government."29. But, the Supreme Court in NTPC Ltd. v. Mahesh Dutta reportedin [2009] 8 SCC 339, in paragraphs 16, 25 to 30, 37,39 and 44, hasheld as follows:-"16. It is a well-settled proposition of law that in theevent possession of the land, in respect whereof anotification had been issued, had been taken over, theState would be denuded of its power to withdraw from theacquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Act. Whetheractual or symbolic possession had been taken over fromthe landowners is essentially a question of fact. Takingover of possession in terms of the provisions of the Act https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would, however, mean actual possession and not symbolicpossession. The question, however, is as to whether thefinding of fact arrived at by the High Court thatphysical possession, indeed, had been taken over by theCollector is correct or not.25. Strong reliance has been placed upon a decision ofthis Court in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat,[1976] 1 SCC 700 wherein it has been held: (SCC pp.711-12, para 28)“28. … We think it is enough to state that whenthe Government proceeds to take possession of theland acquired by it under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, it must take actual possession of theland, since all interests in the land are soughtto be acquired by it. There can be no question oftaking ‘symbolical’ possession in the senseunderstood by judicial decisions under the Codeof Civil Procedure. Nor would possession merelyon paper be enough. What the Act contemplates asa necessary condition of vesting of the land inthe Government is the taking of actual possessionof the land. How such possession may be takenwould depend on the nature of the land. Suchpossession would have to be taken as the natureof the land admits of. There can be no hard-and-fast rule laying down what act would besufficient to constitute taking of possession ofland. We should not, therefore, be taken aslaying down an absolute and inviolable rule thatmerely going on the spot and making a declarationby beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficientto constitute taking of possession of land inevery case. But here, in our opinion, since theland was lying fallow and there was no crop on itat the material time, the act of the Tahsildar ingoing on the spot and inspecting the land for thepurpose of determining what part was waste andarable and should, therefore, be taken possessionof and determining its extent, was sufficient toconstitute taking of possession. It appears thatthe appellant was not present when this was doneby the Tahsildar, but the presence of the owneror the occupant of the land is not necessary toeffectuate the taking of possession. It is alsonot strictly necessary as a matter of legalrequirement that notice should be given to theowner or the occupant of the land that possessionwould be taken at a particular time, though it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may be desirable where possible, to give suchnotice before possession is taken by theauthorities, as that would eliminate thepossibility of any fraudulent or collusivetransaction of taking of mere paper possession,without the occupant or the owner ever coming toknow of it.”This decision, therefore, itself is an authority for theproposition that no absolute rule in this behalf can belaid down. In Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat,[1998] 4 SCC 387 (SCC p.398, para 14) and P.K. Kalburqiv. State of Karnataka, [2005] 12 SCC 489 (SCC p.491,para 6) the same view has been reiterated.26. These decisions, as noticed hereinbefore, do not laydown an absolute rule. The question as to whether actualphysical possession had been taken in compliance withthe provisions of Section 17 of the Act or not woulddepend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.27. When possession is to be taken over in respect ofthe fallow or patit land, a mere intention to do so maynot be enough. It is, however, the positive stand by theappellant that the lands in question are agriculturalland and crops used to be grown therein. If the lands inquestion are agricultural lands, not only actualphysical possession had to be taken but also they wererequired to be properly demarcated. If the land hadstanding crops, as has been contended by Mr RajuRamachandran, steps in relation thereto were required tobe taken by the Collector. Even in the said certificateof possession, it had not been stated that there werestanding crops on the land on the date on whichpossession was taken. We may notice that delivery ofpossession in respect of immovable property should betaken in the manner laid down in Order 21 Rule 35 of theCode of Civil Procedure.28. It is beyond any comprehension that when possessionis purported to have been taken of the entire acquiredlands, actual possession would be taken only of aportion thereof. The certificate of possession waseither correct or incorrect. It cannot be partiallycorrect or partially incorrect. Either the possessionhad actually been delivered or had not been delivered.It cannot be accepted that possession had been deliveredin respect of about 10 acres of land and the possessioncould not be taken in respect of the rest 55 acres ofland. When the provisions of Section 17 are taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recourse to, vesting of the land takes effectimmediately.29. Another striking feature of the case is that all theactions had been taken in a comprehensive manner. TheCollector in his certificate of possession dated 16-11-1984 stated that the possession had been taken over inrespect of the entire land; the details of the land andthe area thereof had also been mentioned in thecertificate of possession; even NTPC in its letter dated24-2-1986 stated that possession had not been deliveredonly in respect of land situated in four villagesmentioned therein. Indisputably NTPC got possession over10.215 acres of land. It raised constructions thereover. 30. It is difficult to comprehend that if NTPC had paid80% of the total compensation as provided for under sub-section (3-A) of Section 17 of the Act, out of 65.713acres of land it had obtained possession only in respectof about 10.215 acres of land and still for such a longtime it kept mum. Ex facie, therefore, it is difficultto accept that merely symbolic possession had been taken.37. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, wascorrect in its view.39. It is not a case where oral evidence was required tobe taken. There is no law that the High Court is deniedor debarred from entering into a disputed question offact. The issue will have to be determined keeping inview the fact situation obtaining in each case. If adisputed question can be determined on the basis of thedocuments and/or affidavit, the High Court may notordinarily refuse to do so. In a given case, it may alsoexamine witnesses.44. Furthermore the Collector under the Act was actingas a statutory authority. When possession has been shownto have been taken over not only in terms of sub-section(1) of Section 17 of the Act but also by grant of thecertificate and other documents, Illustration (e) ofSection 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 must be held to beapplicable. Once such a presumption is drawn the burdenwould be on the State to prove the contra. The burden ofproof could be discharged only by adducing clear andcogent evidence. Not only the aforementioned documentsbut even the judicial records clearly show that thepossession had in fact been taken."(Emphasis Added) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30. In the light of the above legal precedent, the petitioner'sclaim cannot be countenanced by this Court for more than one reason.The petitioner never protested against the proceedings. Secondly, hehas taken the entire payment towards compensation and thirdly, thefile produced shows that the possession was taken over by a landdelivery receipt and pursuant to the government order, the same washanded over to the second respondent/Postal Department, who also paidthe land cost and have also got sanctioned amount for construction ofpost office and staff quarters. Even in the affidavit filed insupport of the original writ petition, the petitioner did not talkabout the flaw in the procedure adopted for acquiring the land. Evenin his letter addressed to the State Government and the Hon'bleMinister for Postal Communication, he had only asked for redeliveryof land, as the Postal Department had not utilised the land. In anyevent, since the question of possession has been answered by theSupreme Court in more than one judgment, since referred to above, andthe inspection report showed that the Postal Department notice boardis very much present in the land in question, the contention raisedby the petitioner to the contrary cannot be countenanced by thisCourt.In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.RegistrarsasiTo:1. The Competent Authority of Urban Land Ceiling and Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, T.Nagar at No.84, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam Chennai – 600 024.2. The Senior Superintendent Union of India, Post Office (South) Department of Postal T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.477271 cc to Mr.K.Mohanamurali, Advocate, Sr.No.472041 cc to Mr.S.Ramesh, Advocate, Sr.No.47211W.P.No.12793 of 2004UG {CO}TP/10.8.2011.