Madras High Court
Ramanathapuram Periya Mohallam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 January, 2022
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
W.A.No.3531 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 08.10.2021
DATE OF DECISION : 06.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.3531 of 2019
Ramanathapuram Periya Mohallam
Muslim Jamath Nirvaaha Mandram,
Rep. By its President Haliba Haroon Rashid,
S/o.Abdul Hameed Khan,
9/2 Vetrilaikara Street,
Ramanathapuram – 623 501. .. Appellant
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By the Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
3.The Director of Survey and Settlement,
Chennai – 5.
4.The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur
now at the office of the Directorate of Survey &
Settlement, Chennai.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3531 of 2019
5.The Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai
now at the office of the Directorate of Survey &
Settlement, Chennai.
6.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram.
7.The Commissioner,
Ramanathapuram Municipality,
Ramanathapuram.
8.The Tahsildar,
Ramanathapuram. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against
the order dated 28.06.2018 passed in W.P.No.6398 of 2006 by the learned Single
Judge of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
For R1 to R6&R8 : Mr.T.Arunkumar, GA
For R7 : Mr.P.Srinivas
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal has been filed by Ramanathapuram Periya Mohallam Muslim Jamath Nirvaaha Mandram, represented by its President Mr.Haliba Haroon Rashid, Ramanathapuram, questioning the correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6398 of 2006, dated 28.06.2018, refusing to interfere with the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the 2/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai / second respondent herein, classifying the land in question as Government Oorani Poramboke.
2. Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant is a Surveyed Wakf under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Act and owning an extent of 3.72 acres in old Survey No.287/932, Pattinamkathan Village, Ramanathapuram. The said property is Oorani(water body) and the public entering into the Pallivasal used to wash their hands and feet in the Oorani for offering worship. Water for the Pallivasal is drawn from the Oorani which is situated adjacent to the Pallivasal comprised in Survey No.287/931. The Oorani lands have always been enjoyed as part of the Pallivasal. Whileso, Pattinamkathan Village was taken over under the provisions of Madras Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1948 (in short “the Act”). At the time of settlement, Oorani lands of the appellant Pallivasal have been classified as Pallivasal Oorani, but, it was erroneously registered as Poramboke, that too, without issuing notice to the appellant. 3/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019
3. Arguing further, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lands in Survey No.287/932 measuring an extent of 3.72 acres belong to the appellant Pallivasal and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands. After some time, when the appellant discovered the error in the Registry classifying the lands as Poramboke, the appellant moved the second respondent to re-vest the Registry with respect to the Oorani lands in question in their favour. The second respondent, by order dated 10.11.1987, directed the appellant to move the competent authority for seeking remedy under the provisions of the Civil Law. Thereafter, when the appellant moved the first respondent, the said authority, vide proceedings dated 13.03.1990, directed that as the lands in question have already been classified as Oorani Poramboke, the appellant Pallivasal may file a revision petition before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur/fourth respondent herein.
4. Subsequently, when the appellant filed a revision in R.P.No.9 of 1992 before the fourth respondent, who, by order dated 28.06.1992, dismissed the same on the ground that the lands in question are non-ryoti lands on the notified date and therefore, claim made under Section 11(a) of the Act cannot be countenanced, with a further direction to treat the lands in question as 4/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 Poramboke. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant moved before the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai/third respondent herein in R.P.No.23 of 1992, whereby the third respondent, by order dated 14.11.1994, held that the claim of the appellant under Section 11(a) cannot be considered, however, the said authority directed the fifth respondent to consider the claim of the appellant under Section 19-A of the Act. Subsequently, the fifth respondent, vide proceedings dated 05.06.1995, sent a proposal to the third respondent for grant of patta to the appellant for the lands in question under Section 19-A of the Act. On receipt of such proposal, the third respondent, by order dated 22.06.1995, directed that the patta be issued to the appellant in respect of an extent of 1.3685.0 sq.meters in T.S.No.70 (Old Survey No.287/932-A), Pattinamkathan Village, Ramanathapuram, subject to a condition that the appellant pays the ground rent to be fixed by the fifth respondent. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 21.08.1995, the fifth respondent also fixed the ground rent at Rs.23.25 and thereby directed that the patta be issued in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the 8 th respondent/Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram, effected the necessary changes in the revenue records. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality/7th respondent herein attempted to lay a road in the said Oorani lands of the appellant, hence, the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 1998 on 5/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 the file of the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram, against the 7th respondent and the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, claiming for permanent injunction. Pending the suit, the 7th respondent conceded the right, title and interest of the appellant to the lands in question and thereby, a joint memo of compromise also came to be filed, in which, the 7th respondent undertook not to lay any road in the said property. Placing the said joint memo on record, the suit was dismissed as not pressed on 10.12.2002.
5. When the matter stands as above, the Special Commissioner & Commissioner, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai/second respondent herein issued a notice in August, 2005, in a Revision Petition dated 03.02.1997 filed by the 7th respondent municipality against the order passed the third respondent dated 22.06.1995. Finally, after hearing both parties, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 21.10.2005, allowed the claim petition filed by the 7th respondent and thereby directed that the lands be classified as Government Oorani Poramboke. As the said proceedings dated 21.10.2005 of the second respondent is per-se illegal and vitiated by material irregularity, the appellant filed W.P.No.6398 of 2006 challenging the same. 6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that learned Single Judge failed to see that the very assumption of the second respondent that the Oorani was originally classified as Government Oorani Poramboke is clearly without any basis, as the Oorani was classified as Pallivasal Oorani, not as Government Poramboke. One of the reasons given by the second respondent that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 19-A of the Act is erroneous, inasmuch as the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1971, clearly preserves the rights of religious institutions excluding the application on Section 19-A of the Act to the Ooranis owned and possessed by the Religious Institutions. Moreover, the revision petition filed by the 7th respondent before the second respondent is clearly barred by time, because, the said revision petition was filed nearly two years from the date of order passed by the third respondent. This apart, in a suit filed by the appellant in O.S.No.33 of 1998 on the file of Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram, the seventh respondent had filed a joint memo conceding the right, title and interest of the appellant to the lands in question, therefore, the second respondent ought not to have entertained the review petition filed by the 7th respondent. With these submissions, he has prayed for allowing the writ appeal. 7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019
7. Per contra, Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 and 8, argued that Pattinamkatha Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk, was taken over by the Government under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. At the time of settlement, the land in question was registered as Government Poramboke – Pallivasal Oorani. Subsequently, on the petition filed by the appellant, the Commissioner of Land Administration and the Government, vide their letters dated 10.11.1987 and 13.03.1990, have directed the appellant to seek remedy before the Competent Authority in accordance with law. Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision petition before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur/4th respondent herein, seeking patta for the lands in question under Section 11(a) of the Act and the said Settlement Officer, after examining the documents placed before him and after inspecting the lands in question, had categorically rejected the claim of the appellant for patta and thereby ordered to continue the Registry as Oorani Poramboke. Against the order of the Settlement Officer, the appellant filed a revision petition to the Director of Survey and Settlement, who, vide order dated 14.11.1994, dismissed the said revision petition, but, with a direction to the Assistant Settlement officer, Madurai, to 8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 consider the claim of the appellant under Section 19A of the Act and then send a proposal in that regard. In turn, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, vide his proceedings dated 05.06.1995, sent his proposals to the Director of Survey and Settlement for grant of patta under Section 19-A of the Act. Thereafter, the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai/3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 22.06.1995, had granted patta for the lands in question in favour of the appellant, with a further direction to the Assistant Settlement Officer to fix ground rent for the lands in question and as such, the Assistant Settlement Officer also vide proceedings dated 21.08.1995 fixed the ground rent. After the revision filed by the Municipal Commissioner/7th respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration/second respondent, vide proceedings dated 21.10.2005, set aside the order passed by the Director of Survey and Settlement and thereby ordered restoration of the lands in question to its original classification as Government Oorani Poramboke in revenue records. Against which, when writ petition was filed, learned Single Judge of this Court also dismissed the same holding that the Oorani belongs to the general public and therefore, as per Section 3 of Act 26 of 1948, the non-ryotwari lands vest with the Government and no persons including religious person can claim their possessory right over the lands in question. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that 9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 the lands in question were originally belonged to Pallivasal and therefore, Assistant Settlement Officer had sent a proposal to the Director of Survey and Settlement for grant of patta, is legally not sustainable in law.
8. Referring to Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act No.30 of 1963) (in short “Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963”), inverted by Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1976, he has stated that no patta can be granted in respect of even private tanks and Ooranies. When the same issue came up for consideration before the learned Division Bench in Damaodardas Chatra Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [1997 (3) CTC 631], it was held that while adverting to Section 3(b) of the Abolition Act, which is in pari materia with Section 3(b) of the present Act that it vests all irrigation works in the Government and a right to ryotwari patta is created under the Act only in respect of private land and that too after an investigation whether there were such lands on the date of the vesting. Section 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, which provides for the vesting of minor inams in the Government, declares that every minor inams including all communal lands and poramboke, waste lands, pastur lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and ooranies i.e., including private tanks and ooranies and irrigation works etc., shall 10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. Therefore, when the law is well settled by this Court in Damodradas Chatram's case, the argument of the appellant that the proceedings of the fifth respondent classifying the lands in question as Poramboke is erroneous, is misconceived, in view of Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, he pleaded.
9. We find merits on the above said submissions of the learned Government Advocate. Initially, when Pattinamkathan Village was taken over under the Act, the lands covered in Survey No.287/932 measuring an extent of 3.72 acres have been registered as Poramboke. However, after noticing the lands in question as Poramboke in the settlement proceedings, the appellant moved the Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai/second respondent herein to re-vest the Registry with respect to the lands in question in favour of the appellant. But, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 10.11.1987, directed the appellant to move the competent authority for seeking remedy under the provisions of civil law. It is to be noted that the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai/third respondent, by order dated 14.11.1994, held that the claim of the appellant under Section 11(a) of the Act cannot be countenanced. Such an approach of the third respondent, in our 11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 considered view, is perfectly in order by virtue of Section 10(b) and 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, which are given as under:-
10. Lands in respect of which no ryotwari patta will be granted.---
Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 8 and 9 no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any land falling under any of the categories specified below and situated within the limits of any minor inam ---
a) forests;
b) beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels;
10-A. Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of private tank or oorani.--- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani.
(2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of publication of Tamil Nadu Inam Estates, Leasholds and Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1975, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled and for the purposes of compensation under this Act, the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which no person is entitled to ryotwari patta under Section 8.
12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 A cursory reading of the above said provision conspicuously speaks that no patta shall be granted in regard to any private tank or Oorani, therefore, the proposal sent by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai/5th respondent, vide proceedings dated 05.06.1995, recommending for grant of patta, as well as the subsequent order passed by the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai/third respondent herein, vide proceedings dated 05.06.1995, directing 8th respondent/the Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram, to issue patta in respect of the lands in question in favour of the appellant under Section 19-A of the Act are legally not tenable, inasmuch as Section 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 declares that every minor inams including all communal lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and Ooranies i.e., including private tanks and Ooranies, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. Thus, in our considered view, the argument of the appellant that the appellant being a religious institution is entitled to claim their possessory right over the lands in question is not sustainable in law.
10. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in L.Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2005 (4) CTC 1] has emphasized the importance of preserving the 13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 ponds, lakes, tanks, etc. as follows:-
“5. Since time immemorial ponds, tanks and lakes have been used by the people of our Country, particularly in rural areas, for collecting rain water for use for various purposes, such ponds, tanks and lakes have thus been an essential part of the people's natural resources. However in recent years these have been illegally encroached upon in many places by unscrupulous persons who have made their constructions thereon, or diverted them to other use. This has had an adverse effect on the lives of the people.
7. In this context, it will be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others, AIR 2001 SC 3215.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 are relevant for our present purpose which read as under: - "
12. On this finding, in our view, the High Court ought to have confirmed the order of the Commissioner. However, it proceeded to hold that considering the said report the area of 10 biswas could only be allotted and the remaining five biswas of land which have still the character of a pond, could not be allotted. In our view, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order of the High Court. There is concurrent finding that a pond exists and the area covered by it varies in the rainy season. In such a case no part of it could have been 14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 allotted to anybody for construction of house building or any allied purposes.
13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature' s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13 having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites."
8. A reading of the above referred passages of the said Judgment shows that the endeavour of the State should be to protect the material resources like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain, etc., in order to maintain the ecological balance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has highlighted that such maintenance of ecological balance would pave the away to provide healthy environment which would enable the people to enjoy a quality life which is 15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 essence of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. While on the one hand, the State is bound to maintain the natural resources with a view to keep the ecological balance intact and thereby provide a healthy environment to the public at large in the State of Tamil Nadu, having regard to the precarious water situation prevailing in the major part of the year, it is imperative that such noted water storage resources, such as tanks, odais, oornis, canals etc. are not obliterated by encroachers.
9. In this connection reference may be made to Article 48A of the Constitution which states: - "Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life: - The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country."
12. Apart from the above we may also refer to Article 51A(g) of the Constitution which makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life". This duty can be enforced by the Court, vide Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund Vs . Union of India (supra, vide para-15).
13. In M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 715 (vide para - 1 0) the Supreme Court observed:- "Articles 16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. It is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The "Precautionary Principle" makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the cause of environment degradation. We have no hesitation in holding that in order to protect the two lakes from environmental degradation it is necessary to limit the construction activity in the close vicinity of the lakes.
14. Therefore, we direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary legal steps to remove the alleged encroachments made by the respondents 6 to 12 as well as the petitioner over Odai Poramboke in Iyan Punji Survey No.100/1 at No.247, Tatchur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District measuring 5 acres and 70 cents. Inasmuch as this writ petition has come before us by way of a public interest litigation, we take this opportunity to direct the State Government to identify all such natural water resources in different parts of the State and wherever illegal encroachments are found, initiate appropriate steps in 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 accordance with the relevant provisions of law for restoring such natural water storage resources which have been classified as such in the revenue records to its original position so that the suffering of the people of the State due to water shortage is ameliorated.”
11. In yet another decision, a Division Bench of this Court in Damodardas Chatram's case (cited supra) held that the effect of vesting of tanks and Ooranies, in absolute terms, is in favour of the State itself and therefore, that would disentitle any one from claiming ryotwari patta in respect of public irrigation tanks or irrigations works. For better appreciation, paragraph No.4 thereof is extracted below:-
“4. Section 3(b) of Tamil Nadu 30 of 1963 which provides for the vesting of minor inams in the Government declares that every minor inams including all communal lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, minds and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and ooranies i.e., including private tanks and ooranies and irrigation works etc., shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. The right of every person who is lawfully entitled to the kudiwaram interest in inam land alone is preserved for 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 being considered and countenanced with issue of patta. As a matter of act, Section 19 illustrates certain categories of lands in respect of which there is an embargo upon the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of any one and beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, and drainage surplus or irrigation channels are also some such category of lands in respect of which no ryotwari patta could be granted. Section 10 of the Act inverted by Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1976 prohibited the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of even private tanks or ooranies. While that be the probation, the probation contemned in Section 10 and 10-A cannot be construed in a manner as to enable patta being granted in respect of the lands comprised in public irrigation tanks as such merely because neither Section 10 nor Section 10-b specifically made any reference to the public irrigation tank. The fallacy in the submission of the learned counsel, according to us, lies in ignoring the scope of vesting under Section 3(b) of the Act and the effect and consequence of such vesting as laid down by their Lordships of the full Bench in the decision reported in Lakshmipathy Narakan v. State of Madras, 72 L.W. 505 while construing an analogous and in pari material provisions in an allied legislation. The effect of vesting of tanks and ooranies, which in our opinion would take within it purview 19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 all irrigation tanks, public or private and also the specific mention about the irrigation works, is total and absolute and such vesting in absolute terms in favour of the state itself disentitle any one from claiming ryotwari patta in respect of public irrigation tanks or irrigation works. Consequently, we are unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel that in the absence of any specific embargo in Section 10(b) and 10-A of the Act there was no impediment for the parties to get patta in respect of the lands comprised in the irrigation tanks in question.”
12. A Full Bench of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu [2015-5-L.W.397], while dealing with the encroachment of water bodies, held that the State being a trustee of these natural resources such as tanks, lakes etc., has to necessarily act consistent with the nature of such trust, for, the vesting of these lands and water bodies with the Government is to benefit the public and any attempt made by the Government to act in a manner derogatory to the object for which the land was vested, has held to be illegal.
13. The aforesaid various decisions of our High Court as well as the Apex 20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 Court clearly settled the legal position holding that it is the duty of every citizen to protect and preserve the natural water bodies including Oorani, lakes, etc. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid ratio coupled with Section 10 and 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 prohibiting the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of even private tanks or Ooranies, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the proceedings dated 21.10.2005 of the second respondent restoring the lands in question to its original classification as Government Oorani Poramboke in the revenue records. In fine, for the reasons stated above, the writ appeal stands dismissed as devoid of any merit. No Costs.
(T.R., J.) (T.V.T.S., J.) 06.01.2022 rkm Index:yes speaking T.RAJA, J.
21/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3531 of 2019 and T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rkm To
1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
3.The Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai – 5.
4.The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur now at the office of the Directorate of Survey & Settlement, Chennai.
5.The Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai now at the office of the Directorate of Survey & Settlement, Chennai.
6.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram.
7.The Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality, Ramanathapuram.
8.The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram.
W.A.No.3531 of 2019
06.01.2022 22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis