Madras High Court
S.Kanaga vs The District Revenue Officer on 12 February, 2021
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 12.07.2021
Delivered on 14.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2013
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.16694 of 2018
S.Kanaga ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli.
3.Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation,
Represented by its Commissioner,
Tirunelveli.
4.M.Muthaiah
5.Rajam @ Rajeshwari
6.R.Rajalakshmi
7.C.Kannan @ Kannappan
8.C.K.Mohan
(Respondent Nos.5 to 8 are impleaded vide Court order dated 12.02.2021
in W.M.P.(MD).No.12207 of 2020 in W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013)
9.T.Ramamoorthi
(Through his power agent P.Annasamy
10.G.Subramanian ... Respondents
(Respondent Nos.9 and 10 are impleaded vide Court order dated
12.02.2021 in W.M.P.(MD).No.15968 of 2020 in W.P.(MD).No.20727 of
2013)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/20
W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to
the impugned order passed by the first respondent in
Na.Ka.Aa2/Se.Ma.No.22/2011, dated 02.02.2012 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vallinayagam
Senior counsel
for Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Standing Counsel for
Government
For R-3 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar
Standing counsel
For R-5 to R-8 : Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai
For R-9 & R-10 : Mr.H.Lakshmishankar
ORDER
The impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 02.02.2012, made in Na.Ka.Aa2/Se.Ma.No.22/2011, is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property situated in Survey No.286/8, measuring an extent of three acres https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 originally belonged to late Somuammal, through a registered sale deed, dated 20.09.1935. The said Somuammal is the grandmother of the petitioner. On the demise of Somuammal, the property devolved upon her daughter Valliyammal. The said Valliyammal alienated a portion of the property measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 44 Cents in favour of several persons through various sale deeds.
3. The above said Valliyammal executed a Will, dated 22.08.2002, bequeathing the remaining property in favour of the petitioner. She died on 10.04.2003 and since then, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject property.
4. The petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar, Palayamkottai, seeking for issuance of patta in her name. The petitioner was directed to approach the second respondent and the second respondent conducted an enquiry and passed an order dated 03.09.2007 in favour of the petitioner and directed the Tahsildar, Palayamkottai to change the patta in the name of the petitioner by making necessary mutation in the revenue records. Accordingly, patta was issued in the name of the petitioner and necessary mutation was made in the revenue records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013
5. The third respondent Corporation aggrieved by the same filed a Revision Petition before the first respondent and the Revision Petition was allowed by the first respondent by order dated 09.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD).No.13676 of 2010 before this Court and this Court by order dated 29.06.2011, quashed the order passed by the first respondent and remanded the matter back to the file of the first respondent.
6. On remand, the first respondent again conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2012. The same has been put to challenge before this Court in the present Writ Petition.
7. Heard Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5 to 8 and Mr.H.Lakshmishankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 9 and 10.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013
8. When this matter came up for hearing on 08.11.2019, the issue that is involved in the present Writ Petition has been succinctly captured and the same is extracted hereunder:-
“Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned
counsel on record for writ petitioner,
Mr.K.Mu.Muthu, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Standing Counsel for third respondent are before this Court.
2.To be noted, fourth respondent is a private respondent and learned counsel for writ petitioner has made an endorsement in the case file which reads as follows:
'On instructions the writ petition relief is given up as far as R4.'
3.This endorsement means that writ petitioner is not claiming any relief against fourth respondent.
4.The nucleus of instant Writ Petition is 'land admeasuring 1.05 acres or thereabouts in paimash Nos.74 to 83A part in Vijayaraghava Mudaliyar Chattram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 Tirunelveli District' (hereinafter referred to as 'said land' for brevity).
5.Third respondent ie., 'Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation' (hereinafter referred to as 'said Corporation' for brevity) claims that said land belongs to it and that there is a children's park in the same. For this purpose, reliance is placed on 'G.O.Ms.No.1, Education Department dated 2nd January, 1967' (hereinafter referred to as 'said G.O' for brevity) which has been duly published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee on 08.12.1967.
6.Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that writ petitioner is not assailing said G.O, but writ petitioner's case is that land ear- marked for development or land set apart by saying 'to be developed' comprised in paimash Nos.74 to 83A part is relatable to Survey Nos.258/4 whereas writ petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.74 to 83B in Vijayaraghava Mudaliyar Chattram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District is relatable to Survey No.286/8, Patta No.320 and present T.S.No.90. In this regard, it is submitted that paimash Nos.74 to 83B originally admeasured about 3 acres belonged to one Somu Ammal, W/o.Kannappa Pillai, who had purchased the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 under sale deed dated 20.09.1935, it was sold to her daughter Villayammal, that said Somu Ammal died in the year 1940 and after demise of Valliyammal on 10.04.2003, it devolved upon writ petitioner (Valliyammal's daughter). To be noted, in said G.O referred to supra, reference is to Location, Ward, Division and T.S number (Column 2), but reference is obviously paimash number as is evident from correlation register. To further buttress writ petitioner's case, reliance is placed on extract from the relevant revenue register dated 21.03.2007 wherein paimash Nos.74 to 83B part is now 286/8 and it shows V.Kannappa Pillai as occupier. To be noted, V.Kannappa Pillai is aforesaid Somu Ammal's spouse. Therefore, crux and gravamen of the entire lis now narrowed down to correlation of paimash number and re-survey number qua said land.
7.Adverting to an 'order dated 02.02.2012 made in Reference Na.Ka.Aa2/See.M.No.22/2011 by the first respondent' (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order' for brevity), learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that impugned order of the first respondent ie., 'jurisdictional District Revenue Officer' (hereinafter referred to as 'said DRO' for brevity) was passed, after this Court set aside an earlier order made by DRO being order dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 09.07.2010 in W.P(MD)No.13676 of 2010 by order dated 29.06.2011 and sent it back to said DRO. To be noted, impugned order is dated 02.02.2012. Also to be noted in the impugned order, cause title has been wrongly described post remand. Obviously revision petitioner is third respondent / Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation and not writ petitioner. There is no disputation about this aspect of the matter. Order that was carried in revision is said order dated 03.09.2007 made by 'jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer' (hereinafter referred to as 'said RDO' for brevity) and this 03.09.2007 bears Reference Na.Ka.No.A3.Maa.Mu.21/2006.
8.It is also argued that scope of hierarchy of quasi judicial authorities under 'Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986)' (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act' for brevity) is restricted to such correlation and revenue register entries. Complaining that correlation has not been correctly read, instant Writ Petition has been filed.
9.Faced with the above situation, learned State Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and learned Standing Counsel for third respondent seek time to get further instructions on the correlation aspect and make submissions in this regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013
10.List on 25.11.2019.”
9. When the enquiry was conducted by the second respondent based on the application made by the petitioner seeking for patta in Survey No.286/8 corresponding to Paimash Nos.74 to 83B(Part), the second respondent had clearly traced the title to the property from the year 1935 onwards and called for a report from the Tahsildar, Palayamkottai. After considering the entire materials, the second respondent found that the third respondent Corporation was tracing their title insofar as Paimash Nos.74 to 83A (Part) and this corresponds to only Survey No.258 / 4 and whereas, the petitioner was claiming right over the Survey No.286/8, which corresponds to Paimash Nos.74 to 83B (Part). The second respondent, therefore, came to a conclusion that the property, for which, the respondent Corporation was claiming right was different from the property, for which, the patta was claimed by the petitioner. It will be relevant to extract the findings of the second respondent herein.:-
“1)jhth GykhdJ Nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; 1935k; tUlk; mtuJ %jhijah; %yk; fpiuak; ngw;Wk;> tk;rthhpahf Nkw;gb kDjhuUf;Fg; ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vdj; njhpa tUfpwJ. mjw;fhd Mtzq;fs; Nky;KiwaPl;lhshpd; jug;gpy; cs;sJ.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013
2)Nky;KiwgPl;lhsUf;F Nkw;fz;l epyj;jpd;
kPJs;s chpikapd; fhuzkhf jhth Gyj;jpy;
fpiuaq;fs; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ tpy;yq;fr; rhd;wpd; %yk; njhpa tUfpd;wJ.
3)khefuhl;rpapd; vjph; ciuapy; chpik NfhUk; Gy vz;.74 Kjy; 83 A vd;gJ NtW.
Nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; gl;lh NfhUk; Gy vz;.74 Kjy; 83 B1 vd;gJ NtW. Nkw;gb ,lq;fs; ,uz;Lk;
ntt;Ntwhdit vd;gJ njspthfj; njhpfpd;wJ.
4)tl;l mYtyfj;jpy; guhkhpf;fg;gl;L tUk;
4tJ gpujp lTz; rh;Nt gPy;L hp[p];;liu Ma;T nra;jjpd; %yk; khefuhl;rpapy; guhkhpf;fg;gLfpd;w gjpNtl;by; kl;Lk; (3tJ gpujp) jpUney;Ntyp khefuhl;rpg; g+q;fh vd jpUj;jk; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJk;> tl;l mYtyfj;jpy; cs;s gjpNtl;by; jpUj;jk; nra;a eltbf;if vLf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gJk; mjw;fhd Mtzq;fs; VJk; khefuhl;rpfj; jug;gpy; ,y;iy vd;gJk; njspthfj; njhpa tUfpwJ.
(5).gl;lh vz;.320y; fz;l ghis efu rigNah / jpU.Kj;ijahNth jhth Gyj;jpy;
mth;fs; xt;nthUtUf;Fk; vt;tsT tp];juP zk; cs;sJ vd;gjw;Fk;> mjd; vy;iy khy;fs;
Fwpj;Jk; ve;j Mtzq;fs; %yk; ep&gzk;
nra;ag;gltpy;iy.
6)jhthGyj;jpy; khefuhl;rpj; jug;gpy; Ntyp mikj;Njh> fl;blq;fs; fl;bNah mDgtj;ijf;
fhl;Lk; milahsq;fs; VJk; ,y;iy. muRf;Fj;
jPh;it VJk; nrYj;jg;glTk; ,y;iy.
7)tUtha;j; Jiwapy; fhu;Ny\d; gjpNtL vd;gJjhd; epy msitf;F Kd;Gk;> gpd;Gk; ,Uf;Fk; epyj;jpd; tpguq;fs; mlq;fpa xU %y MtzkhFk;. ,ij Ma;T nra;Ak; NghJ mjpy; njspthf Nkw;fz;l rh;Nt vz;fSk;> Occupier vd;w fyj;jpy; ,e;j Nky;KiwaPl;lhshpd; %jhijauhd tP.fz;zg;gps;is vd;w jdpegh;fs; jhd; vd;W https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 njspthfj; njhpa tUfpd;wJ. khefuhl;rpapd;
chpikfis fhl;Lk; gjpTfs; jhth Gyk;
Fwpj;J ,y;iy.
vdNt 1tJ vjph;Nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;
jpUney;Ntyp khefuhl;rpahdJ jhth Gyk;
rk;ge;jkhf jq;fSf;Fs;s chpikia epiyehl;lf;
$ba Mtz Mjhuq;fs; vijAk; jhf;fy;
nra;atpy;iy (lTz; rh;Nt gPy;L gjpNtL kw;Wk; 08.02.1967 ehspl;l murpjo; efy; jtpu ) 2tJ vjph; kDjhuh; jpU.Kj;ijah vd;gth; tprhuizf;F M[uhf mDg;gpa Nehl;Birg; ngw;Wf; nfhz;Lk;> vt;tpj gjpYk; mDg;ghkYk;> tprhuizf;F M[uhfhkYk; cs;s epiyapy; ,tUf;F Nkw;fz;l epyj;jpd; kPJ mf;fiw ,y;iy vd;Wk; fUj Ntz;bAs;sJ. Nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; jhf;fy;
nra;Js;s %y Mtzkhd 1935k; tUl fpiuag;
gj;jpuk;> capy; kw;Wk; fhuNy\d; rhd;W kw;Wk; ,ju fpiua Mtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapYk;> ghisaq;Nfhl;il tl;lhl;rpah; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s tUtha;j;Jiw Mtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapYk; KbT nra;ayhk; vd;w tl;lhl;rpahpd; ghpe;Jiuia Vw;fyhk;. jpUney;Ntyp khefuhl;rpf;Fl;gl;l efu msit Mtzq;fspd; gjpTfspy; chpikahshpd;
ngah;fs; rk;ge;jkpy;yhky; jtWjyhf
Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W njhpfpwJ.
kDjhuhpd; Nfhhpf;ifapd; Nghpy; mth; jhf;fy;
nra;Js;s Mtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapy;>
kDjhuUf;F Nkw;fz;l epyj;jpd; kPjhd chpik
njspthf ep&gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.”
10. On the basis of the above findings, the second respondent passed an order on 03.09.2007, directing issuance of patta in the name of the petitioner and for carrying out necessary mutation in the revenue records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 11/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013
11. When the First Revision Petition was filed by the respondent Corporation before the first respondent, the first respondent categorically held that the third respondent Corporation did not produce even an iota of material to establish their right in Survey No.286/8. Having held so, the District Revenue Officer directed the parties to approach the Civil Court and establish their rights and thereby, the order passed by the second respondent was set aside.
12. When the above order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.13676 of 2010, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the first respondent having found that the respondent Corporation does not have any ownership over the property, ought not to have directed the parties to go before the Civil Court. Therefore, this Court remanded the matter back to the file of the first respondent and decide on the issuance of patta.
13. The first respondent, by virtue of the present impugned order, dated 02.02.2012, once again, has directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. Surprisingly, the first respondent has rendered a finding https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 as if the respondent Corporation has perfected the title through adverse possession and on that ground, the order passed by the second respondent has once again been set aside by the first respondent.
14. The third respondent Corporation has filed a counter affidavit and has taken advantage of the findings of the first respondent and the Corporation is now claiming ownership by way of adverse possession. According to the respondent Corporation, the property is under the control of the Corporation for more than 50 years and it is being used as a playground / park. The third respondent is virtually placing reliance upon the entries made in the Town Survey Field Register.
15. This Court directed the first respondent to conduct an inspection and file a report and accordingly, the first respondent has filed a report dated 27.07.2020. It is but natural that the first respondent, who has passed the impugned order will only justify his order and therefore, this Court cannot expect the first respondent to give a report in variance with his own order. Therefore, this Court does not want to place reliance on the report filed by the first respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013
16. The base document on which reliance is placed by the third respondent Corporation is the Government Order published in the Gazette on 02.01.1967, wherein, there is a specific reference to paimash Nos.74 to 83A (Part). The extract of the Correlation Register that has been filed before this Court shows that paimash Nos.74 to 83 A (Part) corresponds to Survey No.258/4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not claiming any right over this property. It is also an admitted case that Survey Nos.258/4 and 286/8 are not contiguous properties and both these properties are situated in different places.
17. This Court wanted to physically verify the FMB Sketch and Town Survey Field Register pertaining to these two survey numbers and hence, directed the concerned Authority to produce the original records. It is only after looking into the original records, this Court found to its shock that the Town Survey Field Register has been manipulated insofar as Survey No.286/8 is concerned. There are totally 19 Columns allotted to each survey number. Column No.17 deals with the name of the person as found in the Adangal. Column No.18 deals with how the holding is utilized and Column No.19 deals with the remarks column which provides the details of the proceedings through https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 14/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 which the name of the registered-holder is entered in the Register. Insofar as Survey No.286/8 is concerned, at Column No.17 all entries have been erased and blackened. The name of one Thavasi Thevar is written in black ink and no one knows, who this person is. In Column No.19, there is again a manipulation and the entry therein has been erased and it is overwritten with the name of the third respondent Corporation. Unfortunately, this overwriting has been done right over a signature found in green ink. There is not even a mention with regard to the proceedings through which the name of the Corporation was entered into in the Town Survey Field Register. The manipulation is so apparent on the face of it and someone has intentionally been allowed to gain access to the original records for the purpose of manipulation. There is absolutely no basis for the third respondent to claim any right over this property since the admitted claim of the third respondent is based on the Gazette publication dated 02.01.1967, which pertains to Paimash Nos.74 to 83 A corresponding to Survey No.258/4.
18. This Court wanted to verify the Town Survey Field Register for Survey No.258/4 and it is clearly seen that the same has been categorized as a Children's Park and this entry is perfectly in line with the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 15/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 Government Order dated 02.01.1967. The manipulation that had taken place in the original Register was also noticed both by the Tahsildar, Palayamkottai and the second respondent and it is explained in detail in their report / order and that was one of the reasons why the claim made by the third respondent Corporation was rejected and patta was directed to be issued in favour of the petitioner.
19. Pursuant to the above entries, the present Town Survey Register reflects the name of the third respondent Corporation. But, surprisingly, for both the survey numbers, it is now shown as “Park and Playground.” Thus, the third respondent Corporation, who does not possess even a semblance of right or title over the property in Survey No. 286/8, claims a right only by virtue of the entry made in the Register, which has been found by this Court to have been manipulated.
20. The present case does not involve the determination of inter se rights between the parties in the property. The crux of the issue involved in the present case is the identity of the property. The petitioner identifies the property by tracing the title from the year 1935 onwards and the third respondent Corporation identifies the property by tracing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 the right from G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 02.01.1967. There is absolutely no confusion on the premise / source through on which the parties are claiming their rights. The third respondent Corporation is tracing their right in the property situated at paimash Nos.74 to 83 A (Part) which corresponds to Survey No.258/4. While doing so, the respondent Corporation unfortunately has tried to rope in another property in Survey No.286/8 and in order to justify the same, manipulations have taken place in the revenue records. Therefore, there is no confusion with regard to the identity of the property and consequently, there is no requirement for the parties to go before the Civil Court.
21. It is quite unfortunate that the respondent Corporation has attempted to claim right over the property in Survey No.286/8 through adverse possession. It is quite disturbing that the first respondent also confers a right on the Corporation on the ground of adverse possession as if the Corporation has got a possessory title over the property. The Courts will frown on such attempts being made, particularly, when it comes to public bodies. In the present case, the property in question is admittedly a vacant land. It is a settled law that insofar as vacant land is concerned, the possession follows title. Without https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 a title, the third respondent can never claim to be in possession of the property. Whereas, the petitioner is able to trace the title from the year 1935 onwards and therefore, the possession has to necessarily follow the title.
22. The second respondent has given cogent reasons while passing the order dated 03.09.2007 and has rightly held that the patta has to be transferred in the name of the petitioner by making necessary mutation in the revenue records. The reasons assigned in the order and the report that was relied upon by the second respondent, was not even taken into consideration by the first respondent. The first respondent having held that the respondent Corporation has not even proved the basis for its claim on the property in Survey No.286/8, ought to have rejected the claim of the Corporation and sustained the order of the second respondent. Instead, the parties have been unnecessarily asked to agitate the matter before the Civil Court.
23. Some of the private respondents seems to be having some dispute with the petitioner insofar as the portions of the property conveyed to them. The same cannot be decided in this Writ Petition and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 18/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 it is left open to the parties to agitate the dispute independently before the appropriate forum.
24. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.Aa2/Se.Ma.No.22/2011, dated 02.02.2012 and accordingly, the same is quashed. The order passed by the second respondent, dated 03.09.2007, is upheld and the patta is directed to be transferred in the name of the petitioner and necessary mutation is directed to be carried out in the revenue records by the Tahsildar concerned, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
25. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.07.2021 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No tsg https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 19/20 W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 N.ANAND VENKATESH.J., tsg NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To
1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli.
Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.(MD).No.20727 of 2013 Dated :
14.07.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 20/20