Amaravathy Cranes and Structurals Ltd Vs. the District Collector Trivellore - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated :19. 02.2013 coram the honourable mr.justice k.chandru w.p.nos.11317 of 2002, 21800 to 21802, 21877 to 21879 and 25413 of 2009, 22944 of 2010, 9850 of 2011 and 25372 of 2012 and m.p.nos.1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2009, 1,1, 2 and 3 of 2010, 1 and 2 of 2011 and w.p.nos.5144, 5154, 5893, 5976, 6720, 6721, 6738, 7074, 7084, 7092, 8019 to 8021, 8028 to 8033, 8330 to 8338, 8394 to 8396, 8421 to 8423, 8497 to 8499, 9202, 14469, 14586 and 14587 of 2011, 5527, 5663, 5664, 13333, 13335 and 26731 to 26739 of 2012 and m.p.nos.1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2, 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,2,1,2,1,2, of 2011, 1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2012 w.p.no.11317 of 2002 : m/s.amaravathy cranes and structurals ltd., rep by.....

Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :

19. 02.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.11317 of 2002, 21800 to 21802, 21877 to 21879 and 25413 of 2009, 22944 of 2010, 9850 of 2011 and 25372 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2009, 1,1, 2 and 3 of 2010, 1 and 2 of 2011 AND W.P.Nos.5144, 5154, 5893, 5976, 6720, 6721, 6738, 7074, 7084, 7092, 8019 to 8021, 8028 to 8033, 8330 to 8338, 8394 to 8396, 8421 to 8423, 8497 to 8499, 9202, 14469, 14586 and 14587 of 2011, 5527, 5663, 5664, 13333, 13335 and 26731 to 26739 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2, 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,2,1,2,1,2, of 2011, 1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2012 W.P.No.11317 of 2002 : M/s.Amaravathy Cranes and Structurals Ltd., rep by its Director Y.Padmanabha Prasad, No.10,Raman Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Trivellore District, at Trivellore. 2.The President, Morai Village Panchayat, Morai, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai-600 055. 3.Village Administrative Officer, Morai-I, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai-600 055. 4.Ramesh 5.Elango .. Respondents W.P.Nos.21800 to 21802, 21877 to 21879 of 2009 : Y.Padmanabha Prasad .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.21801 and 21877 of 2009 Y.P.Satyajit Prasad .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.21800 and 21878 of 2009 Y.N.Rajyalakshmi .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.21802 and 21879 of 2009 Vs. 1.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Pandepuram Sub-Station, Avadi North (Avadi IAF), Veerapuram, Chennai-600 055. 2.The Asst. Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Pandepuram Sub-Station, Avadi North (Avadi IAF), Veerapuram, Chennai-600 055. 3.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Pandepuram Sub Station, Avadi North (Avadi IAF), Veerapuram, Chennai-600 055. .. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.Nos.21800, 21801 and 21802 o”

1. The Sub Registrar, Avadi Sub Registration Office, Avadi, Chennai-73. .. 1st Respondent in W.P.Nos.21877, 21878 and 21879 o”

4. Rajendra Raja 5.R.Sasikumar 6.R.Pushparaj 7.Kalimuthu .. Respondents 4 to 7 in W.P.Nos.21800 to 21802 of 2009 and Respondents 2 to 5 in W.P.Nos.21877, 21878 and 21879 of 2009 W.P.Nos.25413 of 2009 : M/s.Amaravathy Cranes and Structurals Limited (Pvt.), rep by its Director, Y.Padmanabha Prasad, 21 (old No.10) Raman Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary / The Commissioner of Land Survey and Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Assistant Settlement Officer, Land Tax (North), Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3.The Commissioner of Land Reforms / Director of Land Reforms, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-4. 4.The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Thiruvallur District. 5.Rajendra Raja .. Respondents W.P.Nos.22944 of 2010 : M/s.Amaravathy Cranes and Structurals Limited (Pvt.), rep by its Director, Y.Satyajit Prasad, 21 (old No.10) Raman Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, 30,Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur 3.The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, Thiruvalur District. 5.The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Thiruvallur District. .. Respondents W.P.No.9850 of 2011 : Y.Padmanabha Prasad .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Settlement Officer, Land Tax (North), Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-I, Chennai Sub Urban Police, Chennai-16. 3.R.S.Anbalagan 4.Rajendra Raja .. Respondents W.P.No.25372 of 2012 : Y.Satyajit Prasad .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Additional District Magistrate/ The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. 2.The Additional Personal Assistant to the Collector (Lands), Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District. 4.The Tahsildar, Ambathur Taluk, Ambathur, Thiruvallur District. 5.The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallu”

001. 6.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. .. Respondents W.P.Nos.5144, 5154, 5976 and 5893 of 2011 : Kalimuthu .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.5144 and 5154 of 2011 C.S.Mahalingam .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.5893 and 5976 of 2011 Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Santhome, Chennai-600 004. 2.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 3.The Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Crime, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. 4.The Sub Registrar, Avadi Sub-Registration Office, Avadi, Chennai-600 054. .. Respondents in W.P.Nos.5144, 5154, 5893 and 5976 of 2011 W.P.Nos.6720, 6721, 6738, 7074, 7084, 7092, 8019 to 8021, 8028 to 8033, 8330 to 8338, 8394 to 8396, 8421 to 8423, 8497 to 8499 of 2011 : Jayalakshmi .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.6720, 6721 and 6738 of 2011 Rajendra Raja .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.7074, 7084, 7092, of 2011 Sumithra @ Samitha .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.8019 to 8021 of 2011 S.Harikrishnamoorthy .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.8028 to 8030 of 2011 S.Kanaiyan .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.8031 to 8033 of 2011 Kalavathi .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.8330 to 8332 of 2011 Pushparaj .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.8333 to 8335 of 2011 Renuka .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.8336 to 8338 of 2011 R.Sasikumar .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.8394 to 8396 of 2011 Varadharajan .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.8421 to 8423 of 2011 M.Munibabu .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.8497 to 8499 of 2011 Vs. 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Revenue Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 3.Commissioner of Land Administration, Directorate of Settlements, Ezhilagam, 30,Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 4.Personnel Assistant to the Principal Secretary, (Assistant Settlement Officer for Northern Districts), Secretariat, Chennai. 5.The Director of Survey and Settlements, Directorate of Settlements Ezhilagam, 30, Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 6.The Settlement Officer, Directorate of Settlements, Ezhilagam, 30,Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 7.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 8.The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 9.The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Thiruvallur District. 10.Amaravathy Cranes and Structural Limited (Pvt) rep by its Director, Y.Satyajit Prasad, New No.21, Old No.10, Raman Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Respondents in W.P.Nos.6720, 6721, 6738, 7074,7084, 7092, 8019 to 8021, 8028 to 8033, 8330 to 8338, 8394 to 8396, 8421 to 8423, 8497 to 8499 of 2011 W.P.No.9202 of 2011 : Rajendra Raja .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID (Metro-Wing), Super Complex Building, Alandur, Chennai. 2.Personal Assistant to the Principal Secretary, Assistant Settlement Officer for Northern District, Secretariat, Chennai. 3.The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 4.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 5.Amaravathy Cranes and Structural Limited (Pvt.), rep by its Director, Y.Satyajit Prasad, New No.21, Old No.10, Raman Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Respondents W.P.Nos.14469, 14586, 14587, of 2011 : B.Rajendra Raja .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.14469, 14586, 14587, of 2011 Vs. 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.Commissioner of Land Administration, Directorate of Settlements, Ezhilagam, 30,Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3.Personnel Assistant to the Principal Secretary, (Assistant Settlement Officer for Northern Districts), Secretariat, Chennai. 4.The Director of Survey and Settlements, Directorate of Settlements Ezhilagam, 30, Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 5.The Settlement Officer, Directorate of Settlements, Ezhilagam, 30,Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. .. Respondents 1 to 5 in W.P.Nos.14469”

14587. o”

6. Ellappa Naidu 7.Thangammal 8.Rojaklshtama Naidu 9.G.K.Vaman Rao 10.Kaniammal 11.Gengan 12.Kannammal 13.Periakulanthai 14.Boomiammal 15.Perumal 16.Adikesavalu 17.Dhakshna 18.Munusamy 19.Somu 20.Narayanasamy 21.Andalammal 22.Somaiah Reddiar 23.Chinnagovinda Reddi 24.Sriramalu Reddi 25.Krishnappa Reddi 26.Munusamy Reddi 27.Periagovinda Reddi 28.Perumal Reddi .. Respondents 6 to 28 in W.P.No.14469 o”

6. Egambaram 7.Subathaiammal 8.Durai 9.Gittan 10.Sreeramulu 11.Dharman 12.Elumalai 13.Govindan 14.Kannairam 15.Ramagovindan 16.Mariappan 17.Perumal 18.Somu 19.Kembu 20.Somu 21.Elumalai 22.Desan 23.Sukla 24.Kaddu Desan 25.Durai Samy 26.Badraiyan 27.Parthasarathy Naidu 28.Prakasam 29.Govinda Naidu 30.Radhakrishna Naidu .. Respondents 6 to 30 in W.P.No.14586 o”

6. Swaminathan 7.Rajakrishnama Naidu 8.Govinda Naidu 9.Chinnappa Naidu 10.B.Sengama Naidu 11.Rama Naidu .. Respondents 6 to 11 in W.P.No.14587 of 2011 W.P.Nos.5527, 5663 and 5664 of 2012 : Rajendra Raja .. Petitioner in W.P.No.5527 of 2012 R.Sasikumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.5663 of 2012 R.Pushparaj .. Petitioner in W.P.No.5664 of 2012 Vs. The District Registrar, No.9,Gen's Road, Saidapet, Chennai-15. .. Respondent in W.P.Nos.5527, 5663 and 5664 of 2012 W.P.Nos.13333 and 13335 of 2012 : Rajendra Raja .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.13333 and 13335 of 2012 Vs. 1.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registration Office, Avadi, Chennai-73. .. 1st respondent in W.P.Nos.13333 and 13335 o”

2. Pauline Rashmi Jacab 3.Ashirwadh .. Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.No.13333 o”

2. R.Mohana 3.J.Rajendran .. Respondents 2 and 3 in in W.P.No.13335 of 2012 W.P.Nos.26731 to 26739 of 2012 : Rajendra Raja .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.26731 to 26733 of 2012 Varadaraja .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.26734 to 26736 of 2012 Jayalakshmi .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.26737 to 26739 of 2012 vs. 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Revenue Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 3.Commissioner of Land Administration, Directorate of Settlements, Ezhilagam, 30,Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 4.Personnel Assistant to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, (Assistant Settlement Officer for Northern Districts), Secretariat, Chennai. 5.The Director of Survey and Settlements, Directorate of Settlements Ezhilagam, 30, Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. .. Respondents 1 to 5 in W.P.Nos.26731 to 26739 of 2012 W.P.No.11317 of 2002 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to take suitable action against the respondents 2 and 3 pursuant to the representation made to him by the company on 29.03.2002 by telegram. W.P.Nos.21801 and 21877 of 2009 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus in W.P.No.21801 of 2009 directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to entertain any application from the respondents 4 to 7 or any other person/s, except the petitioner for effecting electricity service connection in respect of the property owned by the petitioner, being agricultural punja lands and also writ of mandamus in W.P.No.21877 of 2009 directing the first respondent not to admit and register any document of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange settlement or any kind of document/deed in respect of the property owned by the petitioners, being agricultural punja lands, comprised in Survey Nos.498/8, extent of 0.70 acre, No.489/9 extent of 0.61 acre, No.511/7 extent of 2.74 acres, No.511/8 extent of 2.84 acres, No.512/1 extent of 0.84 acres, No.512/2 extent of 1.06 acres, No.512/3 extent of 2.88 acres, No.512/4A extent of 1.03 acres, No.514/25, extent of 0.54 acres, No.498/5A1B2 extent of 1.37 acres, No.494/2A1B extent of 0.17 acres, No.494/2A2B1 extent of 0.21 acres, No.489/6 (part) extent of 3.34 acres, No.489/10 extent of 2.52 acres, No.511/13 (part) extent 0.75 acres, No.511/14 (part) extent of 0.70 acres, No.511/15 (part) extent of 0.19 acres totalling 22.49 acres situate at Morai village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District without the consent of the petitioner and without complying with the provisions of Section 5 or the other provisions of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1986. W.P.Nos.21800 and 21878 of 2009 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus in W.P.No.21800 of 2009 directing respondents 1 to 3 not to entertain any application from the respondents 4 to 7 or any other person/s except the petitioner for effecting electricity service connection in respect of the property owned by the petitioner, being agricultural punja lands and also writ of mandamus in W.P.No.21878 of 2009 directing the first respondent not to admit and register any document of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange settlement or any kind of document/deed in respect of the property owned by the petitioners, being agricultural punja lands, comprised in Survey Nos.512/4B extent of 1.75 acres, No.512/5 extent of 0.91 acres, No.513/1 extent of 2.82 acres, No.513/3A extent of 1.65 acres, No.513/6 extent of 0.78 acres, No.513/7 extent of 0.91 acres, No.513/8 extent of 0.98 acres, No.513/9 extent of 0.82 acres, No.513/10 extent of 0.22 acres, No.513/11 extent of 0.59 acres, No.513/12 extent of 0.80 acres, No.514/22 extent of 0.75 acres, No.514/23 extent of 0.11 acres, No.514/24 extent of 0.11 acres, No.514/27A extent of 0.77 acres totalling 14.97 acres situate at Morai Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District without the consent of the petitioner and without complying with the provisions of Section 5 or the other provisions of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1986. W.P.Nos.21802 and 21879 of 2009 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus in W.P.No.21802 of 2009 directing respondents 1 to 3 not to entertain any application from the respondents 4 to 7 or any other person/s except the petitioner for effecting electricity service connection in respect of the property owned by the petitioner being agricultural lands and also for a writ of mandamus in W.P.No.21879 of 2009 directing the first respondent not to admit and register any document of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange settlement or any kind of document/deed in respect of the property owned by the petitioners, being agricultural punja lands, comprised in Survey Nos.514/26 extent of 0.06 acre and No.514/27 part (old), 514/27B (new) extent of 14.92 acres, totalling 14.98 acres situate at Morai Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District without consent of the petitioner and without complying with the provisions of Section 5 or the other provisions of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1986. W.P.No.25413 of 2009 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.not E1/7859/2009, dated 23.11.2009 passed by the second respondent herein, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 1 to 4 or their subordinates herein from initiating or conducting an enquiry at the instance of the 5th respondent in the absence of any prima facie materials in respect of the properties which are subject matter in S.R.Nos.14/76, 15/76 and 16/76 / Section 11(a) / XXVI /48/SDT passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu. W.P.No.22944 of 2010 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5602/2009/A1 dated 23.09.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent herein, quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and consequently forbear the respondents 1 to 4 or their subordinates from initiating or conducting an enquiry in respect of the propeties which are subject matter in S.R.Nos.14/76, 15/76 and 16/76 / Section 11(a) / XXVI /48/SDT passed by the then Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu. W.P.No.9850 of 2011 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the letter dated 10.12.2009 on the file of the second respondent and the proceedings in Na.Ka.E1 7859/2009, dated 7.1.2010 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. W.P.No.25372 of 2012 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned report dated 31.05.2011 submitted by the District level committee consisting of the respondents 1 to 5 to the 6th respondent in pursuance to the enquiry notice in Na.Ka.No.5602/2009/A1, dated 23.09.2010 passed by the third respondent herein and quash the same. W.P.Nos.5144, 5154, 5893 and 5976 of 2011 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.50362/R3/10, dated 30.8.2010 and to call for the records of the third respondent in his letter in C.No.26 /IGP-Crime /CBCID/2010, dated 23.04.2010, to call for the records of the first respondent in proceeding Ka.En.50362/R3/10 dated 30.8.2010 respectively and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. W.P.Nos.6720, 6721, 6738, 7074, 7084, 7092, 8019 to 8021, 8028 to 8033, 8330 to 8338, 8394 to 8396, 8421 to 8423, 8497 to 8499, 14469, 14586, 14587, of 2011 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the erstwhile Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet-2 in proceeding not Sett.Tahr's S.R.No.15/76/Sec.11(a) / XXVI/SDT.48, dated 24.07.1976, proceeding not Sett.Tahr's S.R.No.14/ 76/Sec.11(a)/ XXVI /48/SDT dated 23.07.1976 and proceeding not Sett.Tahr's S.R.No.16/ 76/Sec.11(a) /XXVI /48/SDT, dated 30.7.1976, respectively passed by the erstwhile Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet-2 from the 6th respondent (5th respondent in W.P.Nos.14469,14586 and 14587 of 2011) and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and fraudulent one and direct the respondents 1 to 9 (respondents 1 to 5 in W.P.Nos.14469,14586 and 14587 of 2011) to conduct fresh denova final settlement enquiry as per law. W.P.No.9202 of 2011 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to file a status report about the fraudulent and collusive act of the Amaravathy Cranes Structural Pvt. Ltd. with regard to Ryotwari Patta obtained by it in the Morai village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. W.P.Nos.5527, 5663 and 5664 of 2012 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in the impugned notice dated 31.01.2012 vide in No.197/A1/2012 on the file of the respondent herein and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from initiating or conducting an enquiry in respect of the properties which are subject matter in number of cases filed before the civil court as well as the High Court. W.P.Nos.13333 and 13335 of 2012 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent not to admit and register any document of sale in Survey No.417/2, 419/1A, 419/1C, 419/2A, 419/4A, 458/2A, 458/2B, 458/2C to an extent of 4 acres and 5 cents situated at No.43,Morai Veerapuram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District in W.P.No.13333 of 2012 and to direct the first respondent not to admit and register any document of sale in S.No.498/1B and 498/2C to an extent of 4 acres and 0.56 cents situated at Morai village, Ambatur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. W.P.Nos.26731 to 26739 of 2012 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to invoke their suo-motu powers to conduct a fresh denova final settlement enquiry as per the Madras Estate (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) in respect of Survey Number 489 to 514 in Settlement Tahsildar proceeding in S.R.No.14/ 76/Sec.11(a) /XXVI/SDT.48, S.R.No.16/ 76/Sec.11(a) /XXVI/SDT.48 and S.R.No.15/ 76/Sec.11(a) /XXVI/SDT.48. For Petitioners : Mr.N.Jothi for Mr.N.Manokaran in W.P.Nos.11317 of 2002, 21800 to 21802, 21877 to 21879 and 25413 of 2009, 22944/ 2010, 9850 of 2011 and 25372 of 2012 Mr.D.S.Ramesh in W.P.Nos.5144, 5154, 5893, 5976, 6720, 6721, 6738, 7074, 7084, 7092, 8019 to 8021, 8028 to 8033, 8330 to 8338, 8394 to 8396, 8421 to 8423, 8497 to 8499, 9202, 14469, 14586 and 14587 of 2011, 5527, 5663, 5664, 13333, 13335 and 26731 to 26739 of 2012 For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl.G.P. for RR1 and 3 in W.P.11317 /2002 for R-1 in WP Nos.21877 to 21879/ 2009 for RR1 and 2 in W.P.No.9850 / 2011 for RR1 to 4 in W.P.25413 /2009 for RR1 to 5 in WP.22944 / 2010 for respondent in W.P.No.25372 of 2012 In W.P.Nos.5144 and 5154 of 2011 for RR1 to 4 in W.P.5893 of 2011 and W.P.No.9202 of 2011 for RR1 to 9 in W.Ps.6720,6721,6738, 7074, 7084, 7092, 8019 to 8021, 8028 to 8033, 8330 to 8338, 8394 to 8396, 8421 to 8423, 8497 to 8499 / 2011 for R-1 in W.P.Nos.5527, 5663, 5664, 13333, 13335 of 2012 for RR1 to 5 in W.Ps.26731 to 26739 / 2012 Mr.D.S.Ramesh for RR2 to 5 in W.Ps.21877 to 21879 /2009 for R-5 in WP.25413 /2009 MR.N.Jothi for Mr.N.Manokaran for R-10 in W.P.Nos.6720, 6721,6738,7074,7084, 7092, 8019 to 8021, 8028 to 8033, 8330 to 8338, 8394 to 8396, 8421 to 8423, 8497 to 8499 /2011 for R-5 in W.P.No.9202 of 2011 Mr.Rathina Asohan for RR2 and 3 in W.P.No.13333 of 2012 - - - - COMMON ORDER This batch of writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 18.07.2012. 2.Heard the arguments of Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for M/s.Amaravathi Cranes and Structurals Private Ltd, represented by its Directors (for short Amaravathy Cranes) in some writ petitions as well as for its Directors in their individual capacity in some writ petitions and Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for Rajendra Raja and others belonged to his group (for short they are called as Rajendra Raja group) claiming various reliefs and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondents. 3.The facts culled out from various pleadings in relation to the case filed by Amaravathy Cranes are as follows : The lands to an extent of 1743 acres in Morai Village were taken over by the District Collector of the the Chengalpattu District under Rule 75A(1) of the Defence of India Rules during the Second World War vide proceedings, dated 26.10.1944. After the end of the World War-II, lands were de-requisitioned to the respective land owners. Since the land use pattern was considerably changed, the land owners had decided to sell the lands. Accordingly, the Amaravathy Cranes had purchased the properties from the respective land owners under 39 sale deeds in the year 1965. The Amaravathy Cranes purchased a vast extent of agricultural punja lands comprised in different survey numbers in Morai village by virtue of sale deeds. It was claimed that ever since the purchase, the company was in possession and enjoyment being its absolute owner. 4.The Board of Revenue on 11.09.1967 took a decision to set aside the existing registry made at the time of settlement in respect of the lands and decided to conduct a denova settlement enquiry after complying with the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. A suo motu enquiry was taken up for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of S.No.474/1 onwards in Morai village. The settlement Tahsildar at Chengalpattu was authorised to conduct an enquiry vide notification dated 19.5.1976. The Settlement Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry and included the land for the grant of ryotwari patta. He had passed an order on 23.7.1976, 24.07.1976 and 30.07.1976 in respect of proceedings in S.R.Nos.14 to 16 of 1976. The Settlement Tahsildar had issued ryotwari patta not only to the Amaravathy Cranes, but also to 46 other persons. The Amaravathy Cranes got ryotwari patta to an extent of 165 acres. In respect of other lands, several other individuals were given patta. No one questioned the ryotwari patta granted by the Settlement Tahsildar to those 46 persons by the same proceedings issued. The other lands were also classsified as assessed waste manavari, cart track poramboke, temple poramboke, assessed waster dry, channel porambokel, puzhakal poramboke and road poramboke. Subsequent to the amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970, the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Kancheepuram under whose jurisdiction the lands were situated took an action in terms of the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. He had published a draft settlement under Section 10(1) of the Land Reforms Act vide gazette notification, dated 25.03.1981 and served the copy on the Amaravathy Cranes. 5.The Amaravathy Cranes had filed its objection before the Authorised officer. The Authorised Officer by virtue of the power under Section 10(5) of the Act had rejected the objection made by the Amaravathy Cranes. The Amaravathy Cranes had filed a revision petition under Section 82 of the Land Reforms Act before the Land Commissioner, Chennai. The revision was also dismissed on the ground of maintainability in view of the appeal available under Section 78 of the Act. Thereafter, the Amaravathy Cranes filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal in LT CMA No.86 of 1991. The appeal was allowed on 04.05.1992 and the matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal. After remand, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram personally inspected the lands and agreed with the contention of the Amaravathy Cranes with reference to the land use pattern. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) by his proceedings had cancelled the final settlement, which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 22.09.1993. Based on the findings of the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), the Deputy Secretary to the Government by proceedings, dated 16.02.1994 had cancelled the notification issued by the Revenue Department, dated 21.09.1981. After the gazette notification, necessary changes were carried out in the revenue records and the lands were entered in the name of the Amaravathy Cranes. The company has been in possession of the land and are paying kist upto date to the Government. The Amaravathy Cranes also obtained patta and mutation of records had been effected. The 39 sale deeds under which lands were purchased were genuine. 6.The company's Directors had filed a suit in O.S.No.258 of 2009 before the District Munsif, Ambattur against the Rajendra Raja group, who were shown as defendants, seeking for a declaration of title to the property as well as for permanent injunction. Rajendra Raja had also filed I.A.No.877 of 2009 for rejecting the plaint. The Amaravathy Cranes sold a part of the lands in different survey numbers in favour of its family members between the year 1995 and 2002. The patta was also transferred in the name of the individuals in respect of the lands sold and purchased by the company's family members and they are also in absolute possession and enjoyment. But, however, during July, 2009, the Rajendra Raja group, who was the land grabber and benami of an influential politician with the help of political influence had attempted to interfere with the possession of the Avmaravathy Cranes. Initially, a temporary injunction was obtained against them. But subsequently, in C.M.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, the injunction was vacated. As against the same, the Directors of the company preferred civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution in C.R.P.Nos.1456 and 1457 of 2011. 7.In the meanwhile, on 29.7.2009, the Tahsildar had issued a notice for conducting a fresh proceedings on 29.7.2009. The said proceedings were initiated on the basis of a petition submitted by the Rajendra Raja group claiming patta in respect of the survey number which is owned by the company. The proceedings initiated by the said Tahsildar was challenged by the Amaravathy cranes in W.P.No.15438 of 2009 and this court had granted an interim stay. The said writ petition was disposed of in the light of the subsequent writ petition filed in W.P.No.25413 of 2009. Subsequently, when the Rajendra Raja group attempted to get the electricity service connection, the Directors of the Amaravathy cranes also filed W.P.Nos.21800 to 21802 of 2009 and an order of injunction was granted against the electricity authorities. When Rajendra Raja attempted to create false documents, the company also filed W.P.Nos.21877 to 21879 of 2009 seeking a restraint against the Sub Registrar, Avadi not to admit and register any documents by way of sale or gift, etc. In that writ petitions also, interim orders were granted. In order to stop the criminal activities of the Rajendra Raja group, Amaravathy Cranes gave a complaint in Crime No.122 of 2009, which was registered against Rajendra Raja under Sections 120B, 147, 447, 465, 471, 474, 420, 506(ii) read with 34 IPC. The case was subsequently taken up for investigation by the CBCID. The case of the Rajendra Raja group is as follows :- 8.Rajendra Raja group sent a petition, dated 30.10.2009 to the Assistant Settlement Officer alleging that he has grievance over the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu made in the year 1976. Without applying his mind, the Assistant Settlement Officer had issued a proceedings, dated 6.11.2009 seeking to conduct an enquiry in the complaint lodged by the Rajendra Raja. The Amaravathy Cranes filed W.P.No.25413 of 2009 and an order of stay was granted on 09.12.2009. All the writ petitions were still ending before this court. The Rajendra Raja group filed various suits in O.S.Nos.367 to 371, 397 to 410, 421 to 430 and 435 to 444 of 2011 before the District Munsif, Ambattur seeking for declaration that the sale deeds executed by the Amaravathy Cranes in favour of third parties are not binding on Rajendra Raja and for permanent injunction. It is at this juncture, the Amaravathy Cranes has come forward to file civil revision petitions in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1872 to 1910 of 2012 under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking to strike out various plaints on the file of the District Munsif, Amabttur. 9.Rajendra Raja claimed that he is one of the legal heirs of Shrodriyamdars, i.e., Kumaramalrazu. The lands were comprised in the Shrodriyam village, i.e., Vellanoor and Morai. They are owned and enjoyed by the ancestors of his great grandfathers and it can be verified from the title deed. Both melvaram and keelvaram rights were held and enjoyed by them as Mirasdars of the then Chengalpet District. Their grand father Kumaramalrazu had gifted 52 cawnies of unoccupied land to Akilandakodi Bramandanayakar Sri Thiruvengadamudaiyan temple by way of registered document No.248/1873. His ancestors had alienated a portion of the land. Some of the ancestors have also bequeathed their share to their respective heirs by executing documents. The documents were executed over the years in different period starting from 1892 to 1941 by the members of their family. They are holding right to possess the lands and are also in possession continuously since 1780. Notwithstanding these facts, Karnam and Munsif of the village, who belonged to Pillai community, were jealous about the family status of the Rajendra Raja's ancestors and made wrong entries in the official land records of the Government. The malpractices came to their knowledge only after many years. After the introduction of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, the survey and settlement work was started by the Government and it was completed by 1961. In fact, against the proceedings initiated, a denova proceeding was ordered by the Board of Revenue. Such a denova enquiry is yet to be completed. After several years, the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, by name one C.Subramaniam, had conducted a denova enquiry on 23.07.1976. Without any proper enquiry, he had passed an order within a week and directed the grant of ryotwari patta to an extent of 177 acres to the Amaravathy Cranes and 124.25 acres for other 56 persons. In a short enquiry, without any records and documents, he had ordered ryotwari patta to an extent of 385.32 acres. The lands in Morai village are dry vacant lands and that the members of the Rajendra Raja group enjoyed the same as a original inamdars. They were not aware of these facts till the year 2009. Except Rajendra Raja, no one has right or interest in the lands, which were described in the schedule to the plaints. The Rajendra Raja came to understand that the Amaravathy Cranes had created forged documents with the help of the junior officials of the Revenue department. They have no right to take the law in their own hands. The forged documents have to be declared as null and void by the court. Therefore, the suits in O.S.Nos.367 to 371, 397 to 410, 421 to 430 and 435 to 444 of 2011 came to be filed for declaration that the 39 sale deeds executed by Amaravathy Cranes as null and void and for a permanent injunction before the Court of District Munsif, Ambattur. As against those suits, the Amaravathy Cranes filed C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1872 to 1910 of 2012 to strike off the plaints. 10.It is in this background, both sides have filed several writ petitions and the reliefs sought for by them in these writ petitions were already set out above. 11.Before dealing with the facts in the writ petitions, in the suit filed by the Directors of the company (M/s.Y.Padmanabha Prasad, Y.Satyatjit Prasad and Y.N.Rajyalakshmi) in O.S.No.258 of 2009 which was filed against Rajendra Raja group as defendants, the reliefs claimed were as follows : "(a)For a Declaration, declaring the 1st Plaintiff's right and title over the Suit-A & B Schedule properties which are more fully described in the suit-A&B Schedule hereunder. (b)For a Declaration, declaring the 2nd plaintiff's right and title over the Suit-C Schedule properties which are more fully described in the Suit Schedule-C hereunder. (c)For a Declaration, declaring the 3rd Plaintiff's right and title over the Suit-D Schedule properties which are more fully described in the Suit-D schedule hereunder. (d)For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents servants, subordinates or any other person(s) claiming under/or acting through the defendants from in any way interfering with the 1st plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit-A&B, Schedule properties which are more fully described in the Suit-A & B schedule hereunder. (e)For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents servants, subordinates or any other person(s) claiming under/or acting through the defendants from in any way interfering with the 2nd plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit-C schedule properties which are more fully described in the suit-C schedule hereunder. (f)For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents servants, subordinates or any other person(s) claiming under/or acting through the defendants from in any way interfering with the 3rd plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit-D schedule properties which are more fully described in the suit-D schedule hereunder. (g)For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or any other person(s) claiming under/or acting through the defendants from creating any kind of false, fraudulent and fabricated documents of Transfer, Settlement, Mortgage or any kind of transfer or encumbrance whatsoever in respect of the suit-A,B C& D schedule properties owned by the plaintiffs. (h)And for the costs of the suit and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." 12.Pending the suit, an interim injunction was sought for in I.A.Nos.805 and 806 of 2009, restraining the Rajendra Raja group from interfering with the Amaravathy Cranes' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit A,B,C and D schedule properties and also to restrain the Rajendra Raja group from creating any false, fraudulent and fabricated documents of transfer, settlement, mortgage or any kind of transfer or encumbrance in respect of the schedule mentioned properties. The Rajendra Raja group had entered appearance. After hearing parties, the learned District Munsif, Ambattur had allowed both interim applications by an order dated 27.11.2009 and it was ordered as follows : "In view of the petitioners/plaintiffs filing sufficient documents to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of suit 'A' to 'D' schedule properties and in view of the respondents/defendants not proving possession over the suit 'A' to 'D' schedule properties through documents this court feels that the petitioners/plaintiffs being the lawful owner of the suit 'A' to 'D' schedule properties and in view of the petitioners/plaintiffs proving the case prima facie, the petition is allowed. 9)In the result both the petitions are allowed." 13.As against the interim order, the Rajendra Raja group had preferred C.M.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2010. The Sub Court, Poonamallee had allowed both C.M.As by an order dated 31.03.2011. Aggrieved by the order passed by the lower appellate court, the Directors of the Amaravathy Cranes had preferred two civil revision petitions in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1456 and 1457 of 2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution. This court had allowed both civil revision petitions and restored the order of injunction granted against Rajendra Raja group by an order dated 18.02.2013. 14.Even before these writ petitions were filed, the Amaravathy Cranes filed suits before the District Munsif, Ambattur in O.S.Nos.501 to 503 of 1996, 45 to 47 of 1997, 408 of 1996 and 356 of 2004 for declaring that the sale deeds effected in favour of one R.Madhavan were to be cancelled as they have not complied with the conditions of sale. Those suits were decreed as against the purchaser on 31.7.2008 and 01.08.2008. The said Madhavan had preferred appeals before the Sub Court, Poonamallee in A.S.Nos.12 to 18 of 2009 and 31 of 2009. Those appeal suits were pending. After the writ petitions came to be filed, the Rajendra Raja group also filed separate suits in O.S.Nos.367 to 371, 397 to 410, 421 to 430 and 435 to 444 of 2011 challenging the 39 sale deeds executed by the Amaravathy Cranes in the year 1965. Those suits were also pending. The attempt made by the Amaravathy Cranes to strike off the plaints in those suits by filing civil revision petitions in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1872 to 1910 of 2012 was also rejected by this court by an order dated 18.02.2013. Therefore, in respect of the subject matter of the properties in question, both Amaravathy Cranes as well as Rajendra Raja group were locked up before the civil court in various suits as set out above and that the suits are pending trial. It is in the light of these facts, the writ petitions filed before this court were to be dealt with. In most of the writ petitions, the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner for Survey and Settlement, Chennai has also filed a counter affidavit. 15.W.P.Nos.21800 to 21802 of 2009 : These writ petitions were filed by M/s.Y.P.Satyajit Prasad, Y.Padmanabha Prasad and Y.N.Rajyalakshmi, the prayer is for a direction to the respondents TANGEDCO not to entertain any application from respondents 4 to 7 (who are M/s.Rajendra Raja, R.Sasikumar, R.Pushparj and Kalimuthu) or any other persons except from the petitioners, for effecting service connection in respect of all properties owned by those petitioners being agricultural punja lands and the survey numbers of those lands were set out in the schedule. 16.However, as already this court had granted an interim injunction against Rajendra Raja group vide C.R.P.PD.Nos.1456 and 1457 of 2011, dated 18.02.2013, thereby restoring the interim order passed in I.A.Nos.805 and 806 of 2009 in O.S.No.258 of 2009, dated 27.11.2009, the relief claimed in these petitions need not be granted. Hence the petitioners can work out their right in the light of the injunction. Hence these three writ petitions will stand dismissed. 17.W.P.Nos.21877 to 21879 of 2009 : Again the very same petitioners (M/s.Y.P.Satyajit Prasad, Y.Padmanabha Prasad and Y.N.Rajyalakshmi), have sought for a direction to the Sub Registrar, Avadi not to admit and register any document of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange settlement or any kind of document/deed in respect of the properties owned by the petitioners. Even in these writ petitions, the Rajendra Raja group have been made parties as respondents 2 to 5. In normal circumstances, the Registrar acting in terms of the Registration Act is entitled to consider any deed presented for registration in accordance with law and no order of restraint can be given to him by this court. It is only when an improper exercise of power under the Registration Act is made, the question of the judicial review over such an action of the Registrar will arise. Even if the document is registered fraudulently, the Registrar has got power to cancel the same. The power of the Registrar in such circumstances came to be explained by a Full Bench of this court in M/s.Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal and others reported in 2011 (1) LW 673.and in paragraph 59, it was held as follows : "59.After giving our anxious consideration on the questions raised in the instant case, we come to the following conclusion: - A deed of cancellation of a sale unilaterally executed by the transferor does not create, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in the property and is of no effect. Such a document does not create any encumbrance in the property already transferred. Hence such a deed of cancellation cannot be accepted for registration. Once title to the property is vested in the transferee by the sale of the property, it cannot be divested unto the transferor by execution and registration of a deed of cancellation even with the consent of the parties. The proper course would be to re-convey the property by a deed of conveyance by the transferee in favour of the transferor. Where a transfer is effected by way of sale with the condition that title will pass on payment of consideration, and such intention is clear from the recital in the deed, then such instrument or sale can be cancelled by a deed of cancellation with the consent of both the parties on the ground of non-payment of consideration. The reason is that in such a sale deed, admittedly, the title remained with the transferor. In other cases, a complete and absolute sale can be cancelled at the instance of the transferor only by taking recourse to the Civil Court by obtaining a decree of cancellation of sale deed on the ground inter alia of fraud or any other valid reasons." 18.Therefore, the omnibus prayer sought by the petitioners cannot be granted. In any event, already this court in C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1456 and 1457 of 2011, dated 18.02.2013 had restored the interim order passed in I.A.Nos.805 and 806 of 2009 in O.S.No.258 of 2009, dated 27.11.2009. Apart from the injunction, the trial court had also granted a restraint order against Rajendra Raja group from creating false, fraudulent and fabricating documents of transfer, settlement, mortgage or any kind of transfer or encumbrance. In such circumstances, it is open to the petitioners to communicate the said order to the Sub Registrar for his attention and necessary action. In the light of the same, W.P.Nos.21877 to 21879 of 2009 will stand dismissed. 19.W.P.No.25413 of 2009 : The said writ petition was filed by the Amaravathy Cranes seeking to challenge an order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Land Tax (North) Chennai dated 23.11.2009 and to consequently forbear the official respondents from initiating or conducting an enquiry at the instance of the 5th respondent. 20.W.P.No.22944 of 2010 : This writ petition was filed by the Amaravathy Cranes represented by its Director challenging an order dated 23.09.2010 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur and to set aside the same so far as the petitioner is concerned and for a consequential direction to forbear the official respondents from initiating or conduction any action in respect of the earlier order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in S.R.Nos.14/76, 15/76 and 16/76 / Section 11(a) / XXVI/48/SDT. By proceedings, dated 23.11.2009, the Assistant Settlement Officer, North Chennai had issued a notice to the Rajendra Raja pursuant to the complaint made to him that the order passed in S.R.Nos.14/76, 15/76 and 16/76 is affecting him and therefore, he wanted an enquiry to be conducted. Notice was also issued to the Amaravathy Cranes. 21.W.P.No.25372 of 2012 : This writ petition is to set aside the enquiry report, dated 31.5.2011 submitted by the District Level Committee consisting of the official respondents, i.e., Additional District Magistrate, Thiruvallur, Additional Personal Assistant to the District Collector (Lands), the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, The Tahsildar, Ambathur and the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Tiruvallur, to the District Collector, Thiruvallur pursuant to the enquiry notice issued on 23.09.2010. By proceedings dated 23.11.2009, the District Level enquiry committee decided to conduct an enquiry in the office of the District Collector on 08.10.2010 in respect of various complaints and claims made from different quarters in Morai vaillage. It is pursuant to the said order passed by the District Collector, the Committee made an enquiry and submitted a report to the District Collector, Ambattur reporting that the sale deeds executed by the Amaravathy Cranes in the year 1965 being the vendors are not at all admissible in the proceedings under Section 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948. The order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in S.R.Nos.14/76, 15/76 and 16/76 on 23.7.1976, 24.07.1976 and 30.07.1976 cannot be legally proper and the permission by the company to convert the agricultural lands into non agricultural lands that too to a vast extent was not set out. The transfer of lands was made in the name of the family members. The committee was of the view that if a fresh settlement enquiry is conducted, there is every chance for resuming the major extent of lands which were poramboke and waste and can be utilized for public purpose. If a fresh enquiry is ordered by the High Court, 99.99% of the present pattadars cannot prove their statutory requirement in terms of Section 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 and the Government can easily resume the lands without Land Acquisition proceedings. 22.In W.P.No.22944 of 2010, a vacate stay application was filed by the official respondents together with supporting counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Thiruvallur, dated 22.11.2011. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that if the District level committee is allowed to enquire into the claims of all persons, then only the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu passed in the year 1976 can be found out whether it was in conformity with the Act in question. An enquiry was called upon only to verity the facts and arrive at a solution. The right of the company lands were not challenged. The members of the committee were directed to conduct a full-fledged denova enquiry on the ownership of lands with reference to the revenue records from the year 1900 and also to find out the facts on the pattas issues by the authorities. A number of complaints were received from various claimants regarding the ownership of lands in S.Nos.489, 490, 494, 498 and 499 and 507 to 514 of Morai village. The claims and counter claims have led to law and order problems and in order to find out the truth, the committee was constituted. 23.In W.P.No.25413 of 2009, a vacate stay application was filed in M.P.No.1 of 2010 together with a supporting counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) by name R.S.Anbalagan. It is against this officer, the Amaravathy Cranes made serious allegations of misdemeanor, malfeasance and impropriety on his part in reopening the concluded proceedings. In his counter affidavit, he had stated that the preliminary enquiry was ordered based on the representation made by the Rajendra Raja and to find out toe merits and demerits of the averments made. It was stated that the genuineness of the claim made by the Rajendra Raja can be decided only after the receipt of the original file in which the Settlement Tahsildar had granted patta to the company. 24.However in majority of the writ petitions filed by the Rajendra Raja group, the Principal Secretary and the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement had filed common counter affidavits on 03.10.2012. In his counter affidavit, he had rejected the claims of the Rajendra Raja group. The Commissioner in paragraphs 6 to 11 of the counter had averred as follows : "6.I submit the following points for perusal (a)Any orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer or Final Settlement Tahsildar is subject to revision by the Settlement Officer, as per Notification issued on 29.12.1954. (b)Under Section 5(2) of the said Act, Director of Survey and Settlement, the first revisional authority, shall have the power to cancel or revise any of the orders passed by the Settlement Officer or Assistant Settlement Officer. (c)Under Section 7(c) of the said Act, Commissioner of Land Administration, the second and final revisional authority, shall have the power to cancel or revise any of the orders passed by the Settlement Officer or Director of Survey and Settlement. (d)The disputed orders have been passed by the Settlement Tahsildar as early in 1976. An appeal against this order must have been filed within thirty days from the receipt of the order by the aggrieved person. But in this instant case, an appeal has been filed only in the year 2009. 7.It is further submitted that after a lapse of 33 years, the Assistant Settlement Officer (North), without having jurisdiction to admit an appeal against the order of the Settlement Tahsildar as per the notifications published in G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated 20.6.1987, admitted the petition and sent notices to both parties asking them to appear for an enquiry on the representation made by Thiru D.Rajendra Raja. Aggrieved against the notice of the Assistant Settlement Officer (North), M/s.Amaravathy Cranes and Structural Ltd., has filed writ petition in W.P.25413/2009 and the same is pending before this Hon'ble Court and several others have also filed Writ Petitions before the Honourable High Court of Madras. 8.It is further submitted that only a notice was served on the petitioners to appear before the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) in connection with the representation made by one Thiru D.Rajendra Raja, for the cancellation of the patta issued with respect to certain survey numbers of Morai Village and to grant patta in favour of him. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North), without knowing the jurisdiction and limitations wrongly sent notice to both the parties. The amendment notification made to the rules framed under this said Act in G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated 29.6.1987 prohibits the Settlement authorities to entertain any petitions or appeals on or after 20.08.1987 and the Commissioner of Land Administration is not barred from taking suo-motu revision under section 7(c) of the above Act. Hence, the notice sent by the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) is against the G.O.Ms.No.714. 9.It is submitted that the back files of the Settlement Tahsildar are not traceable in the concerned Collectorate, the custodian of the concerned records. 10.It is submitted that as the Settlement authorities have no power to entertain petition and pass orders on the belated claim, other then those remanded by the Government/Commissioner of Land Administration or Courts, the Settlement authorities who have passed irregular orders, in some other issues, are facing criminal/departmental actions in the following lines: (a) and (b) omitted c)Both departmental and criminal action have been initiated against Thiru R.S.Anbazhagan, then Assistant Settlement Officer (North) for having passed an irregular order by granting patta to the land of the Collector's bungalow, Thanjavur to the private individuals. (d) Omitted 11.It is submitted that on the merits of the case, taking a stand at this juncture as per law, amounts to pre-empting the rights of the appeal and revisions of the party and it would be against the principles of natural justice and rule of law. Therefore, the merits have not been gone into by the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements." 25.A counter affidavit, dated 04.02.2013 was also filed by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Survey and Settlement in respect of W.P.Nos.26731 to 26739 of 2012 filed by Rajendra Raja group. In paragraphs 2 to 7 of the counter, it was averred as follows : "2.It is submitted that the view of the Commissioner of Land Administration is that the main reason for these Writ Petitions is the notice given by the then Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Thiru R.S.Anbalagan. Prior to the notice by the Assistant Settlement Officer (North), there were some claims over the lands classified as "Government Poramboke" or "Anadeenam". By issuing notice in respect of the lands for which ryotwari patta were granted in the settlement itself, the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) has started a new row between the private lands holders and also the Government as well. 3.It is submitted that the writ petitioners have challenged the entire settlement process carried out in the years 1950 to 1960 and requested fresh settlement under the Tamilnadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (T.N. Act XXVI of 1948). But the abolition of Zamindari, Inam and Minor Inam tenure is a one time affair and after the ryotwari settlement was completed, it cannot be reopened again after a period of 30 years. 4.It is submitted that as per the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (T.N.Act XXVI or 1948), the actual time provided was 30 days to file an appeal against the decision of the Settlement authority in the Final Settlement Enquiry. This time limit was extended by the Government from time to time by amending the rules. The Government consider the fact that ample opportunities were given to claim for lands and there should be some finality to these settlement proceedings. The reopening of closed cases on one ground or the other by the authorities by virtue of powers conferred on them would only unsettle the settled issues and put the state in perpetual litigation. Only after a thorough examination, the Government issued a notification amending the rules to the Act in G.O.(Ms)No.714 CT&RE Department, dated 29.6.87. As per this notification, the Director of Survey & Settlement and the Assistant Settlement Officer cannot entertain any time barred petition, as the time limit for entertaining any petition was already over on 20.8.1987, as per amendments to the rules that had been already published in the notification Nio.SRO A-1226 of 1961 vide Part V of the Fort St George Gazette dated 13.12.1961 to the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, amended in G.O.Ms.No.714 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.6.1987 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.26 Part III Section 1(a) dated 22.07.1987 vide notification Nos. SRO A-163/87 and SRO A-164/87 with reference to Sec 5(2) and Sec 11(a) of the Act respectively. 5.It is submitted that the section 67 of the T.N.Act XXVI of 1948 has given powers to Government to make rules as and when it makes necessary. Under section 67(2)(d), the Government can make rules for fixing the time within which applications and appeals may be presented under this Act, in cases for which no specific provision in that behalf has been made herein. Hence, the Government in G.O.(Ms)No.714 CT&RE Department dated 29.6.87 have amended the rules to the Act in order to fix the time limit for filing applications under the powers vested under section 67(2)(d) of the Act and that had been published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.28 dated 22.7.1987. 6.It is submitted that apart from these concessions, the Government had also issued G.O.(Ms)No.1300, Revenue Department, dated 30.4.1971 wherein the Government offered further concessions to the persons whose claims have been rejected under the Act, to apply for patta under outside the scope of the Act, if such persons had been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the lands. Again this concession came to an end on 30.6.1975 as per G.O.(Ms)No.589 CT&RE Department, dated 14.5.1975. If the petitioners had any right over the land, they would have availed of these opportunities. However, the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble High Court to set aside the settlement proceedings that were carried out 32 years ago. If the request of the petitioner is conceded, it would set a precedent to others to make such claims and it would unsettle the settled matter. 7.It is further submitted that if any adverse order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, it would affect the settled matters not only in this particular case, but also in the cases where certain fraudulent orders were passed by the Assistant Settlement Officers/Settlement Officers." 26.The District Collector, Thiruvallur had also filed a counter affidavit, dated 24.11.2012 in the writ petitions filed by Rajendra Raja group and in paragraph 8, it was averred as follows : "8.Thus, the District Collector or District Revenue Officer or any other Revenue Authority in the District is not having jurisdiction to enquire into or pass orders on matters pertaining to disputes on settlement issues already decided by the Settlement Tahsildar." 27.As the committee itself has recommended for getting an order of this court for reopening the enquiry and now that the authority had considered that the proceedings cannot be reopened at this point of time, it is unnecessary to deal with the effect of the committee's report. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the challenge made to these notices have become redundant and the writ petitions have become infructuous. Hence W.P.Nos.25413 of 2009, 22944 of 2010 and 25372 of 2012 will stand dismissed without any further order except recording the statements made in counter affidavits filed by the Commissioner for Survey and Settlement and the District Collector as noted above. 28.W.P.No.9850 of 2011 : The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for records pertaining to a letter dated 10.12.2009 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-1, Chennai Suburban police. By the impugned notice, the said Inspector of Police called for certain information from the first respondent, i.e., Assistant Settlement Officer, Land Tax (North) (R.S.Anbalagan) with reference to the settlement proceedings. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent Assistant Settlement Officer gave several explanations including his power to reopen the concluded settlement proceedings of the year 1976. Since these documents were produced before various courts and also formed basis for the criminal investigation, the Amaravathy Cranes wanted to set aside the information sought for by the Inspector and the reply given by the said Anbalagan, Assistant Settlement Officer. 29.It is not clear as to how the petitioner can challenge an inter office communication between the Inspector of Police and the Government official as well as the reply given by him. Even assuming that the reply given is either adverse to the petitioner or not based on sound legal principle, that does not give a cause of action for the petitioner to challenge the communication, which remained purely as an inter office communication. Further, in the light of the stand taken by the Commissioner for Survey and Settlement in its counter affidavit referred to above, the petitioner's apprehension is unwarranted. In any event, the writ petition is clearly not maintainable unless it culminated into an order which is given to the petitioner. Hence W.P.No.9850 of 2011 will stand dismissed. 30.W.P.No.11317 of 2002 : The said writ petition was filed by the Amaravathy Cranes seeking for a direction to take suitable action pursuant to the representation made by the company on 29.3.2002 by way of telegram. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, much water has flown under the bridge as per the narration given above. Hence this writ petition does not require any action. Hence W.P.No.11317 of 2002 will stand dismissed as infructuous. W.P.Nos.7084, 8019, 8028, 8032, 8330, 8333, 8337, 8394, 8422, 8499 and 14586 of 2011, W.P.Nos.7092, 8021, 8029, 8031, 8332, 8334, 8336, 8396, 8421, 8497 and 14587 of 2011, W.P.Nos.7074, 8020, 8030, 8033, 8331, 8335, 8338, 8395, 8423, 8498 and 14469 of 2011 and 6720, 6721 and 6738 of 2011 and W.P.Nos.26731 to 26739 of 2012 :

31. The prayer in all these writ petitions filed by Rajendra Raja and his group is to quash the order passed by the Settlement Thasildar, Chengalpattu made in S.R.Nos.14/76, 15/76 and 16/76, which was passed as early as 23.07.1976, 24.07.1976 and 30.7.1976 and the prayer in the W.P.Nos.26731 to 26739 of 2012 is for a direction to conduct a fresh denovo final settlement enquiry as per the Madras Estate (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 in respect of S.Nos.489 to 514. 32.It must be noted that the petitioners have not explained the long delay in coming to this court for setting aside the order which was made during July, 1976 (36 years before). In the affidavits, no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming. As to whether any direction can be issued by this court to order a fresh denova enquiry in respect of the concluded settlement proceedings is also a doubtful proposition. The petitioners are guilty of delay and laches. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.D.S.Ramesh, contended that the delay in coming to this court need not stand in the way of the court granting the relief. He referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (1984) 3 SCC 36.and in paragraph 9, it was observed as follows : "9.......While there are different periods of limitation prescribed for the institution of different kinds of suits by the Limitation Act, 1963, there is no such period prescribed by law in respect of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether relief should be granted to a petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution where the cause of action had arisen in the remote past is a matter of sound judicial discretion governed by the doctrine of laches. Where a petitioner who could have availed of the alternative remedy by way of suit approaches the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is appropriate ordinarily to construe any unexplained delay in the filing of the writ petition after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing a suit as unreasonable. This rule, however, cannot be a rigid formula. There may be cases where even a delay of a shorter period may be considered to be sufficient to refuse relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. There may also be cases where there may be circumstances which may persuade the court to grant relief even though the petition may have been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for a suit. Each case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances touching the conduct of the parties, the change in situation, the prejudice which is likely to be caused to the opposite party or to the general public etc. ......" 33.He further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 72.and in paragraphs 45 to 48, it was observed as follows : "45.We have considered the respective arguments. The Framers of the Constitution have not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and it is only one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is essentially an equity jurisdiction, should not be exercised in favour of a person who approaches the Court after a long lapse of time and no cogent explanation is given for the delay.

46. In Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi16 the Constitution Bench considered the question whether the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for refund of the amount forfeited by the Sales Tax Officer under Section 21(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, which, according to the petitioner, was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature should be entertained ignoring the delay of almost nine years. Sikri and Hedge, JJ.

were of the view that even though the petitioner had approached the Court with considerable delay, the writ petition filed by it should be allowed because Section 12-A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 was declared unconstitutional by the Division Bench of the High Court (sic Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court)***. Bachawat and Mitter, JJ.

opined that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay.

47. Hidayatullah, C.J.

who agreed with Bachawat and Mitter, JJ.

in Tilokchand case16 noted that no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and proceeded to observe: (SCC p. 116, para

11) 11. Therefore, the question is one of discretion for this Court to follow from case to case. There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit. A case may be brought within the Limitation Act by reason of some article but this Court need not necessarily give the total time to the litigant to move this Court under Article 32. Similarly in a suitable case this Court may entertain such a petition even after a lapse of time. It will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are when and how the delay arose.

48. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is that even though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner should approach the Court without loss of time and if there is delay, then cogent explanation should be offered for the same. However, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down or a straitjacket formula can be adopted for deciding whether or not this Court or the High Court should entertain a belated petition filed under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution and each case must be decided on its own facts. 34.He also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 35.and referred to the following passages found in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:

12. The State, especially a welfare State which is governed by the rule of law, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond one that is provided by the Constitution. Our Constitution is an organic and flexible one. Delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third-party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience.

13. The question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226, nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of a certain length of time. There may be a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay. Ultimately, it would be a matter within the discretion of the Court and such discretion, must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it. The validity of the partys defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. (Vide P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N.8, State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal9 and Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B.10) 14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners. (Vide Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports11, Collector (LA) v. Katiji12, Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur13, Dayal Singh v. Union of India14 and Shankara Coop.Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar15.) 15. In H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra16 this Court condoned a 30-year delay in approaching the court where it found violation of substantive legal rights of the applicant. In that case, the requisition of premises made by the State was assailed." 35.He, alternatively, submitted that the limitation will start only when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner and when the facts were concealed by fraud or dishonest conduct. For this purpose, he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, which was rendered under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian reported in (2001) 7 SCC 54.and referred to the following passage found in paragraph 47, which reads as follows :

47. Section 17 of the Limitation Act, inter alia, provides that where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by the Act, the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of the defendant or his agent [Section 17(1)(b)] or where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or the applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him [Section 17(1)(d)], the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or the applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production. These provisions embody fundamental principles of justice and equity viz. that a party should not be penalised for failing to adopt legal proceedings when the facts or material necessary for him to do so have been wilfully concealed from him and also that a party who has acted fraudulently should not gain the benefit of limitation running in his favour by virtue of such fraud. 36.He also referred to an another judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi reported in (2009) 13 SCC 19.for contending that the word sufficient cause found under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Ultimately, the court has to protect the public justice. In paragraphs 21 to 23, the Supreme Court had observed as follows : "21. The case at hand is a classic example where the circumstances are the same. More than 4000 acres of land are involved out of which, according to the State, nearly 3500 acres constitute forest land. Ultimately, the Court has to protect the public justice. The same cannot be rendered ineffective by skilful management of delay in the process of making challenge to the order which prima facie does not appear to be legally sustainable.

22. The expression sufficient cause as appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Limitation Act) must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice as was noted by this Court in G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer8. Paras 16-17 of the judgment reads as follows: (SCC pp. 148-49) 16. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it.

17. Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have a little play at the joints. Due recognition of these limitations on governmental functioning of course, within reasonable limits is necessary if the judicial approach is not to be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision-making process. In the opinion of the High Court, the conduct of the law officers of the Government placed the Government in a predicament and that it was one of those cases where the mala fides of the officers should not be imputed to Government. It relied upon and trusted its law officers. Lindley, M.R., in National Bank of Wales Ltd. In re9, observed, though in a different context: (Ch p.

673) Business cannot be carried on upon principles of distrust. Men in responsible positions must be trusted by those above them, as well as by those below them, until there is reason to distrust them.

23. Keeping in view the importance of questions of law which are involved we are inclined to condone the delay subject to payment of exemplary costs which we fix at rupees ten lakhs to be paid within a period of eight weeks to the respondents. The delay is condoned subject to the payment of the aforesaid amount as costs. After making the payment the receipt thereof shall be filed before this Court along with an affidavit. Only after the payment is made the special leave petitions shall be listed for admission. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case." He stated that as adopted by the Supreme Court, costs can be ordered. 37.The learned counsel also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh B.Desai and others Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 63.for contending that the question of limitation is the mixed question of law and facts and if fraud is alleged, then the entertainment of the petition will depend upon the facts of each particular case. Since the Amaravathy Cranes had committed fraud, it is a fit case for setting aside the proceedings of the Settlement Officer even though it was of the year 1976. 38.He lastly referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Kalvert Foods India Private Limited and others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 24.for contending that the period of limitation has to be computed from the date of knowledge. 39.The learned counsel also elaborately argued as to how the Amaravathy Cranes had committed fraud and placed reliance upon several judgments as to what constitutes fraud. He also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 22.for contending that the order which is non existent in law can be challenged at any time in an appeal, revision or in collateral proceedings. He further submitted that the suo motu power can be exercised by the authorities under the Inam Act even after a long lapse of time and relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of A.P. v. Kalleti Chengaiah, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 21.and the judgment of this Court in M.Veeraswamy Vs. Special Commissioner reported in 1996 (2) LW 45.(Mad)(DB). 40.It is not as if this court can give directions contrary to statutory provisions by accepting the version of the petitioners. A stale cause of action cannot be revived by giving direction to consider petitioners' representation as held by the Supreme Court in C.Jacob vs. Director of Geology & Mining and another reported in 2008 (10) SCC 115.It is relevant to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 9 to 11 and it reads as follows "9.The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any decision on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to consider. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to consider. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.

10. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 11.When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of acknowledgement of a jural relationship to give rise to a fresh cause of action." 41.The Supreme Court in A.P. SRTC v. G. Srinivas Reddy, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 67.in paragraphs 14 to 19 had observed as follows : "14. We may, in this context, examine the significance and meaning of a direction given by the court to consider a case. When a court directs an authority to consider, it requires the authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then take a decision thereon in accordance with law. There is a reason for a large number of writ petitions filed in the High Courts being disposed of with a direction to consider the claim/case/representation of the petitioner(s) in the writ petitions.

15. Where an order or action of the State or an authority is found to be illegal, or in contravention of the prescribed procedure, or in breach of the rules of natural justice, or arbitrary/unreasonable/irrational, or prompted by mala fides or extraneous consideration, or the result of abuse of power, such action is open to judicial review. When the High Court finds that the order or action requires interference and exercises the power of judicial review, thereby resulting in the action/order of the State or authority being quashed, the High Court will not proceed to substitute its own decision in the matter, as that will amount to exercising appellate power, but require the authority to consider and decide the matter again. The power of judicial review under Article 226 concentrates and lays emphasis on the decision-making process, rather than the decision itself.

16. The High Courts also direct the authorities to consider, in a different category of cases. Where an authority vested with the power to decide a matter, fails to do so in spite of a request, the person aggrieved approaches the High Court, which in exercise of the power of judicial review, directs the authority to consider and decide the matter. In such cases, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court directs consideration without examining the facts or the legal question(s) involved and without recording any findings on the issues. The High Court may also direct the authority to consider afresh, where the authority had decided a matter without considering the relevant facts and circumstances, or by taking extraneous or irrelevant matters into consideration. In such cases also, the High Court may not examine the validity or tenability of the claim on merits, but require the authority to do so.

17. Where the High Court finds the decision-making process erroneous and records its findings as to the manner in which the decision should be made, and then directs the authority to consider the matter, the authority will have to consider and decide the matter in the light of its findings or observations of the court. But where the High Court without recording any findings, or without expressing any view, merely directs the authority to consider the matter, the authority will have to consider the matter in accordance with law, with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, its power not being circumscribed by any observations or findings of the court.

18. We may also note that sometimes the High Courts dispose of the matter merely with a direction to the authority to consider the matter without examining the issue raised even though the facts necessary to decide the correctness of the order are available. Neither pressure of work nor the complexity of the issue can be a reason for the court to avoid deciding the issue which requires to be decided, and disposing of the matter with a direction to consider the matter afresh. Be that as it may. 19.There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of pliable authorities have misused the direction to consider issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to consider and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to consider, the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to consider the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order to consider as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to consider, may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court's direction to consider the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily-wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders to consider." 42.There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court vide decisions cited by the petitioner's counsel. But in the present fact situation, the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the long delay of over 3-1/2 decades. 43.Mr.N.Jothi learned counsel appearing for Amaravathy Cranes also contended that Rajendra Raja group is guilty of delay and laches and there is no explanation forthcoming for condoning the delay which is more than 3-1/2 decades. He referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Yunus (Baboobhai) A.Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary reported in (2009) 3 SCC 28.and reliance was placed upon paragraph 10, which reads as follows :

10. .......

8. It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation to Article 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards that Article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India5 that no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 after inordinate delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right, it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution makers that this Court should disregard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay. 44.For the very same proposition, he also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation reported in (2009) 1 SCC 29.and in paragraphs 14 and 15 it was observed as follows :

14. ...... A writ remedy is a discretionary remedy. The court exercises its jurisdiction only upon satisfying itself that it would be equitable to do so. Delay and/or laches, indisputably, are the relevant factors.

15. The superior courts, times without number, applied the equitable principles for not granting a relief and/or a limited relief in favour of the applicant in a case of this nature. While doing so, the Court although not oblivious of the fact that no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition, but emphasis is laid that it should be filed within a reasonable time. A discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised if the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. 45.The learned counsel also placed reliance upon an earlier ruling of the Supreme Court in Cyril Lasrado v. Juliana Maria Lasrado reported in (2004) 7 SCC 43.and referred to the following passage found in paragraph 8 which reads as follows :

8. Apparently, overlooking the fact that the writ petition was filed after about 19 years of the disposal of the matter by the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge disposed of the matter even without issuance of notice to the legal representatives. The writ petition was filed after about two decades. That prima facie made the learned Single Judge's order vulnerable. The Division Bench without indicating any reason as to how the conclusions of learned Single Judge were in order dismissed the writ appeal. 46.Further the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied by the Amaravathy Cranes group by filing a common counter affidavit. In such circumstances, whether on disputed fact the Court can entertain a writ petition came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Subhashree Das v. State of Orissa reported in (2012) 9 SCC 72.and in paragraph 7, it was observed as follows :

7. Having given due consideration to the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the claim of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Orissa, could not have been determined on the basis of disputed facts. In a case where a petitioner/appellant wishes to press his/her claim before a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the claim raised by such a petitioner/appellant must be determined on the basis of the factual position acknowledged by the respondent. This is so because a High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would ordinarily not adjudicate a matter, where the foundational facts are disputed........ 47.Further, the facts alleged by the petitioners have also been denied by the respondents. This court cannot go into the disputed question of fact. The Supreme Court in Delhi Admn. v. Kaushilya Thakur reported in (2012) 5 SCC 41.in paragraphs 10 and 11 had observed as follows :

10. We have heard Shri H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Rishikesh, learned counsel for Respondent 1 and perused the record. In our view, the impugned order1 as also the one passed by the learned Single Judge2 are liable to be set aside because while granting relief to the husband of Respondent 1, the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that the writ petition had been filed after almost 4 years of the rejection of an application for allotment of 1000 sq yd plot made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur. The fact that the writ petitioner made further representations could not be made a ground for ignoring the delay of more than 3 years, more so because in the subsequent communication the authorities concerned had merely indicated that the decision contained in the first letter would stand.

11. It is trite to say that in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot entertain belated claims unless the petitioner offers tangible explanation (State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai3). Hence this court is not inclined to give any such direction sought for by the petitioner. In the light of the above, all writ petitions challenging the order in S.R.Nos.14,15 and 16, dated 23.07.1976, 24.07.1976 and 30.07.1976 deserve to be dismissed. 48.He also submitted that the claim of Rajendra Raja group seeking for a direction for a suo motu review by the settlement authorities also does not stand to reason. First of all, with reference to subordinate officers, a time limit has been prescribed by an amendment to the Inam Abolition Rules, 1963 in the year 1987 and this fact was reemphasised by the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement in his counter affidavit. Even otherwise, if there is any suo motu power available, that itself is subject to exercise based upon reasonable limit. In this context, he referred to certain judgments which arose under the Land Reforms and Tenancy Laws. 49.The learned counsel referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim reported in (1997) 6 SCC 7.and in paragraph 2, it was observed as follows :

2. ........ But in view of the settled position by several judgments of this Court that wherever a power is vested in a statutory authority without prescribing any time-limit, such power should be exercised within a reasonable time. In the present case the transfer took place as early as in the year 1972 and suo motu enquiry was started by the Mamlatdar in September 1973. If sale deeds are declared to be invalid the appellant is likely to suffer irreparable injury, because he has made investments after the aforesaid purchase. In this connection, on behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on a judgment of Justice S.B. Majmudar (as he then was in the High Court of Gujarat) in State of Gujarat v. Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah1 disposed of on 1-3-1990, where in connection with Section 84-C itself it was said that the power under the aforesaid section should be exercised within a reasonable time. This Court in connection with other statutory provisions, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha2 and in the case of Ram Chand v. Union of India3 has impressed that where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. ..... 50.The learned counsel further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy reported in (2003) 7 SCC 66.and in paragraph 9, it was observed as follows :

9. Even before the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ appeals, the appellants did not contend that the suo motu power could be exercised even after a long delay of 13-15 years because of the fraudulent acts of the non-official respondents. The focus of attention before the Division Bench was only on the language of sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act as to whether the suo motu power could be exercised at any time strictly sticking to the language of that sub-section or it could be exercised within reasonable time. In the absence of necessary and sufficient particulars pleaded as regards fraud and the date or period of discovery of fraud and more so when the contention that the suo motu power could be exercised within a reasonable period from the date of discovery of fraud was not urged, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were right in not examining the question of fraud alleged to have been committed by the non-official respondents. Use of the words at any time in sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act only indicates that no specific period of limitation is prescribed within which the suo motu power could be exercised reckoning or starting from a particular date advisedly and contextually. Exercise of suo motu power depended on facts and circumstances of each case. In cases of fraud, this power could be exercised within a reasonable time from the date of detection or discovery of fraud. While exercising such power, several factors need to be kept in mind such as effect on the rights of the third parties over the immovable property due to passage of considerable time, change of hands by subsequent bona fide transfers, the orders attaining finality under the provisions of other Acts (such as the Land Ceiling Act). Hence, it appears that without stating from what date the period of limitation starts and within what period the suo motu power is to be exercised, in sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act, the words at any time are used so that the suo motu power could be exercised within reasonable period from the date of discovery of fraud depending on facts and circumstances of each case in the context of the statute and nature of rights of the parties. Use of the words at any time in sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act cannot be rigidly read letter by letter. It must be read and construed contextually and reasonably. If one has to simply proceed on the basis of the dictionary meaning of the words at any time, the suo motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act could be exercised even after decades and then it would lead to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties, that too, over immovable properties. Orders attaining finality and certainty of the rights of the parties accrued in the light of the orders passed must have sanctity. Exercise of suo motu power at any time only means that no specific period such as days, months or years are not (sic) prescribed reckoning from a particular date. But that does not mean that at any time should be unguided and arbitrary. In this view, at any time must be understood as within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances of each case in the absence of prescribed period of limitation." The contentions raised by the learned counsel for Amaravathy Cranes is well founded. This court is not inclined to accept that Rajendra Raja group has made out any case for interference with the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1976. Further, no case is made out seeking for a direction to reopen the case by the Government for a denova enquiry. 51.In the present case, the contentions raised by the petitioners cannot be countenanced for more than one reason. First of all, the State, which has to take a decision, had already filed a counter affidavit before this court in the writ petition filed by the Rajendra Raja group that the concluded proceedings during the year July, 1976 cannot be reopened after a long lapse of time and foreclosed the abortive steps taken by the Assistant Settlement Officer (North) Chennai (R.S.Anbalagan). In fact, the State also had pointed out that a disciplinary proceedings is pending against the said Anbalagan for his conduct in having sold the land belonged to the Thanjavur District Collector Bungalow. 52.Similarly, the prayer for invoking suo motu power to conduct a fresh denova enquiry was also found to be not feasible by the official respondents in the light of the counter affidavit extract elsewhere in the judgment. Further, the Rajendra Raja group have filed suits before the District Munsif Court, Ambattur to declare the sale deeds effected in the year 1965 as null and void in O.S.Nos.367 to 371, 397 to 410, 421 to 430 and 435 to 444 of 2011 and that the attempt made by the Amaravathy Cranes to strike off the plaints was rejected by this court in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1872 to 1910 of 2010, dated 18.02.2013. Therefore, it is for the Rajendra Raja group to work out their right in the manner known to law. Hence the writ petitions seeking for a suo moto revision by the Government does not stand for legal scrutiny. 53.In W.P.Nos.5527, 5663 and 5664 of 2012, the prayer is to set aside the order dated 31.01.2012 issued by the District Registrar Saidapet, Chennai and consequently to forbear the respondents from initiating or conducting an enquiry in respect of the properties which are subject matter in number of cases filed before the civil court as well as this court. 54.W.P.No.5144 and 5976 of 2011, the prayer is to set side the order dated 30.8.2012 issued by the Inspector General of Registration to get the No objection certificate before the registration. 55.W.P.No.5154 and 5893 of 2011 is to quash the order dated 23.04.2010 issued by the Inspector General of Police (Crime), Chennai to the I.G. of Registration on the basis that since there are genuine complaints and the real owners of the land are subject in issue and the investigation by the CBCID is under progress to find out the facts of the case and since the properties are being sold illegally by some people, it was requested that suitable orders may be passed to the Registrar in the respective districts not to entertain any registration of sale of survey numbers set out therein till the completion of the investigation by the CBCID as noted already. It is pursuant to the request made by the Inspector General of Police, Crime, dated 23.04.2010, the Inspector General of Registration had issued an order dated 30.8.2010. The said order came to be challenged before this court by one K.Velmurugan in W.P.No.22985 of 2010. M.Jaichandren, J., by his judgment dated 19.01.2011 had dismissed the said writ petition and upheld the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration and in paragraphs 14 and 15, it was observed as follows :

14. Even though the registering authority cannot conduct a roving enquiry, with regard to the title of the properties, which is the subject matter of the sale deed, it would be open to the said authority to be prima facie satisfied about the authority and the veracity of the transactions. Even though Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, and Rule 55 of the Tamilnadu Registration Rules, 1983, imposed certain restrictions on the registering authority, it cannot be said that such restrictions are absolute and conclusive. If the Inspector General of Registration issues certain directions to the registering authorities, in public interest, in order to protect unwary purchasers of certain disputed properties, it cannot be held that such instructions are, automatically, arbitrary and invalid. In the impugned communication of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2010, it has been stated that 167 acres of lands in Morai Village had been encroached upon, illegally, by various persons and that the lands are being sold as plots, by forming layouts, without getting the necessary approval from the panchayat concerned.

15. It had also been stated that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority had not granted the necessary approval for the sale of the plots. Further, three criminal cases had been registered in respect of the lands in question. Since, the land sought to be sold by way of the sale deed, dated 18.8.2010, is in one of the survey numbers mentioned in the impugned instructions of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2010, the fourth respondent had asked the petitioner to obtain the `No Objection Certificates' from the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District. As such, it cannot be said that the directions issued by the first respondent in his impugned communication, dated 30.8.2010, which had been issued in public interest, cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal and void. Since, the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 56.Further, Rajendra Raja group also suffers orders of injunction granted in I.A.Nos.805 and 806 of 2009 by the District Munsif, Ambattur from creating any false, fradulent and fabricated documents of transfer, settlement, mortgage or any kind of transfer or encumbrance, which was confirmed in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1456 and 1457 of 2011. They cannot have any locus standi to challenge the circular. Hence all writ petitions stand dismissed. 57.In W.P.No.9202 of 2011, the prayer is to file the status report about the fraudulent and collusive act of the Amaravathy Cranes with regard to the ryotwari patta obtained in Morai village. It must be noted that due to public complaints, a District level committee was constituted by the District Collector, pursuant to which the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur had ordered for an enquiry. That was challenged by the Amaravathy Cranes in W.P.No.22944 of 2010. Subsequently, the committee made a report on 31.5.2011 and that became the subject matter of a writ petition in W.P.No.25372 of 2012 filed by the Amaravathy Cranes. As already both writ petitions were dismissed based upon the counter affidavits filed by the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner for Survey and Settlement, Chennai, the petitioners' prayer cannot be countenanced. Hence W.P.No.9202 of 2011 will stand dismissed. 58.W.P.Nos.13333 and 13335 of 2012, the prayer is for a direction to the Sub Registrar, Avadi not to admit and register any document of sale as per the survey number set out in the affidavit. In the light of the injunction granted against the Rajendra Raja group, both these writ petitions will have to be dismissed. 59.In the light of the above, all writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions will also stand dismissed. 19.02.2013 Index : Yes Internet : Yes vvk To 1.The District Collector, Trivellore District, at Trivellore. 2.The President, Morai Village Panchayat, Morai, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai-600 055. 3.Village Administrative Officer, Morai-I, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai-600 055. 4.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Pandepuram Sub-Station, Avadi North (Avadi IAF), Veerapuram, Chennai-600 055. 5.The Asst. Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Pandepuram Sub-Station, Avadi North (Avadi IAF), Veerapuram, Chennai-600 055. 6.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Pandepuram Sub Station, Avadi North (Avadi IAF), Veerapuram, Chennai-600 055. 7.The Sub Registrar, Avadi Sub Registration Office, Avadi, Chennai-73. 8.The Principal Secretary / The Commissioner of Land Survey and Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 9.The Assistant Settlement Officer, Land Tax (North), Chepauk, Chennai-5. 10.The Commissioner of Land Reforms / Director of Land Reforms, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-4. 11.The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Thiruvallur District. 12.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, 30,Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 13.The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. 14.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, Thiruvalur District. 15.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-I, Chennai Sub Urban Police, Chennai-16. 16.The Additional District Magistrate/ The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. 17.The Additional Personal Assistant to the Collector (Lands), Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. 18.The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallu”

001. 19.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Santhome, Chennai-600 004. 20.The Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Crime, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. 21.The Sub Registrar, Avadi Sub-Registration Office, Avadi, Chennai-600 054. 22.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 23.The Revenue Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 24.Commissioner of Land Administration, Directorate of Settlements, Ezhilagam, 30,Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 25.Personnel Assistant to the Principal Secretary, (Assistant Settlement Officer for Northern Districts), Secretariat, Chennai. 26.The Director of Survey and Settlements, Directorate of Settlements Ezhilagam, 30, Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 27.The Settlement Officer, Directorate of Settlements, Ezhilagam, 30,Kamaraj Road, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 28.The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 29.The District Registrar, No.9,Gen's Road, Saidapet, Chennai-15. K.CHANDRU, J.

vvk ORDER IN W.P.Nos.11317 of 2002, 21800 to 21802, 21877 to 21879 and 25413 of 2009, 22944 of 2010, 9850 of 2011 and 25372 of 2012 AND W.P.Nos.5144, 5154, 5893, 5976, 6720, 6721, 6738, 7074, 7084, 7092, 8019 to 8021, 8028 to 8033, 8330 to 8338, 8394 to 8396, 8421 to 8423, 8497 to 8499, 9202, 14469, 14586 and 14587 of 2011, 5527, 5663, 5664, 13333, 13335 and 26731 to 26739 o”

19. 02.2013