Lock and seal case encroachment. Cost 50 k THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.Nos.23866 and 23870 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.25160, 25168, 26845 and 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on
02.11.2021 17.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

W.P.Nos.23866 and 23870 of 2021
and W.M.P.Nos.25160, 25168, 26845 and 26846 of 2021

M/s.A.H.M.Traders,
Rep. by Authorized Representative S.Abubakkar,
No.122/4, Ennore Express Road,
Thangal, Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai-600 019. … Petitioner in W.P.No.23866 of 2021

M/s.S.Mohamed Ali & Co.,
Rep. by its Proprietor S.Mohammed Ali,
No.19, Sudhandhirapuram,
Thangal, Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai-600 019. … Petitioner in W.P.No.23870 of 2021
-vs-
1. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.

2. The Executive Engineer,
Zone-I, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.947, T.H.Road, Thiruvottriyur,
Chennai-600 019.

3. The Assistant Engineer, DIV 014,
Zone-I, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.947, T.H.Road, Thiruvottriyur,
Chennai-600 019.

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer (UNIT III),
Zone-I, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.947, T.H.Road, Thiruvottriyur,
Chennai-600 019. … Common Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.23866/2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the Respondents 2 to 4 in their proceedings Notice No.01/02170/2021 dated 19.04.2021 and Letter No.01/00094/2021 dated 22.06.2021 and quash the same.
Prayer in W.P.No.23870/2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the Respondents 2 to 4 in their proceedings Notice No.01/02164/2021 dated 19.04.2021, Lock and Seal and Demolition Notice in Letter No.01/01913/2021 dated 21.05.2021, Letter No.01/00091/2021 dated 22.06.2021 and Letter No.01/00093/2021 dated 22.06/2021 passed by the Respondents 2 to 4 respectively.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vijayakumar

For Respondents : Mr.Raja Srinivas
*****
C O M M O N O R D E R
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.,
The Petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions, seeking to quash the proceedings issued in Notice No.01/02170/2021 dated 19.04.2021 and Letter No.01/00094/2021 dated 22.06.2021 and Notice No.01/02164/2021 dated 19.04.2021, Lock and Seal and Demolition Notice in Letter No.01/01913/2021 dated 21.05.2021, Letter No.01/00091/2021 dated 22.06.2021 and Letter No.01/00093/2021 dated 22.06/2021 passed by the Respondents 2 to 4 respectively, in and by which, the Petitioners were asked to stop the ongoing works for want of approved plan and the consequential Lock and Seal Notice was also issued.

2. Mr.Raja Srinivas, learned counsel takes notice for the Respondents. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together for joint disposal at the admission stage itself, by consent of the learned counsel on either side.

3. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.No.23866 of 2021 on due mention of original nomenclatures described in the Writ Petition.

3.1. It was the case of the Petitioner that they are into the business of trading of Wooden and scrap Items for the last 17 years and they have also been paying all the applicable taxes without fail. The business is being run in the name of the company and its owner after obtaining due licence from the concerned Authority. It was further case of the Petitioner that while so, in the year 2005, the Petitioner made a temporary shed for business purposes and the same has not been converted into a permanent structure.

3.2. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner received a Notice dated 19.04.2021 from the Respondents for furnishing a copy of the approved plan and though the Petitioner appeared before the 2nd Respondent and explained the factual position in respect of the temporary shed put up by the Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent was not in a position to heed the explanation offered by the Petitioner. Subsequent thereto, the Respondents attempted to demolish the shed with a JCB machine on 29.10.2021 and their attempt was temporarily thwarted.

3.3. It was the grievance of the Petitioner that though the Petitioner has filed an application before the Government under Section 80(A)(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (in short ‘the Act, 1971′), the Petitioner feels an allusion of threat in the form of Damocles sword, hanging on the top, as the Respondents informed that the structure would be demolished on the next inspection. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, the Petitioner is before this Court, seeking to quash the proceedings issued by R2 to R4.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that when there are buildings, situated in the very same locality in the same manner like that of the Petitioner, the action of the Respondents is nothing, but a motivated. The Respondents failed to note that a temporary shed alone has been put to run the business and there was no permanent structure laid down in the premises of the Petitioner and therefore, the question of obtaining an approved plan does not arise at all. He further submitted that when the Petitioner was in occupation of the premises for quite a number of years, as is evidence from the Sale Deed dated 01.09.1970, it is not known as to why such a notice came to be issued against the Petitioner at this point of time. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, in the midst of his argument, relied upon the following judgments of this Court to strengthen his case:
i) Muthammal vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 216;
“14. Learned senior counsel relied on the earliest judgement on this subject in Papala Narayanaswamy Naidu and Ors. v. Secretary of State for India in Council rep. by the Collector of Chingleput and Ors. reported in 24 MLJ 36, wherein a Division Bench of this Court observed that the words poramboke may convey unassessed waste but not communal property such as burying grounds, temple sites, threshing floors, public roads, and rivers all of which also are included in the area of the village but which are not in terms excepted from the grant.

15. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment in Rengaraja Iyengar and Anr. v. Achikannu Ammal and Anr. reported in 1959 MLJ 513, wherein it is observed that Lands which are within the limits of the gramanatham and on which buildings or sheds may be put up when necessary should also be house sites within the meaning of the section whether such buildings are constructed or not. In the present case, there was building in the suit properties before 1945 and later the plaintiff put up a shed as admitted by the witnesses.

16. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in N.S. Kupuswamy Odayar and Anr. v. The Panchayat of Narthamgudi reported in MANU/TN/0303/1970, wherein M.M. Ismail,J., held that “the mere fact that in the re-settlement Register, a particular piece of land has been described as poramboke will not by itself establish title of the Government to the land in question.”. In the present case even after the resurvey the entire extent is classified as gramanatham and it is only the adjacent lands to the suit lands are government poramboke as admitted by D.W. 2.

17. In A. Sankaralingam v. Arunachala Reddiyar and Ors. reported in MANU/TN/0403/1992, it has been held that “there is no law saying that all natham properties are Government or Panchayat properties. The decision in Rengaraja Iyengar v. Achikannu Ammal is that Grmanatham does not stand vested in the Government under Section 3(b) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. Thus, at any rate, it cannot be said automatically that all natham properties are Government properties”. In the present case it is not in dispute that the entire extent of the survey number is gramanatham and hence it does not vest with the Government.

18. In A.K. Thllaivanam v. The District Collector, Kancheepuram and Ors. reported in 1998 3 LW.603, it has been held that grmanatham being vested with the petitioners no action could be taken under the Land Encroachment Act or Estate Abolition Act or any other enactment, it is not communal property, and being gramanatham as the petitioners had exclusive right, title and possession, the Government had no right to interfere or give complaint under Section 420 IPC. In the present case, it is in evidence that the suit properties were in possession of the plaintiff’s vendor’s father.

19. As regards genuineness of Ex.A. 1, it is submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the stamp paper has been purchased even two months prior to the date of the document and it has been purchased in the name of one Kesava Naidu and not either in the name of the plaintiff or her husband. In this connection we have to visualise the situation that existed during 1945. The value of the stamp paper is 1 Rupees and 8 Annas. The suit is of the year 1988. Normally, the courts shall not entertain any doubt as to the genuineness of the documents of such old period that too when the purchaser as well as one of the attesting witness have given their deposition. It is in evidence that no stamp vendor was available in Valayapatti at that point of time and probably the plaintiff’s husband might have purchased the stamp paper from the said Kesava Naidu. Since the land being grama natham, the plaintiff’s vendor’s father had no parent document in respect of the suit items and he might have occupied the land as the first occupier and naturally he is the owner. From the vendor the properties comes to the hand of the plaintiff and the suit has been filed in the year 1988. Thus from 1945 for more than 43 years, the plaintiff and after her death her son has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the grama natham land. Thus even if there is no such sale deed (Ex.A. 1), the plaintiff has perfected title by adverse possession as against the Government namely, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for over the period of 30 years without any disturbance. Admittedly, there is no other rival claim in respect of the suit properties. In the circumstances it has to be held that even if Ex.A. 1 is not believed, suit for declaration can be given on the basis of possession.”

4 (i). This judgment will not be helpful to the case of the Petitioners, as the title and possession was clearly established therein, whereas in the schedule of property in Doc.No.1426 produced in this case, there was no reference with regard to the existence of any building thereon.
ii) T.Nathira Parveen vs. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai and Others [W.P.No.5405 of 2021] decided on 04.03.2021;
“(6) In response to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents, for the reasons best known to them, has targeted the premises of the petitioner; whereas, there are other buildings situate on the same street and are also authorised/deviated and that apart, most of the buildings are encroaching upon the public road and despite being aware of the said fact, the respondents did not care to take any steps and prays for appropriate orders.

(7) to (8)….
(9) … At this juncture, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents undertakes to withdraw the notices and issue fresh notice with correct door number to the petitioner and would further add that the other premises in the said area would also be caused inspection and WP.No.5405/2021 if the result of the inspection reveals any infraction in the form of encroachment / unauthorized / deviated constructions, further course of action would follow.

(10) In the light of the above submission made, respondents 2 and 3 shall withdraw the notices dated 05.02.2021 and 25.02.2021 respectively and they are at liberty to issue fresh notices calling for the approved plan followed by the Locking and Sealing and Demolition Notice in respect of the premises bearing Door No.44/26 [part], Thiyagarayapuram II Main Road, Thangal, Chennai-600 019 and the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner would receive the said notice/s on 19.03.2021 and thereafter, they are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law. It is also open to the respondents to cause inspection of the premises/building in the said area/locality as to whether any encroachments have been caused upon the public road or unauthorised / deviated constructions are put up in accordance with law by also adhering to the principles of natural justice and depending upon the result of the inspection, further course of action in accordance with law should follow.”
4 (ii). This judgment will also not come in aid of the the Petitioners for the reason that there was some confusion with regard to the door number and in that context, the Respondents therein decided to withdraw the notice so as to issue afresh one after ascertaining the correct door number and such issue does not arise here.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that during inspection, it was found that the Petitioners have made encroachments on the Government lands and the fact whether it is a temporary shed or full-fledged structured will be unearthed after verification of plan and other documents. By impugned orders, the Petitioners were instructed to produce supporting documents to defend their case. It was further contended that though sufficient opportunity in the form of principles of natural justice as contemplated under the Act, 1971 was given to the petitioners to stop works, the Petitioners had not responded to such notices. The Respondents are in the process of conducting consecutive inspections in order to curb encroachments on the public places and the wrong committed by others will not inure to the benefit of the Petitioners to do the same thing and in case of violations, they will also face similar consequences. Hence, it was prayed that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine.

6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

7. According to the Petitioners, the property was purchased in the year 1970 and that there was a building thereon. It was further urged by the Petitioners that it was not a Poramboke land, as the property was initially in enjoyment and possession of another person for ten years and thereafter, Petitioners purchased the property. A scrutiny at the Schedule of Property in Doc.No.1426 reveals that it is only a land in enjoyment of the Petitioners (mDnghf ghj;jpa kid) and the Petitioners, in violation, had constructed a building, which forced the Respondents to issue a Notice under Section 80-A of the Act, 1971.

8. The Petitioners stated that there is no violation and when they are in enjoyment of the property, the building cannot be demolished. It was represented by the Respondents that though 15 days’ time were granted to stop the work, the instruction has not been scrupulously followed by the Petitioners. If it is found that an encroachment has been caused upon, on a deviated construction, it has got to be demolished at the threshold and the Respondents cannot go into the title of the property. This Court also in these Writ Petitions cannot decide the ownership of the property. The Petitioners have already filed an application under Section 80-A of the Act, 1971 and in the enquiry, it has to be established that the Petitioners are the owners of the property. It is equally incumbent on the Petitioners to substantiate that the building has been constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan.
9. It is no doubt true that the title of the property cannot be decided by the Authority under the Act, 1971 and in case of any dispute over the title, it is for the Writ Petitioners and the Third Party to claim approach the Appropriate Civil Forum. It is not known as to why the Petitioners have not made the Authority under the Act, 1971 as party to the proceedings and it is impermissible for the Petitioners to ride two horses at the same time.

10. A Division Bench of this Court, while dealing the provisions of the Act, 1971, in the case of Mehraj Begum vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 and others [W.P.No.27499 of 2018] decided on 16.10.2018 formulated certain guidelines to be followed for disposal of the appeal and other applications by the Authority under the Act, 1971, which are extracted hereunder:
“12. Since it is represented by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that many Appeals are pending, this Court suo motu impleads the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai as necessary party to this Writ Petition and passes the following directions:

(a) Respondents are directed to de-seal the building constructed by the Petitioner for the purpose of rectifying the defects and the building shall not be occupied for any other purpose, much less residential purpose.
(b) If the respondents are unable to demolish the building, then it is left open to them to demolish / remove all the doors, windows, glasses, toilet seats and bidets, kitchen cooking platform, waterline pipes running into domicile from water tank or sump or any other mode to wash basins, kitchen and rest rooms, including the tap / shower.
(c) In the event of the building being found locked or closed by the occupants, the respondents shall drill the roof of the building and make a big hole so that the building cannot be occupied any more.

(d) Respondents shall ensure that proper set back is maintained in the building in question and also ensure as to whether the building in question has encroached the Road.

(e) If the violated portions are not rectified, Respondents are directed to demolish the same.
(f) Till the building is brought in accordance with the Sanctioned Plan, there shall not be electricity supply to the building in question. Though this Court is entitled to disconnect water supply to the building in question, taking note of the fact that the neighbours of the Petitioner will suffer, water supply is not disconnected.

(g) The Appellate Authority shall conduct the proceedings once in 15 days and ensure that the building in question is brought in accordance with the sanctioned Plan within six months.
(h) If the Officials concerned do not adhere to the procedures mentioned supra, the Government shall post the erring Official in a non-sensitive post.

(i) Wherever Appeals are pending before the authorities concerned as regards buildings constructed in violation of the Sanctioned Plan, there shall be an interim order by the Appellate Authority and there shall be disconnection of electricity supply to the said violated portion, if the building is not brought as per the Sanctioned Plan within the time limit.
(j) whenever an appeal or any petition is filed under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the said application should reflect the very same number and in case of appeal, the original number hould also find place. That apart, the owner of the house / flat shall exhibit in a notice board outside the premises that appeal is pending before the authority, by giving necessary details/numbers, like original application, appeal, writ petition, if any and the authorities concerned shall also forward a copy of the same to the Metro Water and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for appropriate action.
(k) The 1st Respondent/Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department and the 5th Respondent/Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai are directed to furnish the following particulars to this Court on or before 18.12.2018:

(i) Number of appeals pending before the authorities;
(ii) Number of cases, wherein directions have been issued by this Court.

13. It is needless to mention that the 1st respondent will have to follow the guidelines, while passing orders in all the applications filed under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Even though the Act empowers to grant an interim order, the interim order cannot be absolute. If there are any violations, as the Act is silent, the authority concerned is bound to order disconnection of electricity till the building is altered in accordance with the plan. That apart, the 1st respondent has to ask the occupier to rectify the defects and for that purpose alone, the building could be unlocked or unsealed and not for continuation of occupation in the violative portion. When the Court is empowered to inspect the site under Order XVIII Rule 18 of CPC, nothing prevents the authority to inspect the place, as the same will ensure removal of encroachment / violations of constructions and that Government lands are restored. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that the buildings are constructed in accordance with the plan and not in violation of the plan. The deviations could be permissible in accordance with Rules to some extent and not in its entirety. There cannot be any encroachments on roads, OSR, parks, lakes, Odai and other public places.
14. When there is a demand by the Applicant or Complainant that he/she has got to be heard with regard to violations / encroachments, it is the duty bound on the part of the authorities concerned to inspect the site so that different considerations by authorities may not arise. If any proceedings are started based on the application, the same should be conducted on day to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond seven working days at any point of time.

15. The above directions shall be followed in all the pending appeals or in other matters pending before the 1st respondent or before the notified authority under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
11. It is needless to mention here that once an applicant has approached the Authority under the Act, 1971, it is the duty of the Authority to decide the issue within the time stipulated in the light of 2nd proviso to Section 80A(1) of the Act, 1971. Though there is a provision to pass interim orders, a final decision shall be taken on the issue at the earliest point of time, on account of the reason that the violators may approach the Court and try to stall the proceedings before the Authority concerned in case of any adverse interim orders. The Officials of the Corporation may verify the construction, once the basement is constructed in accordance with the plan and thereafter, they can give the second approval, so that there will not be any violation. The Authorities concerned can also utilize the advanced technology of drone survey in the presence of the respective parties in order to ascertain the factum of encroachment. It is needless to mention that in case of any adverse decision, the electricity connection shall be disconnected in the light of the Judgment of the Division Bench in “P.Selvarajan Vs. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai and others” (W.P.No. 21639 of 2017) decided on 13.02.2018, wherein the Division Bench observed as follows, in consonance with the order of the Supreme Court dated 05.01.2018 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.33863 of 2017:

“3. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent has made an application for regularisation and that during the pendency of the proceedings, this Court, by order dated 11.09.2017, directed disconnection of electricity in respect of basement, second and third floors of the fourth respondent’s premises, against which, the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C).No.26509 of 2017, by order dated 13.10.2017, did not interfere with the said order of this Court dated 11.09.2017, and permitted the fourth respondent herein to move the High Court. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the fourth respondent herein has filed W.M.P.No.30495 of 2017 seeking direction to the TANGEDCO to restore the electricity connection to the building of the fourth respondent. This Court, by order dated 07.11.2017, rejected the restoration of electricity supply. Thereafter, once again the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court by the fourth respondent, and the Supreme Court, by order dated 05.01.2018 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.33863 of 2017, has dismissed the Special Leave Petition, by observing as follows:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 07.11.2017 passed in WMP.No.30495/2017 passed by the Madras High Court.

We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
However, we direct the authority concerned before whom the application for regularisation under the DTCP Building Regularisation Scheme 2017 is pending to decide the matter in accordance with law within two months. Pending application stands disposed of.”
12. There were several examples where the Supreme Court also ordered for demolition of buildings / deviated constructions, constructed on the public places unauthorizedly in the case of The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs. The State of Kerala, Maradu Municipality & Others, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 248 and Supertech Limited vs.Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 648.

13. Of late, it is reported that several I.A.S. Officers, dealing with applications under Section 80-A of the Act, 1971, are not complying with the orders of this Court, inspite of specific orders issued every now and then, fixing the outer time limit for disposal of the matters. Such Officers, who are least bothered about the orders of this Court and are not doing their duty, must be shown the doors and their IAS posts must be stripped off, as ignoring the orders of this Court would definitely amount to dishonest in their duty, besides disobedience. In case of non-compliance of the orders of this Court, it is time and again made clear that fine will be secondary and the imprisonment will be primary.

14. Authorities concerned can also utilize the advanced technology of drone survey in the presence of the respective parties in order to ascertain the factum of encroachment and they should conduct a periodical inspection on the construction of building from the basement, ground floor onwards, so that the set backs are adhered to and to ensure that on-going construction complies with the norms. In case of inspection after the basement is constructed and if any defect is found out at the initial stage, further approval for construction of the building cannot granted.

15. For the foregoing discussions and observations, these Writ Petitions are dismissed, as devoid of merits. We once again reiterate that as stated in our Interim Order on the date of reservation of these cases, the Authority under the Act, shall decide the matter within the time limit prescribed under the Act, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners, by conducting the matter on a day-to-day basis without adjourning it beyond seven working days at any point of time.
16. On 10.12.2021, these matters were listed for pronouncing orders and on the said date, it was brought to the attention of this Court by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that they have already moved two Miscellaneous Petitions in W.M.P.Nos.26845 and 26846 of 2021, with the prayer to reopen these Writ Petitions for further hearing and that those two Petitions have not been listed in the cause list. Therefore, this Court, without pronouncing orders in these petitions on 10.12.2021, simply adjourned the matters for today, with a direction to the Registry to list out those two Miscellaneous Petition in the cause list.
17. It is pertinent to state here that we heard the arguments of both counsel in extenso and after elaborate deliberation by the learned counsel for the parties, the orders in these cases were reserved. Moreover, on a glance at the affidavit filed in support of two Miscellaneous Petitions, it is seen that no prima facie ground has been made out to adhere to the plea of the petitioners to reopen the matters and therefore, the said plea cannot be entertained at this stage, as the act of the petitioners amounts to Forum Shopping and they some how attempt to pull out these cases from this Bench after sensing the mood of the Court.

18. The conduct of the Petitioners is highly deprecated and we feel it appropriate to impose costs on them for their imprudent attitude. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is imposed on the petitioners as costs, payable by them jointly to the following Charitable Trusts in equal proportion, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order:

i) Sudaroli Social Service Trust, Mettur Dam, Salem District (Phone Nos.9443094917 and 9543306307);

ii) The Manager, Pasu Madam, Tiruverkadu Perumal Agaram, Tiruverkadu Post, Chennai-600077 (Mobile No.8754555555).
Consequently, while declining to reopen these matters, thereby dismissing the Petitions in W.M.P.Nos.26845 and 26846 of 2021, the other connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

[S.V.N.J.,] [R.V.J.,]
17.12.2021 Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
ar

To:

1. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.

2. The Executive Engineer,
Zone-I, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.947, T.H.Road, Thiruvottriyur,
Chennai-600 019.

3. The Assistant Engineer, DIV 014,
Zone-I, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.947, T.H.Road, Thiruvottriyur,
Chennai-600 019.

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer (UNIT III),
Zone-I, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.947, T.H.Road, Thiruvottriyur,
Chennai-600 019.

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ar

Pre-delivery orders in
W.P.Nos.23866 and 23870 of 2021

17.12.2021