IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2010
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
Appeal Suit No.779 OF 2005
1.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Housing Scheme Unit I, Coimbatore
2.The Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Coimbatore Housing Unit,
Coimbatore. .... Appellants
Respondent No.6 was transposed
as Appellant No.2 vide order of Court dated
24.4.2007 made in C.M.P.No.1419 of 2007.
vs.
1.Arunachala Gounder
2.Sivakami
3.Mohankumar
4.Senthilnathan
5.Sureshkumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Decree and Judgment dated 14.10.2004 made in L.A.O.P.No.181 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Govt.Pleader
(A.S.) for Appellant No.1
Mr.D.Veerasekaran for
Appellant No.2
For Respondents : Mr.R.N.Amarnath for RR.1 to 5
JUDGMENT
R.BANUMATHI,J.
Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs.250/- per cent to Rs.2,500/- per cent in respect of the lands acquired in Vellakinar and Thudiyalur villages, Coimbatore District for implementation of Thudiyalur - Vellakinar Neighbourhood Scheme, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit-I, Coimbatore has filed this Appeal.
2. Total extent of lands measuring 12.39.5 hectares in various survey numbers including an extent of 2.83.0 Hectares of the claimants in Survey Nos.13/2, 13/3, 14/1A, 14/1B and 15/1 Vellakinar were acquired for public purpose i.e., for implementation of Thudiyalur - Vellakinar Neighbourhood Scheme. Section 4(1) notification was published on 31.7.1995 which was published in the Government Gazette No.36 A of Supplement-II to Part-II, Sec.2 dated 13.9.1995 and published in the news papers Makkal Kural and Pirpagal on 15.9.1995 and 16.9.1995 respectively. The substance of the notification was also published in the locality on 6.10.1995. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer(in short, "LAO") on 28.11.1995. The LAO has taken 55 sales in and around the lands acquired. Out of 55 sales, 38 sales were rejected on the ground that they are beyond 1.6 K.M away from the lands under acquisition, 7 sales were rejected on the ground that they have been made for industrial purposes and other sales were rejected on the ground that they are valuable lands or that they are abutting the main road. Document No.4341/93 dated 3.8.1993 in Survey No.517/2 of Vellakinar village under which an extent of 2.88 acres sold for Rs.72,000/- was taken up as the data land. The LAO took the view that the data sale deed covering the land reflects the market value of the lands under acquisition. Based on document No.4341/93 dated 3.8.1993 in Survey No.517/2, the LAO fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.250/- per cent and ordered 30 percent solatium. The LAO also ordered 12 percent additional market value for the enhanced compensation from 6.10.1995 to 28.9.1998 (1089 days) and passed the award No.4 of 1998 dated 28.9.1998.
3. On objection raised by the land owners, reference under Section 18 of the Act was made before the Reference Court. On behalf of the Claimants, K.Senthilnathan was examined as C.W.1. The LAO was examined as R.W.1. On behalf of the Claimants, Exs.C.1 to C.9 were marked and on behalf of the LAO, Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked.
4. The reference Court had taken sale deeds- Exs.C.1 to C.5 and had taken the average of the value for which the lands were sold under Exs.C.1 to C.5 and fixed the value of land at Rs.2,500/- per cent. The reference Court has not given any deduction for development charges. Reference Court has enhanced the market value to Rs.2,500/- per cent. The Reference Court has also ordered (1) 12% additional market value for the enhanced compensation from 6.10.1995 to 28.9.1998 ( 1089 days); (ii) 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation; (iii) interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from 29.9.1998 and (iv) interest at the rate of 15% p.a. thereafter till the date of realisation.
5. Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the Tamilnadu Housing Board (in short, TNHB) submitted that the LAO has taken the relevant sale deed, which is nearby the acquired lands and which is also prior to Section 4(1) notification and has rightly fixed the market value at Rs.250/- per cent. It was further submitted that the lands sold under Exs.C.1 to C.4 are far away and while so, the reference Court erred in taking the value of the lands based upon Exs.C.1 to C.4 and determining the market value based on the average value of Exs.C.1 to C.4. It was further submitted that the data land in Survey No.517/2 reflects the market value and while so the Court below has enhanced the market value to Rs.2,500/- without any basis. Placing reliance upon SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, NEIGHBOURHOOD SCHEME, ERODE, ERODE DISTRICT VS. JAGANATHAN GOUNDER AND ANOTHER, ((2009) 5 MLJ 2), it was contended that the Supreme Court consistently took the view of deducting development charges in the range of 33 1/3 50 percent and while so the reference Court erred in not giving any deduction for development charges. The main contention of the Appellant is that when large extent of lands are acquired, the Court has to necessarily make substantial deduction of not less than 33 1/3 percent for development charges.
6. Reiterating the submissions, Mr.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for referring Officer submitted that the LAO has taken the relevant sale deeds, which are prior to Section 4(1) notification and rightly fixed the market value at Rs.250/- per month and while so, the Court below erred in taking the average value based upon Exs.C.1 to C.5 and enhancing the market value to Rs.2,500/- per cent.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Claimants submitted that the acquired lands are situated near Mettupalayam road and in the midst of developed area and the acquired lands have potential for future development. The learned counsel for the Claimants would further submit that the market value enhanced by the Court at Rs.2,500/- per cent is a very nominal value, as the acquired lands have potential for fetching higher market value.
8. Principles for determination of market value:-
For determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, market value therefor is to be ascertained. The expression 'market value' has been the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in several cases. Market value is the price that the willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities. In considering the 'market value' the guiding factor would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the area of the land, nature thereof and advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factor for determining the actual market value of the property. That apart, potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration.
9. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has laid down the governing principles for determination of market value and the amount of compensation. The positive as well as negative factors and potentiality of the land to be taken into consideration for arriving at the correct market value. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat ((2005) 4 SCC 789), the Supreme Court held as under:-
"18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:-
Positive factors
Negative factors
(i) smallness of size
(i) largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road distance
(ii) situation in the interior at a from the road
(iii) frontage on a road
(iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth
(iv) nearness to developed area
(iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up
(v) regular shape
(v) remoteness from developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land under
(vi) some special disadvantageous acquisition factors which would deter a purchaser
(vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage
21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots,waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price.
10. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana ((2008) 2 SCC 568), the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that in considering the market value, the guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor and willing purchaser and not an anxious dealing at arms length.
11. In Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik Azam Saheb ((2009) 1 SCALE 545), the positive as well as negative factors indicated in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor's case (supra) as factors germane for consideration for the purpose of determining the market value was reiterated thus:
"11. Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of the said Act depends upon a large number of factors, the first being the nature and quality of the land, i.e., whether agricultural land or homestead land. Apart from nature and quality of land in the event the agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefor are also required to be considered, namely, as to whether they are irrigated or non-irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation, location of the land, closeness thereof from any road of highway, the evenness of land, its position in different seasons particularly in rainy season, existence of any building or structure as also the development in and around the area. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on determining the valuation of land.
12. The mode and manner in which determination of such valuation are to be carried out would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, namely, whether any deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is available, or in absence of any such exemplars whether the claim can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of the number of fruit bearing trees and the yield therefrom.
13. One other important factor which also should be borne in mind is that it may not be safe to rely only on an award involving a neighbouring area irrespective of the nature and quality of the land. For determination of market value again, the positive and negative factors germane therefor should be taken into consideration, as laid down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (supra)."
12. Keeping in view the principles governing the determination of market value, we have considered the submissions and evidence on record. By perusal of Ex.R.2 topo sketch, we find that the data land in S.No.517/2 taken by the LAO is far away from the acquired lands. Even though the LAO observed that though the lands under acquisition and the data land in S.No.517/2 differs in sort of soil and class, the potentiality and location of both the lands do not differ from each other, the LAO observed that the data land lies in the vicinity of the acquired lands. Though the LAO observed that the data land lies in the same vicinity, it is evident from the topo sketch that the data land in S.No.517/2 is far away from the acquired lands.
13. As pointed out earlier, the LAO has taken 55 sales for comparison. Out of 55 sales, 38 sales were rejected on the ground that they are 1.6 K.M. away from the acquired lands, 7 sales were rejected on the ground that they have been made for industrial purposes as there are industries near the acquired lands and other sales were rejected on the ground that they are valuable lands or that they lie abutting the main road and that they have been sold out for lay out purposes. Even though the other sales that took place in and around the acquired lands were rejected, by perusal of Ex.R.3 Sales statistics, we find that the nearby lands were sold for higher value. The lands were sold for commercial purposes and the lands adjacent to the main roads were sold for higher value. Since the nearby lands were sold out for industries, commercial purposes and for forming layout, in our considered view, the LAO should have kept in view that the nearby lands of the acquired lands are developed. From Ex.C.2 dated 12.2.1993 and Ex.C.3 dated 6.4.1993, it is seen that the lands in Survey Nos.327/3 and 326/3 were sold at the rate of Rs.3,600/- per cent and Rs.4,595/- per cent respectively. When the nearby lands were sold for higher rate and when the nearby area is also developed, in our considered view, the LAO was not justified in fixing the market value at Rs.250/- per cent.
14. It is seen from the evidence of C.W.1 that Mettupalayam Gudalur road is within a distance of about 1 k.m. from the acquired lands. In his evidence, C.W.1 has stated that the factories of Belgium Valves, LGB factory, Nalini Nandini Exports, Swarna Textiles, Glucose factory and Texmo Motor Company are situated near the acquired lands. That apart, C.W.1 has also stated that various educational institutions are situated and that the acquired lands have high potential for locating the residential houses. Evidence of C.W.1 reads as under:
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
15. From the evidence of C.W.1, it is clear that there is all all-round development in the nearby area. R.W.1 LAO Special Tahsidlar (Acquisition), Tamilnadu Housing Board has also admitted that the acquired lands are surrounded by factories and educational institutions. In his evidence, R.W.1 has also stated that Mettupalayam Gudalur Highways road is situated nearby the acquired lands. R.W.1 has also admitted that the lands were acquired as they have high potential for development. It is clearly brought in evidence that the acquired lands are surrounded by educational institutions, hospitals, factories and other companies and nearby area are developed. Admittedly, the acquired lands are also situated very near to Mettupalayam Gudalur highways. The acquired lands are having good access to main road and have potential for future development. R.W.1 in his evidence has stated as under:
"epy Mh;$pj g{kpfs; tPl;Ltrjp thhpaj;jpw;fhf Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;lJ/ bkapd;nuhl;ow;F mUfpy; ,Ug;gjhYk;/ ey;y rPnjhc&z epiy ,Ug;gjhYk;. khRj;jd;ikapy;yhj ,lkhf ,Ug;gjhYk;. nfhit efUf;F mUfpy; ,Ug;gjhYk;. $d';fs; FoapUg;gjw;F Vw;w ,lk; vd;gjhYk; ,e;j g{kp epyMh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;lJ/@
16. Coming to the documentary evidence, the Claimants have produced Exs.C.1 to C.5 and the details of Exs.C.1 to C.5 are as under:
Document marked as
Survey No.
Extent
Sale consideration
Value of land per cent
Ex.C.1
Dt.13.7.1992
141/1
69 cents
Rs.89,700/-
Rs.1,300
Ex.C.2
Dt.12.2.1993
327/3
50 cents
Rs.1,80,000/-
Rs.3,600
Ex.C.3
Dt.6.4.1993
326/3
37 cents out of 52 cents
Rs.1,70,000/-
Rs.4,595
Ex.C.4
Dt.29.7.1993
501/2
2 Acres
Rs.1,20,000/-
Rs.600/-
Ex.C.5
Dt.15.9.1993
551/2
50 cents
Rs.1,10,000/-
Rs.2,200/-
17. The reference Court has taken the sale value of Exs.C.1 to C.5 and had taken the average of Exs.C.1 to C.5 and fixed market value at Rs.2,500/- per cent. For taking any sale deed as a comparable instance, the sale deed must be having proximity in time and should possess similar advantages. In Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, A.P Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and Others ((2003) 12 SCC 334), the principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are stated as under:
i.When sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1);
ii.it should be a bona fide transaction;
iii.it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and
iv.it should possess similar advantages."
18. The reference Court has not elaborated as to how the sale deeds Exs.C.1 to C.5 were taken as comparable instance. By going through the topo sketch, we find that the lands covered under Exs.C.1 to C.3 i.e., Survey Nos.141/1, 327/3 and 326/3 are slightly far away from the acquired lands, whereas the lands sold under Exs.C.4 and C.5 i.e., in Survey Nos.501/2 and 551/2 are nearer to the lands acquired and seem to be possessing similar advantages. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that Ex.C.5 dated 15.9.1993 under which the land of 50 cents in Survey No.551/2 was sold for Rs.1,10,000/- i.e., Rs.2,200/- per cent could be taken as the sale of comparable instance. As it is being proximate from time angle and also having proximity from situation angle, market value fixed by the reference Court at Rs.2,500/- per cent cannot be said to be exorbitant or on the higher side. Since Ex.C.5 sale deed is dated 15.9.1993, by giving 10 percent increase, the market value at the time of Section 4(1) notification i.e., on 31.7.1995 could be fixed at Rs.2,500/- per cent in such facts and circumstances.
19. Deduction towards development charges:
Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel appearing for TNHB submitted that since large extent of lands of 12.39.5 hectares including 2.83.0 Hectares of land of the claimants were acquired, 30-50 percent deduction should have been made towards development charges. It was further submitted that having regard to various factors, reference Court ought to have made atleast 1/3rd deduction for development charges. After fixing the market value at Rs.2,500/- per cent, reference Court has not made any deduction for development charges. While fixing the market value, necessary deductions are to be made towards the development charges. The extent of deduction to be made cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and it varies from case to case. The Supreme Court had time and again indicated the factors to be considered for making deduction towards development charges as well as percentage of such deduction. Such deduction is also not automatic unless there is a factual finding that deduction was absolutely necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. In case the property is already developed there may not be requirement of deduction towards development.
20. In 2008 (13) SCALE 202 [Naganath (dead) by LRs. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another], the Supreme Court observed that the trend of the various Judgments of the Supreme Court indicates deduction on account of development charges in the range of 1/6th to 33%.
21. The Supreme Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana [(2008) 3 MLJ 806 (SC)] referred to an earlier decision relating to deduction towards development charges, in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1991 SC 2298 : (1991) 4 SCC 506 : (1992) 1 MLJ 9, wherein it was held as follows:-
"9. ..... In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. However, in applying this principle of deduction it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and situated in an advantageous position suitable for building purposes and have all amenities such as roads, drainage, electricity, communications, etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified."
22. Necessary deduction for the extent of land is required for formation of roads and other civic amenities. Expenses of development of sites by laying down roads, drain, sewers, water and electricity lines. The concept of deducting development cost was considered by the Supreme Court in AIR 1988 SC 943 [Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi] wherein it has been held as follows:-
"It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots 'cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued ........... is ripe for use for building purposes, that building plots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, lay out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. In Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust (1982) 1 SCC 419, this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come up to as much as 53 per cent. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of large areas, for the reasons that the former reflects the 'retail' price of land and the later the 'wholesale' price.
This Court referred to and relied upon several earlier decisions including three Judge Bench decisions in Mizra Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land) Acquisition, Hyderabad, AIR 1974 SC 2247 : (1975) 1 SCC 238 and Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 580 : (1977) 1 SCC 330."
23. The principle of deduction was elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in (2009) 8 SCC 979 [Subh Ram and others v. Haryana State and another]. Referring to various decisions, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"12.2. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652 : 1988 (3) SCC 751, this Court held:
" ..... a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an enterpreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately, between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will, to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards."
It should be noted that deduction of 20% to 50% referred to therein is only in regard to the land to be earmarked for roads, community areas, etc. and does not refer to the further deduction towards the expenses of development.
12.3..... "
24. In this case, large extent of land measuring 12.39.5 hectares in various survey numbers including an extent of 2.83.0 Hectares of the claimants in Survey Nos.13/2, 13/3, 14/1A, 14/1B and 15/1 Vellakinar were acquired for public purpose i.e., for implementation of Thudiyalur Vellakinar Neighbourhood Scheme. Further in his evidence, R.W.1 has stated that even though the acquired lands are situated near the main road, for forming the layout for the acquired lands, considerable developments are to be made meeting the development cost. Even though the acquired lands possess potential for further development and other developed areas are only at a distance of = - 1 k.m. from the acquired lands, large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, forming access roads and the TNHB will have to wait for purchasers and in the meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up. These factors can be balanced by making deduction by way of allowances and in our considered view, deduction of 25 percent for development charges would be appropriate. Accordingly, deducting 25 percent i.e., Rs.625/- per cent, the value of the acquired land is reduced from Rs.2,500/- per cent to Rs.1,875/- per cent.
25. In the result, the enhancement of compensation made by the reference Court (I Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore) in L.A.O.P.No.181 of 2000 reduced from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.1,875/- per cent. Insofar as 12 percent additional market value for 6.10.1995 to 28.9.1998 ( 1089 days), 30 percent solatium on the reduced compensation, interest at 9 percent interest per annum for one year period from the date of award and interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum thereafter till the date of deposit is confirmed. With the modified compensation of Rs.1,875/- per cent and this Appeal is partly allowed.
26. In C.M.P.No.13142 of 2005, by order dated 14.9.2005, this Court has granted interim stay of award on condition that the Appellants shall deposit the entire award amount along with interest and on such deposit, 50% of the amount was directed to be disbursed to the Claimants and the balance 50% was permitted to be withdrawn by the Claimants on furnishing immovable property as security to the satisfaction of the reference Court with condition that the Claimants shall furnish an undertaking to refund the withdrawn amount with 12% interest to the extent required. To ascertain the particulars of the amount deposited and the amount withdrawn by the Claimants, details were called for from reference Court/I Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore. From the fax message received from the reference Court, it is seen that the Appellants have not deposited the award amount in the Court. The Appellants are directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.1,875/- per cent along with 12% additional market value for the modified compensation from 6.10.1995 to 28.9.1998 ( 1089 days), 30% solatium on the modified compensation, interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from 29.9.1998 and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. thereafter till the date of realisation, to the credit of L.A.O.P.No.181 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit Claimants are permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount payable to them.
The learned Special Government Pleader and learned counsel for TNHB shall be entitled to fees as per rules. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.1418 of 2007 is closed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this Appeal.
usk
Copy to:
The I Addl.Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore
No comments:
Post a Comment