Madras High CourtSA/680/2000allowed

Karikilli Village v. Vellaputhur Village

2019-02-22Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan15 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on :31.01.2019 Pronounced on :22.02.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN S.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2000 Karikili Village No.18 rep.by its villagers & Pattadars 1.Krishnadoss Reddiar 2.Rajagopal Reddiar 3.Gopinathan 4.Adisesha Reddiar 5.Perumal Reddiar 6.Duraivel Mudaliar 7.Subramania Mudaliar 8.Moorthy Mudaliar 9.Rangasamy Reddiar ...Appellant in S.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2000 Vs 1.No.30, Vellaputhur village rep.by its villagers and Pattadars rep.by G.V.Balaraman 2.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by District Collector of Kancheepuram Office of the Collectorate, Kancheepuram 3.The Forest Officer, Forest Department, State of Tamil Nadu 50, 4th Main Road, Gandhi nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20.

4.The Chief Conservator of Forest, 81-C, Anna Salai, DMS Compound, Chennai-18.

...Respondents in S.A.Nos.680 of 2000

No.30, Vellaputhur village rep.by its Villagers and Pattadars 1.G.V.Balaram 2.Jayaraman 3.Ganga Reddiar 4.Varadhan

...Respondent in S.A.Nos.681 of 2000

Prayer in S.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2000: The Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.Nos.36 & 37 of 1998, dated 05.11.1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Maduranthakam, in turn confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.Nos.77 & 78 of 1996 dated 25.09.1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam. For Appellants 1 to 9 : Mr.K.Hariharan [in both the Second Appeals] For R2 to R4[in SA.No.680 of 2000]: K.Rajendra Prasad Additional Government Pleader (Forest) For R1 in both Appeals for, R2[in SA.No.681 of 2000] : Mr.M.L.Babu R3 & R4 [in SA.No.681 of 2000] : Died COMMON JUDGMENT The fourth defendant in O.S.No.77 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam, is the appellant in S.A.No.680 of 2000. O.S.No.77 of 1996 was originally filed as O.S.No.

6 of 1985 before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu. 2.The plaintiff in O.S.No.78 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam, is the appellant in S.A.No.681 of 2000. O.S.No.78 of 1996 was originally filed as O.S.No.319 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam.

3.O.S.No.6 of 1985 was transferred from the the Sub Court, Chengalpattu to the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam. It was re-numbered as O.S.No.77 of 1996. Similarly, O.S.No.319 of 1983 was re-numbered as O.S.No.78 of 1996. There was yet another suit of similar cause, namely, O.S.No.86 of 1996 also pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam. By common judgment in all the three suits, dated 25.09.1997, O.S.No.77 of 1996 was decreed, O.S.No.78 of 1996 was dismissed and O.S.No.86 of 1996 was decreed.

4.Thereafter, the fourth defendant in O.S.No.77 of 1996 filed A.S.No.36 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Maduranthakam. The plaintiff who suffered a decree in O.S.No.78 of 1996 filed A.S.No.37 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Maduranthakam. No appeal had been preferred against the judgment in O.S.No.86 of 1996. By separate judgments both dated 05.11.1999, in A.S.No.36 of 1998 and A.S.No.37 of 1998, the learned Sub Judge, Maduranthakam, dismissed both the appeals.

5.The aggrieved fourth defendant in O.S.No.77 of 1996 who was the appellant in A.S.No.36 of 1998 filed S.A.No.680 of 2000. The aggrieved plaintiff in O.S.No.78 of 1996 who was the appellant in A.S.No.37 of 1998 filed S.A.No.681 of 2000. Both the second appeals had been admitted on 28.04.2000, on the following two common substantial questions of law: "1.Under the settlement records as settled in Ex.A2 and B2 coupled with B4 and the Commissioner's plan, can be even taken up for consideration whether the Vellaputhur lake and ayacutdhars does or does not have any right of drawing water either from Survey.No.191, Karikili hills or inundated water from Survey No.189.

2.Can the suit be maintained when it does not involve any question of any civil right but involved only question of policy matters by the Government. In the absence of any village records or revenue records concerned or Government records concerned, can the plaintiffs claim any right or ayacut to Vellaputhur lake to draw water from Karikili lake directly in the absence of any other channel than the suit channel either from S.No.191 of S.No.189 hills or from S.No.189 fields by inundation."

6.A perusal of the two substantial questions of law would reveal that the second substantial question of law involves determining the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in adjudicating the issues raised by the parties. Consequently, the first substantial question of law can be taken up for consideration depending on the answer for the second substantial question of law.

O.S.No.77 of 1996 (District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam) (Originally O.S.No.6 of 1985, Sub Court, Chengalpattu): 7.The suit had been filed under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC, by the Body of Villagers and Pattadars of No.30, Vellaputhur Village, Maduranthakam Taluk, represented by G.V.Balaram and Vedachala Gounder against the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector and the Wild Life Warden, Forest Department, State of Tamil Nadu and the Chief Conservator of Forests and also against the Villagers and Pattadars of No.18, Karikili Village, represented by 10 Villagers. The suit was filed seeking a judgment and decree for mandatory injunction directing the first, second and third defendants to remove the newly formed channel and to restore the land to its original condition and in default for the channel to be removed through Court. 8.

In the plaint, it had been stated that in Vellaputhur Village, there was an extent of 236 acres including 24-70 acres of compound land, all wet lands to be irrigated through Peria Eri situated in S.No.366 in Vellaputhur Village. The surplus flow from Vellaputhur Eri led to Athivakkam Eri in S.No.285. This lake irrigated a total extent of 91-64 acres of wet lands. The only source of supply of water was the rain water collected in the hillock situated in S.No.191 of Karikili Village and rain waters collected in a portion of S.No.189 of Karikili Village. 9.It was further stated that there was a tank in S.No.188 in Karikili Village which irrigated about 123-13 acres of wet lands. There were also other irrigation sources like Maveri tank and irrigation wells. There existed a mamool supply channel in S.No.

191 and 189 in Karikili Village, which was an ancient one. It flowed from the Western portion of the big hillock situated in S.No.191 known as Karikilimalai to Karikili Peria Eri. It was about 400 meters in length and 2 meters in width. It ran in the South to East and North to West direction. There was another supply channel commencing from the Eastern side of the said Karikilimalai, which was also a mamool supply channel running in S.No.191-189 on the Northern side of the big hillock in between the two. The channels leading to Karikili tank were the catchment area for the Karikili tank. It was stated that there were no other channels leading to Peria Eri from Karikilimalai.

10.There was also a bird sanctuary maintained by the second and third defendants. It was stated that the second and third defendants have illegally formed a channel commencing from the South-Western corner of Karikilimalai running North wards and connecting the same to the channel at a point about 80 meters South of Karikili lake. The gradient of the land was West ward. All the rain water collecting from the hillock of Karikili Village have been flowing West ward, emptying itself to Vellaputhur Peria Eri. It was stated that the cart track had been converted into a Panchayat road. It was stated that the plaintiff have prescribed a right for such source of rain water. 11.Since the second and third defendants formed the new channel, the water supply to the Village of the plaintiff diminished.

Representation had been made to various authorities. The Sub-Collector, Chengalpattu, made a personal inspection in the presence of the second defendant and in the presence of the Villagers of Karikilli and Vellaputhur. The Forest Department was directed to close the channel. However, the Forest Department had not done so. The fourth defendant had filed O.S.No.319 of 1983, to restrain the plaintiff from obliterating the newly formed channel. It is under these circumstances, that the suit had been filed for mandatory injunction to remove the newly formed channel.

12.The First defendant filed a written statement, stating that the suit is not maintainable in law. It was stated that under G.O.Ms.1453, Agriculture(Forests) Department dated 18.06.1973, the Karikili lake had been notified as "Karikili Birds Sanctuary" under the Birds and Wild Animals Protection Act, (Central Act VIII of 1912) and the area of 61.21 hectares in Karikili Village has been declared as "Karikili Birds Sanctuary" under Section 18(1) of Wild Life (Protection) Act (Central Act 53 of 1972). It had been stated that the Forest Department had been maintaining the Karikili lake from that date. 13.The second defendant filed a written statement, stating that the suit was not maintainable in law. It was stated that under G.O.Ms.1453, Agriculture(Forests) Department dated 18.06.

1973, the Karikili lake had been notified as "Karikili Birds Sanctuary" under the Birds and Wild Animals Protection Act (Central Act VIII of 1912) and the area of 61.21 hectares in Karikili Village has been declared as "Karikili Birds Sanctuary" under Section 18(1) of Wild Life (Protection) Act (Central Act 53 of 1972). It had been stated that the Forest Department had been maintaining the Karikili lake from that date.

14.The second defendant in their written statement, specifically denied the averments in the plaint regarding formation of new channel. It was stated that a channel was already existing on ground on the Western side of the foot of the small hillock leading to the twin lakes at Karikili Village. The Forest Department undertook deepening the streamlet by cleaning the ground, removing the debris silt and soil sediments to make it have a free flow of water. The Work was sanctioned by Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kanchipuram Division in C.No.M1⁄2JTO/2 dated 19.06.1982. It was stated that the catchment by rain water was only negligible. The work in the channel never affected the flow of water to Vellaputhur Eri and the irrigation lands of the plaintiffs.

It had been stated that as per the instruction of the Sub Collector, the bund has been directed to be removed. It was stated that the Karikili villagers also protested and obstructed the removal of the bund. It was stated that the suit should be dismissed. 15.The fourth defendant filed a written statement, stating that there was a mamool supply channel from time immemorial proceeding from the hillock in S.No.191 to Peria Eri of Karikili Village. It commenced from the South-Western corner of Karikili Village in S.No.191. It fed the Peria Eri of Karikili Village during rainy season with the rain water flowing from the hills. It was stated that the villagers of Karikili Village have prescribed a right without any hindrance from anybody. They used to remove the silt from the mamool channel from time to time.

It was further stated that the channel had been in existence from time immemorial, even before the maintenance of the Birds Sanctuary in Karikili Peria Eri. It was stated that from the Western side of the hillock in S.No.191 the water flowed to the Eastern side and the water used to be collected in the Thangal called 'Onnaraikannu Thangal'. The allegations in the plaint were denied. It was stated that the suit should be dismissed. 16.On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Maduranthakam, framed the following issues for trial:- 1.Whether the second and third defendants have formed a new channel from the South-West portion of the Karikili hillock towards the North to an extent of 80 meters?

2.Whether there was obstruction in the flow of water to Vellaputhur Peria Eri?

3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction?

4.Whether the water channel from the foot

hill of the small hillock was in existence from time immemorial?

5.Whether the said channel was desiltted and deepened and extended to 900 meters in the year 1982-83?

6.Whether notice was issued under Section 80 CPC?

7.To what reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?

O.S.No.78 of 1996(District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam) (Originally O.S.No.319 of 1983, District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam)(O.S.No.43 of 1985, Sub Court, Maduranthakam): 17.The villagers of Karikili Village, Nelvoy Post, Maduranthakam, had filed the suit against the villagers of Vellaputhur Village, Maduranthakam, seeking a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obliterating the suit channel or from interfering with the course of the suit channel and also for costs of the suit. 18.It had been stated in the plaint, that the plaintiffs own both wet and dry lands in Karikili Village. There was an irrigation tank called Peria Eri situated in S.No.188. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the lands which are irrigated from the said tank. They pay tax and water charges.

The water was supplied from the foot hills through the feeder channel from S.No.191 and 189. During the rainy season water flows from the hills and the plains adjacent to the channel which is a mamool feeder channel. The Peria Eri gets supply of water through this source. The villagers clean the silt from the suit channel from time to time. It was claimed that the defendant village is situated on the South of the plaintiffs' village. It was claimed that the defendants attempted to obliterate the aforesaid mamool supply channel. The plaintiffs protested against such obliteration, since it would obstruct the free flow of water. The suit had been filed seeking permanent injunction as stated above.

19.In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the averments in the plaint had been denied. It had been stated that the lands in Karikili Village have other irrigation resources namely, Maveri tank and irrigation wells in the lands. It was stated that there was a mud-weir on the SouthEastern tip of the Karikili Peria Eri. Whenever there is heavy rain, to safeguard the storage of the water and to avoid the breach of the lake, the water used to be let out through SouthEastern weir from Karikilli Peria Eri. It was stated that in the

defendants' village there was an extent of 236 acres for irrigation. It was stated that the mamool supply channel was existing from ancient time. This alone was the supply channel. It was stated that the Forest Department had planned to have a ring channel provided around the hillock in S.No.191 in Karikili Village and have the rain water collected leading to Karikili Peria Eri through the ring channel. The Forest Department dug a new channel. It was an official channel dug by the Forest Department. It extended further South and covered both the big and small hillocks in S.No.191 of Karikili Village. The defendants' Villagers have objected for formation of the new channel. The plaintiffs claim that the newly formed channel was the original existing channel was denied by the defendants. It was also objected by the defendants. It had been stated that the newly formed channel was formed only five years prior to the institution of the suit. The allegations in the plaint of obliterating the existing channel were denied. It was stated that he suit should be dismissed.

20.On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Maduranthakam, framed the following issues for trial:- 1.Whether the defendants attempted to change the course of the suit channel?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?

3.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4.To what other relief?

21.Both the suits were taken up for joint trial along with another suit in O.S.No.86 of 1996 by the learned District Munsif, Maduranthakam.

22.During trial, Adisesha Reddiyar was examined as PW1. On the side of the plaintiffs, Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 was the rough sketch. Ex.A2 was the sketch which shows the channel of the Vellaputhur Village. Ex.A3 was the letter addressed to the Sub Collector by the Forest Warden. Ex.A4 was the rough sketch of the newly formed channel.

23. Jayaram, Sivagami and Rajalingam were examined as DW1, DW2 and DW3. The defendants marked Exs.B1 to B25. Ex.B1 was the sketch of the newly formed channel. Ex.B4 was the 5th page of the file in NKDG.14741/83. Exs.B5 and B6 were the 45th pages of the file in NKDG.14741/83. Ex.B12 was the notice issued on 05.11.1984. Ex.B13 was another notice issued on 29.06.1989. Exs.B14 and B20 were the acknowledgment cards/returned cover. Ex.B22 dated 05.07.1989 was the letter written by the Sub

Collector, Kanchipuram. Ex.B23 was the 126th page of the file in NKDG.14741/83.

24.During trial, the rough sketches and reports of the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exs.C1 to C4 and the Surveyor plan was marked as Ex.C5 25.The learned District Munsif, Maduranthakam, examined the evidence on record. Unfortunately, the Trial Court did not frame a necessary issue relating to maintainability of the suits. As it is seen from the pleadings, the entire area had notified as "Karikili Birds Sanctuary" under the Birds and Wild Animals Protection Act (Central Act VIII of 1912) and under Section 18

(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act (Central Act 53 of 1972). The Forest Department has been in-charge in maintenance of the entire area. However, the District Munsif, Maduranthakam had proceeded to examine the issues even though admittedly, the issues related to policy matters of the Government. The Trial Court, decreed O.S.No.77 of 1996, thereby granting mandatory injunction against the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, and also against the Wild Life Warden, Forest Department, State of Tamil Nadu, and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, directing them to remove the newly formed channel and restore the land to its original condition. It must be kept in mind that this channel runs through the Bird Sanctuary under the control of the Forest Department.

A decree to this effect could not and should not have been granted. The learned District Munsif also dismissed O.S.No.78 of 1996 which had been filed seeking permanent injunction. In the effect, by the common judgment dated 25.09.1997, the learned District Munsif, Maduranthakam, instead of bringing about a peaceful settlement of the issues had created more enmity among the two groups of villagers of Karikili and Vellaputhur villages.

A.S.Nos.36 & 37 of 1998 (Sub Court Maduranthakam): 26.The fourth defendant in O.S.No.77 of 1996 namely, the Villagers of Karikili Village and the plaintiff in O.S.No.78 of 1996, namely, the Villagers of Karikili Village, then filed the above two appeals before the Sub Court, Maduranthakam. The learned Sub Judge also, very unfortunately did not frame any point for consideration regarding the maintainability of the appeals or on the power of the Civil Court to examine and adjudicate on policy matters of the State. However, two separate judgments were passed on 05.11.1999 in A.S.Nos.36 & 37 of 1998. The learned Sub Judge, Maduranthakam, dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

S.A.Nos.680 of 2000 & 681 of 2000:

27.The aggrieved fourth defendant in O.S.No.77 of 1996 had filed S.A.No.680 of 2000. The aggrieved plaintiff in O.S.No.78 of 1996 had filed S.A.No.681 of 2000. They are the Villagers of Karikilli Village.

28.Both the second appeals had been admitted on 28.04.2000, on the following two substantial questions of law: "1.Under the settlement records as settled in Ex.A2 and B2 coupled with B4 and the Commissioner's plan, can be even taken up for consideration whether the Vellaputhur lake and ayacutdhars does or does not have any right of drawing water either from Survey.No.191, Karikili hills or inundated water from Survey No.189.

29. For the sake of convenience the parties would be referred as plaintiff and defendants.

30.As it is seen from the substantial questions of law, an answer to the second substantial question of law would determine whether this Court can proceed further to examine the facts relating to the first substantial question of law. 31.In TISCO Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 9 SCC 709 at page 727, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is held as follows: "68.At this juncture, we think it fit to make a few observations about our general approach to the entire case. This is a case of the type where legal issues are intertwined with those involving determination of policy and a plethora of technical issues. In such a situation, courts of law have to be very wary and must exercise their jurisdiction with circumspection for they must not transgress into the realm of policy-making, unless the

policy is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws. In the present matter, in its impugned judgment, the High Court had directed the Central Government to set up a Committee to analyse the entire gamut of issues thrown up by the present controversy.

The Central Government had consequently constituted a Committee comprising high-level functionaries drawn from various governmental/institutional agencies who were equipped to deal with the entire range of technical and long-term considerations involved. This Committee, in reaching its decision, consulted a number of policy documents and approached the issue from a holistic perspective. We have sought to give our opinion on the legal issues that arise for our consideration. From the scheme of the Act it is clear that the Central Government is vested with discretion to determine the policy regarding the grant or renewal of leases. On matters affecting policy and those that require technical expertise, we have shown deference to, and followed the recommendations of, the Committee which is more qualified to address these issues."

32.In Federation of Rly. Officers Assn. v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289 at page 299, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is held as follows:

"12.In examining a question of this nature where a policy is evolved by the Government judicial review thereof is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power, the court will not interfere with such matters."

33.Section 60 of the Wild Life (Protection)Act, 1972 reads as follows:

"60.Protection of action taken in good faith:- (1) No suit, prosecution or other

legal proceeding shall lie against any officer or other employee of the Central Government or the State Government for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.

(2)No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or the State Government or any of its officers or other employee for any damage caused or likely to be cause by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.

(3)No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Authority referred to in Chapter IV-A 44[Chapter IV-B] and its Chairperson, members, Member-Secretary, officers and other employees for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act."

34.It is seen from the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it would only be prudent if the Courts refrain themselves from consciously entering into a decision on policy aspects of the State or Central Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had very categorically stated that Courts must exercise their jurisdiction with circumspection and must not transgress into realm of policy making.

35.The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5/1908) is in Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature. Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code is as follows:

"9.Courts to try all civil suits unless barred:- The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Explanation 22[I]:-A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, not withstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.

23[Explanation II:- For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any

fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.]"

36.The Civil Procedure Code and the Courts of Civil Judicature are primarily to adjudicate issues of Civil nature arising between individuals or groups of individuals. In the present case, the plaintiffs have called upon the Courts to adjudicate on the policy of the Government in an area which had been demarked as a Bird Sanctuary and where a channel was in existence and on directions of the Revenue and Forest Departments, the channel was deepened and widened to facilitate free flow of water. These are issues under the domain of the State and Central Governments and the Civil Court must never enter upon any decision on such issues. It is also seen that under Section 60 of Wild Life (Protection)Act, 1972, the decision and implementation by the Wild Life Authorities to deepen the channel can never be of questioned in or by a Civil Court.

37.Consequently, with respect to the first substantial question of law, I hold that both the Courts below have erred in deciding an issue which does not involve adjudication of a civil rights but involves questions of policy matters by the Government. Therefore, both the suits are not maintainable at all. In view of that decision, the aspects relating to the second substantial question should not be determined since it would once again require entering into a decision on facts which are under the domain of the Government.

38.Irrespective of the above, Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad learned Additional Government Pleader(Forest) very appreciatively stated that the plaintiffs in both the suits may give fresh representations to the Collector, Chengalpattu District and also to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Chennai, and the Forest Officer, Forest Department, State of Tamil Nadu regarding their grievances. It is hoped that the learned Additional Government Pleader(Forest) would use his good offices to prevail upon the District Authorities to bring about an amicable solution with respect to the grievances raised by the Villagers of Karikili Village and Vellaputhur Village. The suits had been filed with a good intention to protect supply of water. But unfortunately, the Civil Courts cannot render justice on these aspects. It is very fortunate that Mr.K.

Rajendra Prasad learned Additional Government Pleader(Forest) had come forward to state that the villagers can approach the District Collectorate and the District Forest Department. This Court is confident that they would take a policy decision keeping in mind the best interests of the villagers of the two Villages.

record its deep appreciation for Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad learned Additional Government Pleader (Forest) for the initiative shown.

39. In the result: (a) S.A.No.680 of 2000 is allowed. No costs. The suit in O.S.No.77 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam, is dismissed. (b) S.A.No.681 of 2000 is dismissed. No costs. The suit in O.S.No.78 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam is dismissed.

40.However, as stated above the villagers of both Karikili Village and Vellaputhur Village may approach the District Authorities for redressal of their grievances and the Court is confident that the District Authorities would do the needful to bring about an amicable solution among the parties. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam.

2.The Sub Court, Maduranthakam.

3.The District Collector of Kancheepuram Office of the Collectorate, Kancheepuram 4.The Forest Officer, Forest Department, State of Tamil Nadu 50, 4th Main Road, Gandhi nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20.

5.The Chief Conservator of Forest, 81-C, Anna Salai, DMS Compound, Chennai-18.

6.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.

+1cc to Mr.K.Hariharan, Advocate Sr.16570 S.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2000 mr[co] srg 15/10/2019