Mr.Jayavel, v. The Principal Secretary And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on Pronounced on 21.03.2022 31.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. NOS. 26270, 31121 & 32666 OF 2012 AND M.P. NOS.2 OF 2012 (2 Nos.) M.P. NO. 1 OF 2013 Jayavel .. Petitioner in WP 26270/2012 Muthammal .. Petitioner in WP 31121/2012

1. Subramani

2. Raja

3. Karupusamy

4. Anbudurai

5. Sumathi

6. Paramasivam

7. Vijaya

8. Jothi

9. Manimegalai 10.Amutha 11.Amirtham 12.Kullammal 13.Mariammal 14.Chinnadurai 15.Chellammal 16.Panchalai 17.Elangovan 18.Alamelu 19.Aandal 20.Palaniammal 21.Nagarajan 22.Arumugam 23.Nallaapillai 24.Lakshmi 25.V.S.Velu 26.P.Murugesan 27.Ilayaraja 28.Alamelu 29.Kaliyamoorthy 30.Nagarajan 31.Kaliyamoorthy 32.Deivanai 33.Anjalai 34.Kathiravan

35.Suresh 36.Panneerselvam 37.Malar 38.Sugumar 39.Chinnapaiyan 40.Chinnapillai 41.Suresh 42.Rajendran 43.Chinnathambi 44.Kullakaruppan 45.Srinivasan 46.Selvi 47.Kolanji 48.Kalaiyarasi 49.Selvamani 50.Thenmozhi 51.Thangayee 52.Mariyapillai 53.Chinnapillai 54.Kotteeswari 55.Lakshmi 56.Chitra 57.Aanandan 58.Amutha 59.Arjunan 60.Balu 61.Palanivel 62.Kanagaraj 63.Thanganila 64.Malar 65.Periyasamy .. Petitioner in WP 32666/2012 - Vs -

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary Land Administration Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

...1st Respondent in WP.31121/2012 2.The Prl. Secretary & Commissioner Land Administration, Chepauk Chennai 600 005. ...1st Respondent in WP.26270/2012

3. The District Revenue Officer Villupuram.

...2nd Respondent in WP.32666/2012 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

...3rd Respondent in WP.32666/2012

5.The Tahsildar Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. .. Respondents 2 to 4 in WP.26270 & 31121 / 12 ..Respondent 4 in WP.32666/2012

6. The District Collector Villupuram, Villupuram District.

7. The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Kallakurichi, Villupuram.

...Respondents 1 & 5 in WP.32666/2012

8.Krishnamurthi .. R-5 in WP 26270 & 31121/12

8. Muthammal .. R-6 in WP 32666/12

9. Jayavel .. R-7 in WP 32666/12 (Respondent 6 & 7 impleaded vide order dated 31.03.2022 in MP.1/2013 in WP.32666/2012) W.P. Nos. 26270 & 31121 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus Prayer in WP.26270 of 2012 Writ of Certiorari Calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.C.No.G1/15867/2005 dated 25/10/2010 and quash the same. Prayer in WP.31121 of 2012 Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in RC No.G1/15867/05 dated 25.10.2010 quash the same and direct respondents 2 to 5 to confirm the assignment of 0.22.5 hectares in S. No.299/10 and 0.22.0 hectares in S. No.299/12 in Ulagamkathan Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District, in favour of the petitioner. W.P. No.32666 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners dated 12.07.2012.

For Petitioners: Ms.Hema Sampath, SC For M/s. R.Meenal in WP 31121/12 Mr. V.R.Shanmuganathan in WP 26270/12

Mr. S.Sivakumar in WP 32666/12 For Respondents: Mr. P.Sathish, AGP for RR-1 to 5 in WP.26270 & 31121 of 2012 and WP.32666 of 2012 Ms.Hema Sampath, SC For M/s. R.Meenal for R-6 in WP 32666/12 Mr. T.Panchatsaram for R-7 in WP 32666/12 COMMON ORDER While being aggrieved at the cancellation of the assignment of the lands granted in favour of the petitioners, the present petitions in W.P. Nos.26270 and 31121 of 2012 have been filed assailing the said impugned order of cancellation, W.P. No.32666 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to consider their representation and pass orders as to allotment of lands, which have been taken over by the respondent from the assignment, which was granted to the petitioners in W.P. Nos.26270 and 31121 of 2012.

2. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P. Nos.26270 and 31121 of 2012 that the respective piece of land in Ulagamkathan Village, were assigned to the petitioners after due enquiry and following the procedure. The 4th respondent, being satisfied that the land was classified as 'Village Tharisu', had assigned the said lands in favour of the petitioners and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of these lands since 1971.

3. It is the further averment of the petitioners that the land had initially been assigned in the year 1964 to one Muthiyalu, which assignment was cancelled on the ground that the original assignee had violated the condition of assignment by alienating the land in the year 1971 within a period of 10 years of the original assessment. Thereafter, the land was subdivided and the petitioners had sought assignment of the lands and the assignment was made on 5.3.95 at which point of time the land was classified as 'Punjai Tharisu'.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner based on the complaint lodged by the 6th respondent, who was inimically disposed towards the petitioner, complaining to the District Collector of the requirement of a pathway through the lands belonging to one of the petitioners, on the directions of the District Collector, the authorities had conducted inspection and had rendered a finding that the land was "Adi Dravidar Tharisu" and that it had been assigned to non-adi dravidars and, therefore, the assignment requires to be cancelled. Based on

the said report, it is further averred, the 3rd respondent conducted slipshod enquiry and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not landless poor, but in fact were persons of means and well to do and the assignment could be made only to landless poor and further the land having been classified as 'Adi Dravidar Tharisu' as on 28.1.1991 at the time of the same being held by Muthialu, which was cancelled, the 3rd respondent, by order dated 31.3.2005, cancelled the assignment granted in favour of the petitioners.

5. Against the said order of cancellation, the petitioners preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent, by pointing out that the Government District Gazette dated 10.8.35 had earmarked the lands for depressed class and did not show the same as kept reserved for adi dravidars and that in view of the decree granted in O.S. No.1385/04 and )S No.404/206 in favour of the petitioners injuncting the authorities from interfering with their possession and also in view of the fact that there never existed a pathway through the lands of the petitioner and that the reclassification having been done on paper without following the due procedure contemplated by law, was in effect, bad and not sustainable.

6. It is the further averment of the petitioners that hearing was given to the petitioners/their representative on 11.5.2010, but no order was passed. However, when the possession of the petitioners were sought to be disturbed by some of the authorities, the petitioners resorted to information under the Right to Information Act which revealed the passing of the alleged order on 25.10.2010 in and by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners stood dismissed.

7. It is the further averment of the petitioner that pursuant to the enquiry made on the complaint of the 6th respondent on 15.2.2012, regarding request for a pathway through the lands of the petitioner, the said request was rejected on the ground that there already existed a 10 feet wide cart track in S. No.299/9, which was adequate for transporting the farm products through tractor and the said pathway had been in use for a long time and that the representation of the 6th respondent was a misrepresentation and according, rejected the request of the 6th respondent, which order has become final. In the above backdrop, without appreciating the aforesaid order, the order passed by the 2nd respondent is perverse and unsustainable and shows sheer non-application of mind, which necessitated the petitioners moving this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing the present petitions.

8. The petitioners in W.P. No.32666 of 2012, numbering 64, aver that they belong to Schedule Caste community and are poor landless persons who are living below the poverty line. It is the averment of the petitioners that lands, which have been classified as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu", which was initially assigned to one Muthiyalu, which was sold to the petitioners in W.P. Nos.26270 and 31121/12 has been taken over by the respondents on the ground that the said petitioners neither belong to depressed class nor they are scheduled caste community and, therefore, the said lands, which are classified as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu" cannot be assigned to them and as on the date, the said lands vest with the Government.

The petitioners, being poor landless persons, and living on water course from which they could be evicted at any point of time, filed representation to the respondents to consider allotment of lands, which were taken over from the petitioners in W.P. Nos.26270 and 31121 of 2012. However, no action having been taken by the respondents on the said representation, the present writ petition has been filed for the relief supra.

9. Learned senior counsel leading the argument on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. Nos.31121 and 26270 of 2012 submitted that the non-communication of the order of the 2nd respondent to the petitioner is in stark violation of principles of natural justice as any order that is passed in detriment to the petitioner ought to be communicated to the petitioner. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that there is no pathway through the assigned land, which is sought to be delineated as a cart track by the 6th respondent through his representation. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that vide the enquiry of the 3rd respondent, the representation of the 6th respondent was negative on the ground that there exists a cart track in S. No.299/9 and that being the case, the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the assignment granted to the petitioner is wholly erroneous.

10. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that reclassification of the land has not been done by the respondents and no gazette notification has been issued for such reclassification and in the absence of following the due procedure for reclassifying the land, the land cannot be reclassified as 'Adi Dravidar Tharisu', when all along, the land in question was classified as 'Punjai Tharisu', which has been shown as such in the gazette publication as well.

11. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that no material has been produced by the respondents 1 to 5 to show that RSO 15 (41) provides authority to the 2nd respondent to set apart lands for assignment to schedule castes. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that

the lands have been under cultivation since 1971 by the initial assignee and, thereafter, by the petitioner and her husband and, therefore, there is a prohibition under RSO 15 (41) for reservation of the lands and further as per RSO 15 (41), the land has to be offered to the person in possession and only on his refusal it could be assigned to others. However, erroneously, the respondents have cancelled the assignment made in favour of the petitioners which is grossly arbitrary and illegal.

12. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that assignment having been granted by the Tahsildar, the said authority has the power to resume the lands and usurpation of power by the 3rd respondent in resuming the lands is wholly impermissible and unsustainable. The whole act of the respondents 1 to 5 in cancelling the assigned lands being arbitrary, illegal and without the authority of law, it is prayed that this Court may allow W.P. Nos.31121 and 26270/12.

13. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions :- i) T.Thirumalai Gounder & Anr. - Vs - State of Tamil Nadu (W.A. No.1374/2008 - Dated - 18.08.2010) ii) R.Ramanathan & Ors. - Vs - The State of Tamil nadu (1997 (2) MLJ 406);

iii) Mansaram - Vs - S.P.Pathak & Ors. (1984 (1) SCC 125);

iv) Kamalammal - Vs - The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2000 WLR 736);

v) Sri Venkateswara Granites - Vs - The Revenue Divisional Officer (W.P. No.6229/1988 - Dated 31.03.1997); and vi) Nagamalai Gounder - Vs - The District Revenue Officer & Anr. (W.P. No.10857/1994 - Dated 25.4.2001)

14. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 to 5, relying upon the counter filed by the said respondents, submitted that the land was initially assigned to one Muthiyalu, which was alienated by the said individual within a period of seven years in favour of the petitioners in WP Nos.31121 and 26270/12, which is against the assignment conditions, which resulted in cancellation of the assignment. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that the said lands are classified as lands to be assigned to the depressed class. However, the petitioners, not being members of depressed class, the assignment granted in their favour is wholly erroneous, which warranted cancellation of the assignment.

15. It is the further averment of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that it is not the case of the petitioners that they are depressed class persons and, therefore, the assignment granted to them is proper. When the lands are specifically ear marked for the purpose of assignment to depressed class persons, assigning the said lands to the petitioners is wholly impermissible. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government pleader that even at the time of allotment of the lands, the petitioners are affluent persons and, therefore, allotment of lands, which are to be assigned to only persons from the depressed class does not arise.

16. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that the land in question was not notified in the District Gazette as the said land was set apart as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu" and the same was assigned to Muthaiyalu in the year 1964. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that even the 'A' Register and the Adangal extract show the said lands to be 'Adi Dravidar Tharisu' and the said lands were under the enjoyment of Muthiyalu and one Poongal, who were members of the depressed class.

17. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that R.S. No.299/8 was sub-divided and assigned by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioners during the years 1996 and 1998 free of cost, however, without taking into account the fact that the petitioners were not members of depressed class and that they were already in possession of more than 9.43 acres of land. Thus the action of the Tahsildar in assigning the lands is against the provision provided in the Revenue Standing Order, which resulted in the cancellation of the assignment.

18. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that the contention that the suits in O.S. No.1385/04 and 404/09, had ended in favour of the petitioners would not in any way advance the case of the petitioners. It is the submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that the lands marked out for being provided on assignment to depressed class and Scheduled Caste community cannot be exploited by members of the other community, as has been repeatedly held by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court.

19. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioners and during the enquiry, the petitioners have suppressed the fact about the patta land in possession of the petitioners. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that the land in R.S. No.299/8 is a cart track, which is used by

the people of the locality and the adjacent pattadar, which has been rightly appreciated for the purpose of cancelling the assignment granted to the petitioners and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the orders impugned herein.

20. Insofar as W.P. No.32666 of 2012 is concerned, learned Addl. Government Pleader submits that the representation of the petitioners will be considered and orders passed in accordance with law within a particular time frame fixed by this Court.

21. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

22. There is no dispute about the fact that the lands were initially assigned to one Muthaiyalu, who belonged to depressed class community and the said Muthaiyalu had sold the lands to the petitioners in WP Nos.31121 and 26270 of 2012 within a period of seven years, which resulted in the assignment being cancelled by the respondents 1 to 5 in the year 1991 by invoking the power vested under RSO 15(41).

Pursuant to the cancellation, the petitioners have made representation to the Tahsildar, resulting in the assignment of the lands in favour of the petitioners on 5.3.96.

23. It is the admitted case of the parties that pursuant to the complaint made by one Krishnamurthi/6th respondent in W.P. Nos.26270 & 31121/12, the 3rd respondent had undertaken an enquiry by issuing notice to the petitioners, which has resulted in the cancellation of assignment of lands made in favour of the petitioners. The ground on which the 3rd respondent had cancelled the assignment is two-fold, viz., firstly the lands being earmarked for depressed class persons, the same cannot be assigned to the petitioners, as they do not fulfill the criteria of depressed class persons, as their land holdings were in excess of the mandated prescription and secondly the lands are classified as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu" and, therefore, the said lands cannot be assigned to the petitioners, who neither belong to Adi Dravidar community nor they are depressed class of persons.

24. It is the contention of the petitioners that the lands were classified only as 'Punjai Tharisu' at the relevant point of time when the lands were assigned in their favour and without any rhyme or reason and without any proper material, the lands have been reclassified as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu", that too, without any notice to the petitioners.

25. It is to be pointed out that as per RSO 15(41), assignment is granted only in favour of persons, who belong to

depressed class and who do not hold any lands or that their holdings is limited to the prescribed limit noted in the Revenue Standing Orders. Further, it is also to be pointed out that any lands, which have been classified as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu" has to be assigned only in favour of persons belonging to Schedule Class community and the members of other caste are not entitled for assignment of the said lands.

26. In this backdrop, a perusal of the order passed by the 3 rd respondent reveals that pursuant to the notice calling upon the petitioners in W.P. Nos.31121 and 26270/12 to submit their explanation, no explanation was forthcoming within the time prescribed. However, the petitioners appeared in person and through the advocate sought time and inspite of grant of sufficient time, no explanation was submitted by the petitioners. The order of the 3rd respondent further reveals that upon enquiry, it was found that the petitioners were affluent persons holding substantial extent of lands, which is over the limit prescribed and, therefore, the assignment of lands made in favour of the petitioners by the Tahsildar was found to be not in consonance with RSO 15(3)(ii).

Further, a categorical finding has also been recorded that the pursuant to the sub-division made to S. No.299/8, a portion of 0.00.5 hectare has been shown as cart track, which has been erroneously assigned to one of the petitioners. Further, it is also evident from the records that even as early as on 28.1.1991, the patta was cancelled for the lands assigned to the petitioners and the lands were reclassified as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu".

27. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the lands, which were initially assigned to Muthaiyalu in the year 1974 was sold within a period of seven years, which is against the assignment conditions in RSO 15(41) and, therefore, the said assignment in favour of Muthaiyalu was cancelled in the year 1991. The petitioners had made representation for reassignment of lands in their favour, on which orders of assignment was issued by the Tahsildar on 5.3.96.

28. It is borne out by record, as is evident from the order of the 3rd respondent, that even as early as on 28.1.1991, the patta granted to the petitioners was cancelled and the lands were once again restored as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu". The above implicitly reveals that the lands were initially classified as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu", which, for a short span of time during assignment to the original assignee and, thereafter, to the petitioners, held a different classification, which was thereafter restored back to its original classification as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu". Though the petitioners contend that the same is not substantiated by the respondents through any record, however, the fact remains that for the claim made by the

petitioners relating to the land being classified as "Punjai Tharisu", there is no material placed before this Court or either before the authorities when the impugned orders came to be passed. Such being the undisputed position, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to contend that it is for the respondents 1 to 5 to substantiate the reclassification to the exclusion of the petitioners.

29. Further, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the reclassification of the lands from its original classification, as alleged, the same cannot be agitated before this Court in this writ petition, as the same pertains to disputed questions of fact, which can be gone into only before the appropriate forum.

30. It is also not disputed by the petitioners that the original assignee, Muthaiyalu belonged to a depressed class. The assignment was made to the said Muthaiyalu only on the ground that the said individual was a poor person, who was granted the benefit of the assignment of lands under the relevant Revenue Standing Orders. Further, it is even the admitted case of the petitioners that they had purchased the lands from the said original assignee, which assignment was subsequently cancelled. Therefore, it can be held without a trace of doubt that the petitioners are well to do persons. Further, it is not disputed by the petitioners that they were not holding extent of lands over and above the limits prescribed in the Revenue Standing Orders, as has been held by the 3rd respondent. The whole crux of the petitioners' case lie within the four corners as to the classification of the lands.

31. When neither the petitioners are depressed class persons, nor the petitioners belong to Schedule Caste community, the lands, which has since been reclassified as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu" cannot be allotted to the petitioners in view of the nature of the lands and its classification as it can be assigned only in favour of depressed persons belonging to Schedule Caste community. The said finding has also been recorded by the 3rd respondent in its order.

32. The order passed by the 3rd respondent, on appeal, has been appreciated in its proper perspective by the 2nd respondent, who has concurred with the findings recorded by the 3rd respondent.

The petitioners, though have attacked the usurpation of powers by the 3rd respondent, has not placed any materials to justify that the 3rd respondent is not clothed with the said power to resume the lands, which were assigned in favour of the petitioners by the Tahsildar. The petitioners have not pointed out any provision in the Revenue Standing Order which prescribes that the 3rd respondent is not vested with any

power of resumption. Merely because the revenue records have been mutated in favour of the petitioner, which is per se illegal, as the lands, which carried a wrong classification, upon reclassification "Adi Dravidar Tharisu" the said lands cannot be assigned in favour of the petitioners on account of the petitioners being neither members of depressed class nor belonging to Adi Dravidar community.

33. Insofar as the decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel are concerned, it is to be pointed out that all of the decisions relate to the limitation for taking an action by the authority and the bar in the event of action being taken belatedly.

34. It is to be pointed out that there is no limitation prescribed under the rules or any other statute for taking action by the respondents, as is taken in the present case. It is to be pointed out that the lands were assigned in favour of the petitioner during March, 1996, which was cancelled, which was cancelled vide the order dated 31.03.2005. A period of nine years has passed since the assignment has been granted in favour of the petitioner. It is to be pointed out that the assignment has been cancelled on the ground of suppression of materials with regard to the land holdings of the petitioners and also on the ground that the lands could not be assigned to the petitioners as the said lands are classified as "Adi Dravidar Tharisu", which could be assigned only to persons belonging to Schedule Caste community.

35. When the petitioner has obtained the assignment through suppression of materials and when there is a bar for assignment of lands in favour of the petitioners, the decisions pertaining to delay in cancelling the assignment would not in any way have a bearing on the orders passed by the authorities. The petitioner has to be truthful in his stand to claim any benefit being conferred by a rule or a statute. When the petitioners themselves have suppressed materials while getting the assignment in their favour, they cannot claim that the delay is fatal to the impugned order, more so, when no limitation has been prescribed under the rule or any statute. Therefore, the decisions relied on by the petitioners would in no way further their case.

36. Insofar as the writ petition in W.P. No.32666 of 2012 is concerned, the short ground raised by the petitioners only relate to the consideration of their representation for assignment of lands in their favour, as they belong to depressed class and the lands, which have been taken over from the petitioners in W.P. Nos. .26270 and 31121 of 2012 could be assigned to them.

37. On this issue, as already stated above, learned Addl. Government Pleader has no serious objection to an order being passed to consider their representation within a time frame fixed by this Court.

38. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court passes the following order :- i) No interference is warranted with the order passed by the 3rd respondent as confirmed by the 2nd respondent and, accordingly, W.P. Nos.26270 and 31121 of 2012 are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

ii) The petitioners in W.P. No.32666 of 2012 are directed to forward a copy of their representation along with a copy of this order before the 3rd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the said representation, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the same in the light of the relevant provisions in the Revenue Standing Orders and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

iii) M.P. No.1 of 2013 to permit the petitioners to implead respondents 6 and 7 as party respondents to W.P. No.32666 of 2012 is ordered as prayed for. iv) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar GLN To 1.The Secretary Land Administration Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Prl. Secretary & Commissioner Land Administration, Chepauk Chennai 600 005.

3.The District Revenue Officer Villupuram.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

5.The Tahsildar Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

6. The District Collector, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

7.The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Kallakurichi, Villupuram.

+2cc to M/s.R.Meenal, Advocate, S.R.No.22048, 22049 +1cc to Mr.S.Sivakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.21939 +1cc to Mr.R.Munuswamy, Advocate, S.R.No.22839 +1cc to Mr.T.Panchatsaram, Advocate, S.R.No.22831 W.P. NOS. 26270, 31121 & 32666 OF 2012 NRL(CO) SB(25/04/2022)