{"id":145855,"date":"2002-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002"},"modified":"2014-03-30T22:52:17","modified_gmt":"2014-03-30T17:22:17","slug":"n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 23\/08\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH\n\nS.A.No.1971 of 1989 and S.A. No.1972 of 1989\nand S.A. Nos. 1973 and 1974 of 1989\n\nN. Chelliah Servai,\nS\/o Nellathambi Servai,\nThambipatti,\nThirupattur,\nPasumpon Muthuramalingam\n             District.          ...             Appellant in all\n                                                the S.As.\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Executive Authority,\nThirupattur Town Panchayat\nOffice,\nThirupattur,\nPasumpon Muthuramalingam\nDistrict.               ...             Respondent in all\n                                        the S.A.\n\n\n\nFor Appellant:   ...   Mr.S. Natarajan\n\nFor Respondent:  ...   Mr.C. Thirumaran for\n                       Mr.S. Mohamed Yousuf\n\n\n                These second appeals are filed against the judgment and decree\ndated  28-9-1989  made  in   A.S.Nos.158\/86,   146\/86,   147\/86   and   157\/86\nrespectively, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                The  following  substantial  questions of law have been framed
\nfor decision in the second appeals:\n<\/p>\n
“1.  For assessing the value of the property for the  purpose  of  house  tax,
\nshould  not  the Authorities determine fair rent for the building applying the
\nprovisions for arriving at the fair rent under the Rent Control Act?\n<\/p>\n
2.  Can the increased tax be demanded with retrospective effect?\n<\/p>\n
3.  Should not the executive Authority give the reasons in Exs.A-1 to A-5  for
\nincreasing the house tax, to enable the plaintiff to avail the remedy provided
\nto be effectively utilised?\n<\/p>\n
                2.   Contending  that  the  Executive  Authority,  Thirupattur
\nPanchayat,  had  increased the annual value of the various buildings belonging
\nto him and correspondingly the property tax, the  appellant  filed  the  suits
\nbefore  the  District  Munsif’s Court, Thirupattur, seeking a declaration that
\nthe increase in tax was not valid and for injunction restraining the defendant
\nPanchayat from collecting the tax at the revised rate.\n<\/p>\n
                There  were  five  special  notices  for increase of house tax
\nissued under Rule 9(3) of the Rules framed under Section 112(2) of the  Madras
\nVillage Panchayat  Act,  1950.    O.S.No.234\/83  relates  to  notice  for Door
\nNo.7\/8-1; O.S.No.235\/83 is for Door No.7\/8-2; O.S.No.236\/83  relates  to  Door
\nNo.7\/8-3; and O.S.No.237\/83 relates to Door No.7\/8-4.  The notices were marked
\nas Exs.A-1  to A-5 respectively before the trial Court.  It was contended that
\nthe respondent had no  power  to  fix  the  value  of  the  building  and  tax
\narbitrarily  and  that  the principles for fixing the fair rent under the Rent
\ncontrol Act had to be applied and as  the  respondent  had  not  followed  the
\nprocedure, the suits came to be filed.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   The  trial  Court  accepted the case of the appellant and
\ndecreed the suits and the notices were set aside.   The  respondent  Panchayat
\nfiled  appeals  A.S.Nos.146,  147,  157  and 158 of 1986 before the Sub Court,
\nSivaganga.  The learned Subordinate Judge,  by  common  judgment  allowed  the
\nappeals and  dismissed  the  suits.   It is as against the said dismissal, the
\npresent second appeals have been filed.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  The learned Counsel for the  appellant  Mr.S.    Natarajan
\nsubmitted  by relying on several decisions of the Supreme court and this Court
\nthat the notices issued by the respondent  have  been  so  issued  arbitrarily
\nwithout  bothering  to  fix  the  annual  value  on the basis of the fair rent
\nobtainable on the various items.  According to the learned  Counsel,  none  of
\nthe  notices  gives  any  reason  for  increase  in  the  annual value and for
\nconsequent increase in the tax.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  Except for one notice, all  the  other  notices  give  the
\nreason  for  increase  as  the increase in the rent received by the appellant.
\nThe notices further say that the appellant  could  within  30  days  from  the
\nreceipt  of  notice  file  his  objections  to  the  revision  before the same
\nauthority.  The appellant did not  go  before  the  respondent  but  chose  to
\napproach the  Civil  Court.  The learned Subordinate Judge, while allowing the
\nappeals filed by the respondent observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“That the notices clearly mentioned  that  there  was  revision  in  the  rent
\nreceived  by  the  appellant in respect of each of his properties, that in any
\nevent, the notices clearly  stated  that  the  appellant  could  approach  the
\nrespondent  within a month and without approaching the respondent, he had gone
\nto the Civil Court.”\n<\/p>\n
and this would be clear from the notices  themselves.    Only  on  this  short
\nground, the  appeals  were allowed.  The Panchayat had a resolution passed and
\npursuant to the resolution, the notices had been issued.   The  appellant  had
\nnot approached  the  Panchayat within the stipulated 30 days.  Notices Exs.A-1
\nto A-5 are all dated 7-6-1983 and  the  plaintiff  within  30  days  from  the
\nreceipt  of  notices,  should have approached the respondent; instead he filed
\nthe suits on 8-8-1983.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  In my view, it cannot be construed that the respondent had
\narbitrarily revised the annual valuation and consequently the tax  payable  by
\nthe appellant.    The notices are in the nature of show cause having regard to
\nthe fact that the appellant had revised the rent he  was  receiving  from  his
\ntenants.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   Let  us  now  refer to the various decisions relied on by
\nCounsel.\n<\/p>\n
                In THE  GUNTUR  MUNICIPAL  COUNCIL  VS.    THE   GUNTUR   TOWN
\nRATEPAYERS’  ASSOCIATION,  ETC.(1971(II)  MLJ  (SC)  7)  which arose under the
\nMadras District Municipalities Act, Act V of  1920,  the  Supreme  Court  held
\ninterpreting Section 82(2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act that,<\/p>\n
“the  provisions  for  the  fixation  of annual value according to the rent at
\nwhich lands and buildings may reasonably be expected to be let from  month  to
\nmonth  or  from  year  to  yea  less the specified deduction and that the test
\nessentially is what rent the premises can lawfully  fetch  if  let  out  to  a
\nhypothetical tenant.    The  Municipality  is  thus  not  free  to  assess any
\narbitrary annual value and has to look to and is bound  by  the  fair  or  the
\nstandard  rent which would be payable for a particular premises under the Rent
\ncontrol Act in force.  In this respect no  distinction  can  be  made  between
\nbuildings  the  fair  rent  of  which  has  been actually fixed under the Rent
\nControl Act and those in respect of which no such rent has been fixed.”\n<\/p>\n
That was a case where there was a general revision of the rental values of the
\nhouses and the buildings effected by the Guntur Municipality in the year  1960
\nfor  the  purpose  of assessment of tax and suits were filed for a declaration
\nthat such general revision was ultra vires and illegal and for a consequential
\nrelief of a permanent injunction restraining the Municipality from  acting  on
\nthe said  notices  issued  to  the  tax  payers.  It was found that the Guntur
\nMunicipality had not followed the fair rent procedure contemplated  under  the
\ncorresponding  Rent  Control  Act  and  ultimately, the decrees granted by the
\nCourts below were modified by the Supreme Court by declaring that the  general
\nrevision made by the Guntur Municipality by increasing the rental valuation of
\nhouses  and buildings beyond the fair rent determinable under the Rent control
\nAct in force for the period of assessment was illegal and  ulta  vires  and  a
\npermanent  injunction  was  issued restraining the Municipality from realising
\nany amount in excess of such tax which might be found  due  on  the  valuation
\nfixed according to the principles laid down in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                The  Supreme  Court  stressed that the assessment of valuation
\nmust take into account the measure of fair rent as determinable under the  Act
\nand  it  may  be  that  where  the  Controller has not fixed the fair rent the
\nmunicipal authorities will have to arrive at their own figure of fair rent but
\nthat can be done without any difficulty by keeping in view the principles laid
\ndown in the Rent Control Act for determination of  fair  rent.    The  Supreme
\nCourt  also expressed that the procedural difficulties should not stand in the
\nway.  “When it comes to fixing the annual value, the law is and appears to  be
\nwell  settled  that the assessment of valuation for the purpose of tax must be
\nmade in accordance with and in the light of the provisions of the Rent Act  in
\nforce during the period of assessment.”\n<\/p>\n
                8.  In S.    RAMASWAMY  VS.   THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF
\nMADRAS (197 7(II) MLJ 457) a learned Judge of this Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Wherever buildings are subject to rent control restriction, the rental  value
\nhas  to  be  fixed  with  reference  to  the fair rent if any, fixed under the
\nstatutory provisions for the building and if no fair rent has  been  fixed  by
\nthe  Rent Controller the municipal authorities have to apply the provisions of
\nthe Rent control Act and determine the  fair  rent  for  the  building  before
\nassessing the property to tax.”\n<\/p>\n
                9.  In NEW  DELHI  MUNICIPAL  COMMITTEE  VS.    M.N.   SOI AND
\nANOTHER (AIR 1 977 SC 302) it has been held that,<\/p>\n
“where a rent is higher than  that  which  can  be  legally  demanded  by  the
\nlandlord and actually paid by a tenant despite the fact that such violation of
\nthe  restriction  on  rent chargeable by law is visited by penal consequences,
\nthe Municipal authorities cannot take advantage of this defiance of the law by
\nthe landlord.  Rating cannot operate as a mode  of  sharing  the  benefits  of
\nillegal  rack-renting  indulged  in  by landlords for whose activities the law
\nprescribes condign punishment.”\n<\/p>\n
                10.  The decision in K.M.S.  ABDUL HASAN VS.    THE  TIRUVARUR
\nMUNICIPALITY (1978(I)  MLJ  121) reiterates the same principles.  It was found
\nin that decision that the  Commissioner  of  the  Municipality  concerned  had
\narbitrarily  fixed,  though in a bona fide manner the reasonable rent that the
\nproperties would fetch and that the rental value had not been  arrived  at  in
\nconformity with the proper principles applicable.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  In DEVAN DAULAT  RAI  KAPOOR  ETC.   ETC.  VS.  NEW DELHI
\nMUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER (AIR  1980  SC  541)  the  same  principle  is
\nreiterated.\n<\/p>\n
“Where  a  building %is governed by the provisions of Rent Control Legislation
\nthe landlord cannot reasonably be expected to receive anything more  than  the
\nstandard  rent from a hypothetical tenant and the annual value of the building
\ncannot therefore exceed the standard rent.  Even in  case  of  a  building  in
\nrespect  of which no standard rent has been fixed within the prescribed period
\nof limitation and thus the tenant is precluded from making an application  for
\nfixation  of  standard rent with the result that landlord is lawfully entitled
\nto continue to receive the contractual rent, the annual value must be  limited
\nto  the measure of standard rent determinable under the Rent Act and cannot be
\ndetermined on the basis of the higher rent actually received by  the  landlord
\nfrom the  tenant.    Even  if  the  standard  rent  has  not been fixed by the
\ncontroller,  the  landlord  cannot  reasonably  expect  to  receive   from   a
\nhypothetical  tenant  anything  more than the standard rent determinable under
\nthe Act and this would be so equally whether the building has been let out  to
\na  tenant who has lost his right to apply for fixation of the standard rent or
\nthe building is self-occupied by the owner.  The assessing authority would, in
\neither case, have to arrive at its own figure of the standard rent by applying
\nprinciples laid down in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for determination  of
\nstandard  rent  and determine the annual value of the building on the basis of
\nsuch figure of standard rent.”\n<\/p>\n
                12.  In THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL  TIRUVARUR  VS.    TAJ  PRAKASHA
\nTHAIKAL  ESTATE  (1981(1)  MLJ 197) the Municipality had not complied with the
\nprovisions of the Tamil Nadu  Buildings  (Lease  and  Rent  Control)  Act  and
\nassessed the annual value for the purpose of municipal tax without recourse to
\nthe Rent Control Act and this Court quashed the notice.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  In  MAGDOOM  SHERIFF  @  SULTAN SHERIFF VS.  KANCHEEPURAM
\nMUNICIPALITY (1993(2) MLJ 262), a learned Judge has followed the same ratio as
\nin the earlier cases.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  In INDIA AUTOMOBILES (1960) LTD.  VS.  CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL
\nCORPORATION AND ANOTHER (2002(3)  SCC  388)  the  Supreme  Court  observed  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“The  basis for determination of annual rent value has to be the standard rent
\nwhere the Rent Control Act is applicable and in  all  other  cases  reasonable
\ndetermination  of  such  rent  by  the  municipal  authorities keeping in view
\nvarious factors as indicated in the judgment  including  the  rent  which  the
\ntenant is  getting from his sub-tenant.  In appropriate cases the owner of the
\nproperty may be in a position to satisfy the authorities that the gross annual
\nrent of the building of which the annual valuation was being determined cannot
\nbe more than the actual rent received by such owner  from  his  tenant.    The
\nmunicipal  authorities  shall  keep  in mind the various pronouncements of the
\nSupreme Court, the statutory provisions made in the specified Municipal  Acts,
\nkeeping in mind the applicability or non-applicability of the Rent act and the
\npeculiar  circumstances of each case, to find out the gross annual rent of the
\nbuilding including service charges, if any, at which  such  land  or  building
\nmight,  at  the time of assessment, be reasonably expected to let from year to
\nyear in terms of the provisions of the Act concerned.”\n<\/p>\n
In that case, the Supreme Court referred to all the earlier cases and  evolved
\na formula for fixing the annual rental value.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   The Supreme Court categorised the earlier decisions into
\ntwo groups, one group dealing with the municipal laws of some States which  do
\nnot  expressly  include application of the Rent Restriction Acts in the matter
\nof determination of annual value of  building  for  the  purposes  of  levying
\nmunicipal  taxes  and  the  other  group dealing with the municipal laws which
\nexpressly exclude application of the Rent Restriction Acts in  the  matter  of
\ndetermination of  annual  value of land or building on rental method.  Whereas
\nin the first category of cases the determination of annual  value  has  to  be
\nmade  on  the  basis of fair or standard rent notwithstanding the actual rent,
\neven if it exceeds the statutory  limits.    In  the  other  group  where  the
\nrestriction  in  the  Rent Acts has been excluded, the determination of annual
\nvalue of the building on rental method is referable  to  the  method  provided
\nunder the relevant Municipal Act.\n<\/p>\n
                16.   It  has  to  be noted that none of the cases referred to
\nabove relates to determination of fair rent in the Panchayats where  the  Rent
\nActs are not made applicable.  There does not appear to be any decided case on
\nthe point.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  The decision  in  K.    JAYAPRAKASH  VS.    THE EXECUTIVE
\nAUTHORITY TIRUTHANGAL TOWN PANCHAYAT (1982(1) MLJ 18 = 92 LW 609) arose  under
\nthe Panchayat  Act, 1958.  That was a case when the Executive Authority of the
\nTown Panchayat issued a special notice of house tax amendment under Rule 10(3)
\nof the Rules issued under Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 19 58 without  disclosing
\nthe reasons, which prevailed for making a special revision.  The learned Judge
\nheld that,<\/p>\n
“Rule  10(3)  enables  the  Executive  Authority to make a special revision of
\nhouse tax, but it can be done only after intimating by a special notice to the
\nowner or occupier of the house that the petition for revising  the  assessment
\nwill be considered, if it reaches the Panchayat Office within 30 days from the
\ndate of service of such notice.”\n<\/p>\n
According to the learned Judge, it is not sufficient to merely issue a special
\nnotice  staightaway  to enhance the tax unless the representations made by the
\npetitioner opposing the proposed enhancement of tax had  been  considered  and
\ndisposed of.    The notice served on the petitioner in that case did not state
\nthe grounds which prevailed upon the executive authority  to  revise  the  tax
\ndemands  and  in  the  absence  of  such  disclosure,  as  held in DALAVAI VS.
\nGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU (197 8(1) MLJ 93), whenever special notice is issued,
\nit is obligatory on the part of the concerned tax authority  to  disclose  the
\nreasons arrived at therein.  The learned Judge further held that,<\/p>\n
“when  the  rules  themselves  provide  for  a  revision  petition, unless the
\nassessee knows the grounds on which enhancement has been made,  it  would  not
\nenable  him  to  prefer  effectively  a  revision  petition  and that remedies
\nprovided under the Rules or enactments cannot be reduced to in  effectiveness.
\nTo make them effective and purposeful remedies, particularly when an appeal or
\nrevision  is  provided, it is incumbent on the original authority to state the
\nreasons for the conclusion  arrived  at.    Therefore,  it  is  all  the  more
\nnecessary  for  the  executive  authority  to furnish the reasons, so that the
\nremedy provided under the Rules could be effectively and successfully utilised
\nby affected parties.”\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judge remitted the matter to enable the respondent  to  deal  with
\nthe matter afresh by passing an order justifying the enhancement.  This is the
\nonly  decision  relating  to  enhancement  of  property  tax  dealt  with by a
\nPanchayat.  Admittedly, Rent Control Acts have not been made applicable to the
\nPanchayat in question.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  We have therefore to find out whether the special  notice
\ndisclosed any  reason  for  enhancement.  Except for Ex.A-2, the other notices
\nhave given the reason for enhancement as increase in rent by the landlord.  It
\nis further provided in the various notices that the  landlord  could  approach
\nthe  same  authority  for  raising his objections questioning the enhancement.
\nThis has not been done by the appellant at all.  Instead,  he  rushed  to  the
\nCourt as already noted.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   The  matter  has been pending for nearly 20 years in the
\nCourt, with  the  result  that  there  has  been  no  subsequent  quinquennial
\nrevisions.   Pending  the  second  appeals,  as  an  interim measure where the
\nenhancement had doubled, the appellant had been directed to  pay  50%  of  the
\nrevised  tax and in other cases where the increase was negligible, he had been
\ndirected to pay the full tax.  Because of the pendency  of  the  appeals,  the
\nPanchayat had  not  embarked on quinquennial revisions.  As already noted, the
\nappellant  should  have  approached  the  respondent  itself  by  filing   his
\nobjections within a period of 30 days.\n<\/p>\n
                20.  The case  decided  in  K.  JAYAPRAKASH VS.  THE EXECUTIVE
\nAUTHORITY,  TIRUTHANGAL  TOWN  PANCHAYAT   (1982(1)   MLJ   18)   is   clearly
\ndistinguishable.   That  was  a  case  where tax had been enhanced without any
\nreasons being disclosed  and  the  appellant  was  directed  to  approach  the
\nrevisional authority within 30 days.  This is a case where some reasonhad been
\ngiven  and the appellant was directed to approach the same authority by filing
\nhis objections to the revision.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  It would be worthwhile to extract the observations of the
\nSupreme Court made in SRIKANT KASHINATH JITURI VS.  CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
\nBELGAUM (1994(6) SCC 572), which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“We feel compelled to express our doubts as to the  soundness  and  continuing
\nrelevance  of  the  view taken by this Court in several earlier decisions that
\nthe property tax must be determined on the basis of fair rent alone regardless
\nof the actual rent received.  Fair rent very often means the  rent  prevailing
\nprior to  1950  with  some minor modifications and additions.  Property tax is
\nthe main source of revenue to the municipalities and  municipal  corporations.
\nTo compel these local bodies to levy and collect the property tax on the basis
\nof  fair  rent  alone, while asking them at the same time to perform all their
\nobligatory and discretionary functions prescribed by the statute may be to ask
\nfor the impossible.  The cost of maintaining  and  laying  roads,  drains  and
\nother  amenities, the salaries of staff and wages of employees \u2013 in short, all
\ntypes of expenditure have gone up steeply over the last more than forty years.
\nIn such a situation, insistence upon levy of property tax on the basis of fair
\nrent alone \u2013 disregarding the actual rent received \u2013 is neither justified  nor
\npracticable.  None  of  the  enactments says so expressly.  The said principle
\nhas been evolved by Courts by a process of interpretation.   Probably  a  time
\nhas come when the said principle may have to be reviewed.” (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
                22.   By  filing  the suits and keeping the matter pending for
\nnearly 20 years, the Panchayat has been put to enormous loss.  At  least  with
\nregard  to  three  cases  where  the  revision was very nominal, the appellant
\nshould have refrained from taking recourse to civil proceedings.    Where  the
\nrevision  has  been 7 or 8 times the original assessment which incidentally it
\nmust be noted was in 1969-70,  the  appellant  should  have  gone  before  the
\nrespondent  and  raised his objections as contemplated under the provisions of
\nthe Panchayat Act.  As rightly pointed out by Mr.    Thirumaran,  the  learned
\nCounsel  for  the first respondent, the appellant nowhere stated that the Rent
\nControl Act had not been followed.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  In DINDIGUL ANNA DISTRICT TAX PAYERS  SANGAM  ETC.    VS.
\nGOVERNMENT OF  TAMIL  NADU  ETC.    & ANOTHER (1994(2) LW 715 = 1994 Writ L.R.\n<\/p>\n
805), it has been held  that  the  special  notice  served  by  the  Executive
\nAuthorities  of the Municipalities under Rule 9 on the owners and occupiers of
\nproperties was held to be not in accordance with the principles laid  down  by
\nthis  Court  as no reason was stated in the special notices for enhancement of
\nproperty tax and therefore the special notices could not be sustained and  the
\nnotices were  quashed.    The Bench directed the Municipalities in question to
\nissue fresh special notices under Rule 9 to the assesses  giving  reasons  for
\nthe  enhancement  of the property tax and it further stated that on receipt of
\nsuch notices, it was open to the members of  the  petitioners  to  file  their
\nobjections or  apply  for revision of the proposed enhancement.  The appellant
\ncannot say that no reason at all was given in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  As already pointed out, except for  one,  all  the  other
\nnotices have  given  the  reason for enhancement.  The appellant ought to have
\napproached the authority and the same not having been done, I do not find  any
\nacceptable ground  for allowing the second appeals.  The substantial questions
\nof law do not at all arise for consideration.  The  second  appeals  fail  and
\nthey are dismissed.  However, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
23-8-2002
\nIndex:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
IGP<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Subordinate Judge,
\nSivaganga (with records).\n<\/p>\n
2.  The District Munsif,
\nSivaganga.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Record Keeper,
\nV.R.  Records,
\nHigh Court,
\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n
K.  SAMPATH, J.\n<\/p>\n
Judgment
\nin
\nS.A.Nos.1971 to 1974\/89<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/08\/2002 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH S.A.No.1971 of 1989 and S.A. No.1972 of 1989 and S.A. Nos. 1973 and 1974 of 1989 N. Chelliah Servai, S\/o Nellathambi Servai, Thambipatti, Thirupattur, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-30T17:22:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-30T17:22:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3512,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002\",\"name\":\"N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-30T17:22:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-30T17:22:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-30T17:22:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002"},"wordCount":3512,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002","name":"N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-30T17:22:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-chelliah-servai-vs-the-executive-authority-on-23-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Chelliah Servai vs The Executive Authority on 23 August, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145855\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}