Judgment :- The suit is filed praying for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule mentioned property and consequently to restrain the defendants and their agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property. It is also prayed that the show cause notice bearing No.J3/74603/2000 dated 25. 2001 issued by the first defendant be declared as null and void and consequently, the defendants be restrained by an order of injunction from taking any action under the notice. It is further prayed that defendants 1 and 2 and their agents be restrained from in any way disturbing possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by taking action on the basis of the aforesaid show cause notice. 2. The plaintiffs have averred to in the plaint as follows:- They are the owners of the property measuring an extent of 3880 sq.mtrs with the building comprised in T.S.No.5-B (S.No.5/15) Block No.14, Periakoodal Village bearing door No.89, Brewary Road, A-Block Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 102 morefully described in the suit schedule, having purchased the same in four plots under four sale deeds dated 17. 1995. The plaintiffs were put in possession by their vendors lawfully and the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property. The plaintiffs vendor M/s.United Breweries Limited, a Public Limited Company acquired a large extent of land by deed of sale dated 18th September 1915 including the land now purchased by the plaintiffs herein. After several acquisition proceedings, the predecessor in title owned and possessed 4189 sq.mtrs of land together with an old dilapidated building. The provision of the Tamiladu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was applied to the Company land and an extent of 309 sq.mtrs of land was acquired by the Urban Land Ceiling authorities by a resolution dated 30.9.1989. The plaintiffs were issued with patta on 211. 1996. On behalf of the family trust of the plaintiffs, a request was made on 212. 1996 to the Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai for allotment of 309 sq.mtrs of land which was acquired under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 at the hands of the plaintiffs vendor. The plaintiffs were issued with patta on 211. 1996. On behalf of the family trust of the plaintiffs, a request was made on 212. 1996 to the Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai for allotment of 309 sq.mtrs of land which was acquired under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 at the hands of the plaintiffs vendor. The said request was turned down by the Government holding that it was beyond the capacity of the Trust to purchase the said portion of the land which was valued at Rs.58.37 lakhs. The first defendant and the officers of the State and Central Government have written to the plaintiffs vendor requesting the building standing on the schedule mentioned property for their use. The Inspector of Exhibitions in the Directorate of Advertisements and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has also written to the plaintiffs vendor on 212. 1967 to take the building on the schedule mentioned property on rent for conducting International Fair. The first defendant issued a show cause notice bearing reference No.J3/74603/2000 dated 25. 2001 requiring the plaintiffs to show cause as to why patta issued in favour of the plaintiffs dated 211. 1996 should not be cancelled. The patta was originally issued in favour of M/s.United Breweries, the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs and thereafter the same was transferred in the name of the plaintiffs on the basis of the sale deed in their names. The Urban Land Ceiling authorities maintain records which disclose that the patta and revenue entries were in the name of the previous owner M/s.United Breweries from 1915. If at all there had been any acquisition proceedings by the Corporation ending with the alleged award as on 33. 1953, the Government of India would not have given licence to run an industrial unit after four years of the alleged acquisition and passing of award. The Urban Land Ceiling authorities, as on 20.2.1989 have made a specific finding as to the ownership of the same with the plaintiffs. The building plan was approved for construction of the industrial unit in the year 1958 by the Corporation of Chennai. They never claimed that the property belonged to them as it was acquired. The old as well as the new building and the land were separately assessed by the Corporation from the year 1953. The building plan was approved for construction of the industrial unit in the year 1958 by the Corporation of Chennai. They never claimed that the property belonged to them as it was acquired. The old as well as the new building and the land were separately assessed by the Corporation from the year 1953. As per the records available as on 1953, the land belonged to three different companies viz., 1) Breweries and Company 2) United Breweries; and 3) United Breweries Company Limited. Therefore, the proceedings, if any, alleged to have been taken is ab initio void. Further, the award is alleged to have been passed but, the same has not been enforced for the past 48 years. Therefore, the award is hopelessly barred by limitation. The Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was requested to clarify as to whether the subject property suffered from any acquisition proceedings at the time when granting patta in favour of the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has written to the plaintiffs vendor on 4. 1988 that the schedule mentioned property was not a subject matter of any acquisition enclosing a letter of the Special Tahsildar dated 22. 1988. Whileso, the first defendant has issued notice requiring the plaintiffs to show cause as to why patta issued in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be cancelled. Hence, the suit seeking the aforesaid prayers. 3. The brief averment found in the written statement filed by the first defendant is as follows:- The suit is liable to be dismissed for non issuance of statutory notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The property is measuring nearly 20 grounds in the heart of the city worth more than five crore rupees. The plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit and paid necessary court fee. The subject property is covered under Land Acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1950 by issuance of notification vide Government Gazette dated 10. 1950 and 2. 1953 (Part. IA Health and Local Administration). Further, in pursuance to the Government Resolution 105/48 dated 22. 1948, the building situated in the land was exempted from the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the dilapidated building situated in Survey No.40/5 had been exempted from the acquisition proceedings. 1950 and 2. 1953 (Part. IA Health and Local Administration). Further, in pursuance to the Government Resolution 105/48 dated 22. 1948, the building situated in the land was exempted from the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the dilapidated building situated in Survey No.40/5 had been exempted from the acquisition proceedings. After the acquisition of the land alongwith other plaint properties, the Special Deputy Collector (LA) (TP 82) personally handed over possession of the land to K.Krishnankutty Menon, Surveyor T.P. Section, Corporation of Madras on 9th April 1953. The original land owners did not challenge the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings and vesting of land in the Government. The entire revenue records of the Corporation of Chennai show that the survey number is classified as lands belonging to the Corporation. As per the quit rent permanent register available at Egmore-Nungambakam Taluk office, T.S.No.5/15 and 5/18 Block No.14 in Periakoodal Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, totally measuring an extent of 5.44 acres of land was acquired for the Shenoy Nagar Town Planning Schemes on behalf of Corporation of Chennai under award No.2/53 dated 33. 1953. While demarking the boundaries during the Town Survey operation that took place in the year 1965, the land in old S.No.40/5 was wrongly included in S.No.5 of Block No.14 of Periakoodal Village. Subsequently, an extent of 4189 sq.mtrs was sub-divided as T.S.No.5/15. The said lands were not put into any use and the same was lying vacant till recently. M/s.United Breweries filed their returns under Urban Land Ceiling Act invoking the provisions of section 7(1) of the Act in the year 1980. The Urban Land Tax Authorities in collusion with M/s.Breweries and Company issued an order as if M/s.Breweries and Company were the owners of the property and only 309 sq.mtrs was in excess of their holdings in S.No.40/5 of Periakoodal Village. The Tahsildar-Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk also, without verifying the records, issued patta in favour of M/s.Breweries and Company in the year 1987-88. The plaintiffs have purchased the said lands measuring an extent of 3880 sq.mtrs from M/.Breweries and Company under different sale deeds. Since the lands in S.No.40/1 to 40/5 were also acquired and handed over to Chennai Corporation and Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the patta issued to M/s.Breweries and Company in the year 1987-88 and thereafter to the plaintiffs in the year 1996-97 were irregular and invalid. Since the lands in S.No.40/1 to 40/5 were also acquired and handed over to Chennai Corporation and Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the patta issued to M/s.Breweries and Company in the year 1987-88 and thereafter to the plaintiffs in the year 1996-97 were irregular and invalid. M/s.Breweries and Company did not possess any vacant land to sell the same to the plaintiffs herein. Therefore, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The brief averment found in the written statement filed by the second defendant is as follows:- The suit property was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer under Award No.2/53 dated 33. 1953. The possession of the land was handed over to the second defendant on 4. 1953 for implementation of the Shenoy Nagar Housing Scheme. During the course of Town Survey Operation between 1965-68, a portion of the land to an extent of 1 acre in old Survey No.40/5 was wrongly surveyed alongwith the lands acquired for Tamil Nadu Housing Board and erroneously registered in the name of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The remaining lands in award No.2/53 were registered in the name of the Corporation of Chennai. A portion of the land in S.No.40/5 part acquired in award No.2/53 had been encroached upon and the matter was discussed in the meeting of the Corporation of Chennai held on 21. 2001. The Collector of Chennai was requested on 15. 2001 to verify the lands separately acquired by the Corporation in S.No.40/5 part and registered in the name of Corporation of Chennai. In the joint inspection of the officials of the Corporation of Chennai and Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk Office that was made on 210. 2000, it came to light that the transfer has been effected in the portion of the land in old Survey No.40/5 part acquired under award No.2/53 and patta was given to private individuals. Therefore, the Collector of Chennai took steps to cancel the patta issued to the individuals and correct the records in the Corporation of Chennai and Collectorate of Chennai. A three Member Committee consisting of District Backward Class Welfare Officer, Personal Assistant (ULT) to the Collector and Personal Assistant (Survey) to the Collector inspected the lands and to conducted an enquiry. The Committee is of the opinion that that the land in T.S.No.5/15 and T.S.No.5/18 measuring 3880 sq.mtrs merged with the lands in old S.No.40/5 part. A three Member Committee consisting of District Backward Class Welfare Officer, Personal Assistant (ULT) to the Collector and Personal Assistant (Survey) to the Collector inspected the lands and to conducted an enquiry. The Committee is of the opinion that that the land in T.S.No.5/15 and T.S.No.5/18 measuring 3880 sq.mtrs merged with the lands in old S.No.40/5 part. As such, the Corporation of Chennai is the absolute owner of T.S.No.5/15 and 5/18 of Periakoodal Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk. It is seen that the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk had effected changes in the revenue records and issued patta to M/s.Breweries Company and subsequently to the plaintiffs relating to the lands in S.No.40/5 part, new T.S.No.5/15 Block No.14 of Periakoodal Village acquired under award No.2/53 which belong to the Corporation. Under the Land Acquisition Act, the moment the Collector makes an award and takes possession, the land thereafter vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. The issuance of patta in the name of the plaintiffs would not clothe them with any right. Patta is not a document of title and therefore, it will not establish ownership. The second defendant denies that the Corporation approved the construction of the building on 28. 1960. The plaintiffs have not produced any electricity receipts and other statutory records in proof of their continuous possession of the suit property. Since the land was lying vacant with a dilapidated small construction, there is a confusion in the land register as to the ownership between the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the Corporation of Chennai. The Corporation was never a party in the patta proceedings culminated in the issue of patta in favour of the plaintiffs vendor and also in favour of the plaintiff. Section 409 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act prohibits any person from encroaching upon a land vested in the Corporation. Under the above facts and circumstances, the second defendant prays that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. The following issues were framed for consideration:- "1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and injunction as prayed for. 2) Whether the award said to have been passed bearing No.2/1953 dated 33. 1953 is true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs. 3) Are not the defendants governed by the plea of promissory estoppel in relation to the action finally concluded by the Urban Land Ceiling authorities. 2) Whether the award said to have been passed bearing No.2/1953 dated 33. 1953 is true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs. 3) Are not the defendants governed by the plea of promissory estoppel in relation to the action finally concluded by the Urban Land Ceiling authorities. 4) Whether the order of cancellation of patta or order by the first defendant is sustainable. 5) Having issued licence by the local body for the construction of the building, are not the defendants acquiesced of the said fact and not entitled to challenge the title to the suit property. 6) Whether the right claimed by the defendants is barred by time in the light of Section 30 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 7) To what relief the parties are entitled? " 6. On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P42 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one V.Jeevanandam, the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk was examined as DW1 and one K.Prema, Tahsildar, Land and Estate Department, Corporation of Chennai was examined as DW2 and Exs.D1 to D13 were marked. .7. Issue Nos.2 and 4:- Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the plaintiffs have produced the sale deed in the name of their predecessor in title and also the sale deeds under which they purchased the property to establish that they are the owners of the suit property. It is his further submission that the patta issued in the name of the plaintiffs, the proceedings of the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities, Building Plan approval given by the Corporation of Chennai, the Property Tax demand made by the Corporation and the Property Tax paid by the predecessor in title to the Corporation would go to show that the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs and subsequently the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Referring to the correspondence emanated both from the Central Government and from the State Government, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that they had recognized the title and possession of the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. The alleged award No.2/53 was not produced by the defendants whereas the plaintiffs have chosen to produce the said award which does not relate to the suit property. The alleged award No.2/53 was not produced by the defendants whereas the plaintiffs have chosen to produce the said award which does not relate to the suit property. It is his further submission that the defendants have not produced any document to establish that there was in fact acquisition proceedings on behalf of Corporation of Chennai and as a consequence, the title of the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs got extinguished. Therefore, he would submit that the first defendant has erroneously issued notice to cancel the patta issued in the name of the plaintiffs and during the pendency of the suit, they have also cancelled the patta issued in the name of the plaintiffs. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the first and second defendants in their independent submissions have contended that the plaintiffs have not chosen to produce the documents relating to the suit properties to establish that the suit properties were left untouched by the acquisition proceedings. The award No.2/53 produced before the court as Ex.P42 does not have any relevance to the suit property. Though the patta issued in favour of the plaintiffs were already cancelled by the first defendant, no prayer was sought by the plaintiffs to revoke the order of cancellation passed by the first defendant. The property was not acquired by the Government for utilising the same by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The properties were acquired for the utilisation by the Corporation of Chennai. The Tahsildar concerned has informed the Urban Land Ceiling authorities that there was no acquisition of the suit properties by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. It is his further submission that the suit has been undervalued. The suit also is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., the vendors of the plaintiffs and the Urban Land Ceiling authorities. Therefore, he would submit that the suit is liable to be dismissed. .9. There is no dispute to the fact that originally the suit property was comprised in T.S.No.40/5. In the sub-division, the said property was changed into T.S.No.5/15. The suit property now bears T.S.No.5/B Block No.14 Periakoodal Village. The parent document of title dated 19. 1915 was marked as Ex.P1 on the side of the plaintiffs. Under Ex.P1 sale deed dated 19. There is no dispute to the fact that originally the suit property was comprised in T.S.No.40/5. In the sub-division, the said property was changed into T.S.No.5/15. The suit property now bears T.S.No.5/B Block No.14 Periakoodal Village. The parent document of title dated 19. 1915 was marked as Ex.P1 on the side of the plaintiffs. Under Ex.P1 sale deed dated 19. 1915, John Simon sold 31.57 acres of land in the village Periakoodal and Neduvakkarai lying in the Sembium District and Chengleput District to the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. The defendants do not dispute to the fact that the said parent document refers to the larger extent of property in Periakoodal village wherein the suit property also was comprised. The plaintiffs purchased the suit property under the sale deeds, Exs.P2 to P17 dated 17. 199, 9. 1995, 20.10.1995 and 30.10.1995. The aforesaid documents, viz., Exs.P1 to P17 would clinchingly establish that the suit properties and the contiguous properties originally belonged to John Simon, who sold the same to M/s.United Breweries, who in turn, alienated a portion of the property viz., the suit property to the plaintiffs herein. 10. The first defendant has categorically admitted in the written statement filed by him that based on the proceedings of the Urban Land Ceiling authorities produced before him by M/s.Breweries and Company, the patta was issued by Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk in the year 1987. The fact remains that the said patta in the name of M/s.Breweries and Company was not produced by the plaintiffs. When such an admission is there on the part of the first defendant, there is no necessity for the plaintiffs to produce the said patta in the name of their predecessor. 11. The plaintiffs, after their purchase under Exs.P2 to P17 from M/s.United Breweries, applied for patta before the Tahsildar and got certificate of the extract from the Town Survey Land Register. Ex.P18 is construed to be the patta issued by the Tahsildar to the plaintiffs. The admission made by the first defendant in the written statement as adverted to above and Ex.P18 would go to establish that the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs and thereafter, the plaintiffs have asserted their possession over the suit properties. Of course, it is the settled proposition of law that patta is not a document of title. The admission made by the first defendant in the written statement as adverted to above and Ex.P18 would go to establish that the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs and thereafter, the plaintiffs have asserted their possession over the suit properties. Of course, it is the settled proposition of law that patta is not a document of title. But, as per section 6 of the Patta Passbook Act, the patta issued by the competent authority is a prima facie evidence of title as far as the revenue proceedings are concerned. 12. The plaintiffs also have demonstrated before the court that after several acquisition proceedings, M/s.United Breweries owned and possessed only an extent of 4189 sq.mtrs of land together with an old dilapidated building. It is found that the provision of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act was applied to the Company land and an extent of 309 sq.mtrs was acquired by the Urban Land Ceiling authorities. The remaining extent of 3880 sq.mtrs possessed and owned by M/s.United Breweries was sold to the plaintiffs under Exs.P2 to P17. .13. The plaintiffs, after purchasing the property, made a request on behalf of their family Trust on 212. 1996 to the Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai for re-allotment of 309 sq.mtrs of land which was already acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 at the hands of the plaintiffs vendor. By letter dated 19. 1998 marked as Ex.P19, the Secretary to Government has communicated to the family Trust that the value of the land measuring 309 sq.mtrs was Rs.58.37 lakhs which was beyond the purchasing capacity of the Trust. The plaintiffs have established by producing the said communication that the said extent of 309 sq.mtrs was acquired out of 4189 sq.mtrs of land ultimately owned and possessed by the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. 14. The Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had written a letter to the plaintiffs vendor on 212. 1967 under Ex.P22 informing their interest in taking the suit premises on rent for organizing International Fair for two months from the first week of January 1968. 14. The Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had written a letter to the plaintiffs vendor on 212. 1967 under Ex.P22 informing their interest in taking the suit premises on rent for organizing International Fair for two months from the first week of January 1968. If at all the plaintiffs vendors had not been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, the Central Government would not have requested the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs to rent out the premises for conducting International Fair under Ex.P22. 15. The District Backward Class Welfare Officer, under Ex.P21 dated 7. 1980, wrote a letter to the plaintiffs vendor to carry out certain repairs to the building in the suit premises for the purpose of letting out their premises to accommodate Backward Class Hostel run by the Backward Classes Welfare Department. The first respondent-Collector, it appears, wrote a communication under Ex.P20 dated 11. 1981 to the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs requesting them to let out the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs.4000/= for locating the Backward Class Hostel. If at all the first defendant had already acquired the suit premises also for the purpose of developing Shenoy Nagar Housing Scheme by the Corporation of Chennai and handed over actual possession to the Corporation of Chennai for the aforesaid purpose immediately after acquisition, the first defendant would not have shot off such a letter to the plaintiffs predecessor in title confirming their right and title over the suit premises. .16. Ex.P23 dated 20.4.1993 was the communication sent by Urban Land Ceiling authorities to the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. Under the said communication, the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities, having acquired 309 sq.mtrs of land being an excess vacant land under section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 as per notification dated 15th April 1992, determined the compensation for the acquired land at Rs.10,850/= and directed the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs to receive the 25% of the compensation. The aforesaid proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling authorities would go to show that out of 4189 sq.mtrs of land together with an old dilapidated building owned and possessed by the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs an extent of 309 sq.mtrs of land was acquired by the Urban Land Ceiling authorities only from the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs and not from the Corporation of Chennai. The aforesaid communication cuts the very root of the defendants case that as per award 2/53 dated 33. 1953, the entire property in T.S.No.40/5 was acquired by the Government and the same was handed over to the Corporation of Chennai. The Urban Land Ceiling authorities function under the control and supervision of the Government of Tamil Nadu. They would not have acquired 309 sq.mtrs of land in T.S.No.40/5 from the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs and paid compensation to them when actually the Corporation of Chennai was the owner of the property to the entire extent in T.S.No.40/5. 17. The Corporation of Chennai was pleased to sanction the plans on 23. 1958 and 28. 1960 respectively under Exs.P28 and P29 to put up construction in the suit premises. We have seen that the first defendant, who claim to have acquired the suit properties for entrusting the same to the Corporation of Chennai to develop Shenoy Nagar Housing Scheme, chose to strike the lease arrangement with the plaintiffs predecessor in title. The Corporation of Chennai, to whom the property was purportedly entrusted by the first defendant, chose to accord sanction for the plan for construction submitted by the plaintiffs predecessor in title after the alleged date of handing over of possession by the first defendant to the second defendant. The Corporation of Chennai would not have entertained the application submitted before it for construction of building in the suit property if at all it had come to possess the suit property in the aftermath of the acquisition made by the Government. 18. Ex.P31 is an important proceedings of the competent authority under Urban Land Ceiling, Tondiarpet dated 20.2.1989. The Corporation of Chennai would not have entertained the application submitted before it for construction of building in the suit property if at all it had come to possess the suit property in the aftermath of the acquisition made by the Government. 18. Ex.P31 is an important proceedings of the competent authority under Urban Land Ceiling, Tondiarpet dated 20.2.1989. The Urban Land Ceiling authorities, having adverted to the title deeds produced by the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs, the plan approval given by the Corporation of Chennai for constructing building in the suit premises and the certificate of extract from Town Survey Land Register by the Tahsildar, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, arrived at a decision that the holding of M/s.United Breweries Limited was 4189 sq.mtrs and having deducted the portion occupied by the Industrial Unit permitted by the Government of India, the building regulation area pertaining, the appurtenant and contiguous portion, measuring 3880 sq.mtrs, declared that 309 sq.mtrs out of 4880 sq.mtrs was excess land under section 9 (5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. As already pointed out, the Urban Land Ceiling authorities, functioning under the very supervision of the Government of Tamilnadu, chose to acquire the excess land only from the plaintiffs predecessor in title and not from the Corporation of Chennai. 19. The Corporation of Chennai, under Ex.P31 dated 12. 1958, has directed the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs to remit the shortage of licence fee collected for new construction put up in the suit premises. They have also directed the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs to remit the supervision charges under Ex.P32 dated 8. 1989. The predecessor in title of the plaintiffs were also directed under Ex.P33 to pay the property tax. It appears that they also paid the property tax on 9. 1980 for various half years under Exs.P34 to P39. The aforesaid documents would go to establish that the Corporation of Chennai chose to collect property tax from the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. They would not have ventured to collect the property tax from any third party if at all they were the owners of the property concerned. 20. On the side of the defendants, the orders passed in the writ proceedings were filed as Exs.D1 and D2. They would not have ventured to collect the property tax from any third party if at all they were the owners of the property concerned. 20. On the side of the defendants, the orders passed in the writ proceedings were filed as Exs.D1 and D2. The handing over of certain files to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the communication received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance were marked as Exs.D3, D4, D6 and D7. Exs.D9 and D10 are the internal communication that took place in the Revenue Department. Exs.D11 and D13 are found to be relevant documents. .21. The defendants did not set up a plea in their written statement that they did not possess award No.2/53 dated 33. 1953 under which the suit property was allegedly acquired for the purpose of development of Shenoy Nagar Housing Scheme by the Corporation of Chennai. But, quite unfortunately, the said document had not seen the light of the day. In the written statement, the first defendant has clearly set up a plea that the suit property was acquired under the land acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1950 as per the notification vide Government Gazette dated 10. 1950 and 2. 1953. The said notification was not produced by the defendants. There is also no record to show that the Corporation of Chennai was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the alleged date of entrustment of the property to the second defendant by the first defendant. 22. The first defendant has merely produced a document purportedly evidencing handing over and taking over of possession of one acre of land comprised in T.S.No.40/5 alleged to have been acquired under award No.2/53 dated 33. 1953. Except this piece of material, no other document was produced to upset the voluminous materials produced on the side of the plaintiffs to establish that the plaintiffs and their predecessor in title have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in their capacity as rightful owner thereof. They have also established that the various authorities under the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Central Government have recognized the right and title and possession of the plaintiffs predecessor in title. They have also established that the various authorities under the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Central Government have recognized the right and title and possession of the plaintiffs predecessor in title. The Central Government would not have permitted the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs to set up a Beverage Industry in the suit premises if at all the premises was owned and possessed by the Corporation of Chennai. .23. Ex.D13 is a report submitted by a Committee constituted by the first defendant. In the quit rent permanent land register, the property in T.S.No.40/5 was allegedly in possession of Unni Sait. The entire one acre was allegedly transferred from Unni Sait to Corporation of Madras. There is no material produced by the defendants to connect Unni Sait to the property in T.S.No.40/5. It is the admitted case of the defendants that the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property from whom the properties were acquired by the Government for entrusting the same to the second defendant. The defendants have admitted that the patta with respect to T.S.No.40/5 originally stood in the name of the predecessor in title and thereafter the patta was issued in the name of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the quit rent permanent land register which is found a place in the report submitted by the Committee constituted by the first defendant does not reflect the correct state of affairs. The Committee report which is a self-serving document, in the face of the voluminous documents produced by the plaintiffs to establish their title to the suit properties, cannot be accepted by this court. By projecting the proceedings which purportedly records handing over and taking over of possession between the first defendant and the second defendant, the defendants want the court to believe that the subject property was acquired under award No.2/53 and the same was handed over to the second defendant. The court is not inclined to accept the case of the defendants when their plea is found to be devoid of any merit. 24. The court is not inclined to accept the case of the defendants when their plea is found to be devoid of any merit. 24. The defendants, who set up a plea that the second defendant is the present owner of the suit properties on the ground that the property was already acquired by the first defendant and handed over to the second defendant, failed to produce not only the proceedings of award No.2/53 but also the notification which preceded the said award passed by the authority concerned. The award No.2/53 is the sheet anchor plea of the defendants. When the same was not produced, they cannot make any lawful claim over the subject property. The court has to necessarily draw adverse inference as against the defendants for the non-production of the above said document viz., award No.2/53. 25. Per contra, on the side of the plaintiffs, a copy of award No.2/53 was produced, but, it is found that it was dated 20th January 1953 and not 33. 1953. The said award relates to the property in the Saidapet Village and not in Periakoodal Village and the same was acquired for the purpose of construction of Dhopikana. Further, the said acquisition in award No.2/53 dated 20th January 1953 also does not relate to the Town Survey Number of the suit property. It appears that the plaintiffs have taken out all efforts to trace the award No.2/53 projected by the defendants and mark it before the court as Ex.P42. But, it is found that the said award does not relate to the acquisition of the subject property by the Sate for the purpose of utilising the said property by the Corporation of Chennai. Now, the burden is very heavy on the defendants to establish that a different award No.2/53 was passed on 33. 1953 under which the suit property was acquired and handed over to the second defendant. But, the defendants have not discharged the heavy burden rested on them. 26. The defendants set up a plea that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Firstly, the plaintiffs do not have any grievance as against the predecessor in title. Consequently, they do not claim any relief as against the Urban Land Ceiling authorities. Therefore, the question of impleading them in the suit seeking for declaration of title and for permanent injunction does not arise. 27. Firstly, the plaintiffs do not have any grievance as against the predecessor in title. Consequently, they do not claim any relief as against the Urban Land Ceiling authorities. Therefore, the question of impleading them in the suit seeking for declaration of title and for permanent injunction does not arise. 27. Though statutory notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not issued by the plaintiffs beforeever laying the suit, they explained their urgency in filing the suit on account of notice issued by the first defendant proposing to cancel the patta issued in their favour. This court was pleased to dispense with the statutory notice contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the suit is not affected for non issuance of statutory notice under section 80 Code of Civil Procedure prior to the institution of the suit. 28. Coming to the valuation of the suit property and the court fee paid therein, it is found that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property only during 1995 for a total sale consideration of Rs.27,06,000/=. The plaintiffs have shown the market value at Rs.1,89,42000/= calculating at seven times on the purchase price. The court fee of Rs.1,01,250/= was paid. It is found that the market value has been rightly assessed under section 25(b) for a declaratory relief. 29. The first defendant has simply issued show cause notices, Exs.P24 to P27 to the plaintiffs calling upon them to explain as to why patta issued in their name shall not be cancelled. Now, it is brought to the notice of this court that the first defendant has cancelled patta stood in the name of the plaintiffs and incorporated in their place the name of the second defendant based on the report, Ex.D13 submitted by the Committee constituted by him. There is no valid reason for the first defendant to cancel the patta, Ex.P18 issued in the name of the plaintiffs in the face of the telling materials available in the custody of the plaintiffs to establish their title and possession of the property. Therefore, the court holds without any hesitation that the award bearing No.2/53 dated 33. 1953 said to have been passed is not true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and the order of cancellation of patta passed by the first defendant is also not legally sustainable. The issues are answered accordingly. .30. Therefore, the court holds without any hesitation that the award bearing No.2/53 dated 33. 1953 said to have been passed is not true, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs and the order of cancellation of patta passed by the first defendant is also not legally sustainable. The issues are answered accordingly. .30. Issue No.3:- In the proceedings conducted by the Urban Land Ceiling authorities, the defendants were not parties, but, the patta issued by the Tahsildar who served under the first defendant and the plan approval accorded by the second defendant were adverted to by the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities before passing the order under Ex.P30 dated 20.2.1989. Further, the Urban Land Ceiling authorities also, having adverted to all the documents produced by the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs, rightly passed the order under Ex.P30 dated 20.2.1989. The aforesaid proceedings of the Urban Land Ceiling authorities will definitely bind the defendants also. But, no promise had emanated directly from the defendants beforeever the Urban Land Ceiling authorities issued the proceedings under Ex.P30. Therefore, the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not apply. The issue is answered accordingly. 31. Issue No.5:- It is found that the plaintiffs have established their title to and possession over the suit property. No material was produced by the defendants to establish title and possession of the plaintiffs. The second defendant had accorded plan sanction to the predecessor in title under Exs.P28 and P29 issued on 23. 1958 and 28. 1960. Just because they have approved the plan of construction submitted by the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs, they cannot be prevented from challenging the title to the suit property set up by the plaintiffs before the competent court of law. Of course, I hasten to observe that the plaintiffs have established their title to and possession over the suit property and defendants failed in their challenge. The issue is answered accordingly. 32. Issue No.6:- Section 30 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no bearing on the issue of limitation arisen in this case. No adverse possession was also claimed by the plaintiffs as against the defendants. The plaintiffs have sought for declaration of their title based on their right flowed from the sale deeds under which they have purchased the suit properties. They have also established independently that they have got right, title and possession over the suit property. No adverse possession was also claimed by the plaintiffs as against the defendants. The plaintiffs have sought for declaration of their title based on their right flowed from the sale deeds under which they have purchased the suit properties. They have also established independently that they have got right, title and possession over the suit property. Therefore, the aforesaid issue does not arise for consideration and accordingly, it is answered. 33. Issue Nos.1 and 7:- The plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title and also permanent injunction as against defendants 1 and 2 from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. As the show cause notice issued by the first defendant under Exs.P24 to P27 have culminated in cancellation of the patta issued to the plaintiffs, the prayer for declaration that the show cause notice and the consequential relief of injunction prayed thereunder have become infructuous. As the court has already held that the first defendant has no valid reason to cancel the patta, Ex.P18 issued to the plaintiffs, the first defendant is directed to issue patta to the plaintiffs revoking the order of cancellation passed by him. The suit is decreed in terms thereof. There is no order as to cost.