{"id":100560,"date":"2008-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-14T00:56:00","modified_gmt":"2019-01-13T19:26:00","slug":"arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 26 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 26 September, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 26\/09\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD) No.9895 of 2005\nand\nW.P.M.P(MD)No.10614 of 2005\n\nArulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy\n  Thirukovil,\nSankarankovil,\nThrough its Deputy Commissioner\/\nExecutive Officer,\t\nSankarankovil.\t\t\t\t... Petitioner \t\t\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Inspector General of Registration,\n  Santhome High Road,\n  Mylapore,\n  Chennai 600 028.\n\n2.The Sub Registrar,\n  Sankarankovil,\n  Tirunelveli District.\n\n3.Kalappakulam Village Panchayat,\n  Kalappakulam,\n  Sankarankoil Taluk,\n  Tirunelveli District.\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\nfor issuance of a Writ of     Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from\nregistering any document in respect of the lands in Old Survey Nos.438\/A1,\n438\/A2, 483, 556, 557 and 572 and the corresponding new survey Numbers in the\nschedule annexed herewith covering a total extent of 460.96 acres of land at\nKalappakulam Village, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District by virtue of\nG.O.(MS)150 Commercial Taxes Department dated 22.09.2000.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.K.Srinivasan\n^For R-1 and R-2... Mr.K.A.Thirumalaiappan\n\t\t    Addl. Government Pleader\nFor R-3\t\t... Mr.F.X.Eugene\n\t\t\t\t       *****\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t The petitioner in this writ petition is Arulmigu<br \/>\nSankaranarayanaswamy Thirukovil, Sankarankovil, represented by its Executive<br \/>\nOfficer.  The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a direction to the first and<br \/>\nsecond respondents from registering any documents in respect of the lands in Old<br \/>\nSurvey Nos.438\/A1, 438\/A, 483, 556, 557 and 572 which is also enclosed as<br \/>\nAnnexure to the writ petition having a total extent of 460.96  acres of land at<br \/>\nKalappakulam Village, Sankarankoil Taluk in terms of G.O.Ms.No.150 (Commercial<br \/>\nTaxes Department) dated 22.09.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.\tThe writ petition was admitted on 15.11.2005.  Pending the writ<br \/>\npetition an interim-injunction was granted on 15.11.2005 which is still in<br \/>\nforce.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. On notice from this Court, no reply is forthcoming from the first and<br \/>\nsecond respondents.  On the contrary, the third respondent claiming to be the<br \/>\nVillage President of Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk had filed a<br \/>\ncounter affidavit.  In the counter affidavit, he has admitted that the land<br \/>\nmentioned in the writ affidavit were originally alloted to nine Bhattars for the<br \/>\npurpose of doing Poojas in the temple. In the settlement, the Tahsildar, II<br \/>\nKovilpatti, vide his proceedings dated 18.05.1968 has informed that the land<br \/>\nbelonged to nine Bhattars. The same view was reiterated on 30.04.1972.  But, by<br \/>\nthat time, the number of Bhattars went up by 28.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Thereafter, many land transfers had taken place in the said land as<br \/>\nthere was no bar from registering these lands.  He also questioned the<br \/>\ncompetence of the Government issue in G.O.Ms.No.150 (Commercial Taxes<br \/>\nDepartment) dated 22.09.2000.  He has also stated that being an Executive<br \/>\nAuthority of the Village Panchayat, he has stopped issuing &#8216;No objection<br \/>\nCertificate&#8217; for the purpose of registering these survey numbers by any sale<br \/>\ndeeds.  However, he contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. When questioned by this Court, the learned counsel for the third<br \/>\nrespondent admitted that  he is all the owner of some lands in the said survey<br \/>\nnumbers.  It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that<br \/>\nearlier the temple filed a suit before the Civil Court for a similar prayer and<br \/>\nthe same was dismissed for non-prosecution.  Thereafter, they filed the present<br \/>\nwrit petition.  Even after filing the writ petition, they have again instituted<br \/>\nanother suit.  He further contended that under the provisions of the<br \/>\nRegistration Act, there is no scope for refusing to register any document based<br \/>\non Section 22-A or by  the G.O.Ms.No.150 (Commercial Taxes Department) dated<br \/>\n22.09.2000 issued by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. With reference to the violation of Section 22-A, he referred to the<br \/>\njudgment in State of Rajasthan &amp; Ors. Vs. Basant Nahata reported in 2005(4)CTC\n<\/p>\n<p>606.  In that case, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court had held that Section 22-A of the<br \/>\nRegistration Act as amended by the State of Rajasthan introducing a provision<br \/>\nfor prohibition of registration of documents opposed to public policy was<br \/>\nunconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. He also referred to the subsequent Division Bench judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt in Captain Dr.R.Bellie &amp; Ors. Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Sulur and ors<br \/>\nreported in 2007(3) CTC 513.  In that case, the Division Bench followed the<br \/>\njudgment of the State of Rajasthan case (cited supra) and held that Section 22-A<br \/>\nas well as G.O.Ms.No.150 (Commercial Taxes Department) dated 22.09.2000 are<br \/>\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Further, reliance was also placed upon the Division Bench judgment of<br \/>\nthis Court in S.Arunachalam &amp; Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Local Administration<br \/>\nand Water Supply Department and Others reported in 1997(1) CTC 129 wherein, it<br \/>\nwas held that the Government by exercising it executive power under Article 162<br \/>\ncannot issue an order which is contrary to law and it cannot prohibit the<br \/>\nRegistrar from registering the lands relating to the sale of house sites for 45<br \/>\ndays from the date on which notice is served by the Commissioner of Panchayat.<br \/>\nDuring that period if the Registration of house sites is opposed the land cannot<br \/>\nbe registered.  There is no quarrel over the proposition laid in these<br \/>\ndecisions.  The short question that arises for consideration in this case is,<br \/>\nthe temple by the ultimate owner of the property, it can certainly object to the<br \/>\nregistration of the document by the Registrar.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. In this context, this Court by an order dated 22.09.2008 in<br \/>\nS.Rangarajan Vs. The District Registrar &amp; Ors., has held, that this Court under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution can direct the Registrar not to register the<br \/>\nproperties of the temple by referring to two decisions of the Supreme Court and<br \/>\nto Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> \t10. In this context, it is necessary to refer to Section 34(1) of the<br \/>\nHindu Religious &amp; Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;34.Alienation of immovable trust property:- (1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage<br \/>\nand any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property,<br \/>\nbelonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution<br \/>\nshall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by [the Commissioner] as being<br \/>\nnecessary or beneficial to the institution.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Emphasis added)\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.\tTherefore, any sale of a temple land without the sanction by the<br \/>\nCommissioner is declared to be null and void.  When the sale is held to be void,<br \/>\nthe question of the third respondent coming forward with a plea that they had<br \/>\npurchased it with valuable consideration cannot be countenanced by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.\tThe Supreme Court in its decision in A.A.Gopalkrishnan Vs. Cochin<br \/>\nDevaswom Board and others reported in 2007 (7) SCC 482, cautioned about the<br \/>\nmisuse of temple properties and the need to protect such properties. Speaking<br \/>\nfor the Court K.G.Balakrishnan, C.J., in paragraph.10 of the said judgment, it<br \/>\nis observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;10.The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be<br \/>\nprotected and safeguarded by their trustees \/ archakas \/ shebaits \/ employees.<br \/>\nInstances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and<br \/>\nsafeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped<br \/>\nand misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or<br \/>\ntenancy, or adverse possession.  This is possible only with the passive or<br \/>\nactive collusion of the authorities concerned.  Such acts of &#8220;fences eating the<br \/>\ncrops&#8221; should be dealt with sternly.  The Government, members or trustees of<br \/>\nboards\/trusts and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or<br \/>\nencroachment.  It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the<br \/>\nproperties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or<br \/>\nmisappropriation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(Emphasis added)<\/p>\n<p>\t13.\tThe Supreme Court in its decision reported in 2006(1) SCC 287, Joint<br \/>\nCommmr.,Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Admn.Department Vs. Jayaraman<br \/>\nand others restored the land to the temple which was sold by orders of the Court<br \/>\nby filing application under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act.  The sale and<br \/>\nthe subsequent patta obtained were held to be invalid.  While holding so, the<br \/>\nSupreme Court forewarned attempts by certain people to corner the temple<br \/>\nproperties and therefore, the following passaged found in para:12, may be<br \/>\nreproduced below:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;12.\tIt is seen that there has been a clear attempt by the claimants to<br \/>\noverreach the0 deities and the authorities under the HR &amp; CE Act, while managing<br \/>\nthe properties dedicated for the purposes of the temple, properties granted and<br \/>\nmanaged by them in their capacities as poojaris, for the maintenance of the<br \/>\ntemples.  The attempt has to be deprecated.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t14. In the decision in 2006 (1) SCC 287, the Supreme<\/p>\n<p>\t 15.  Though it is stated that the prayer of the writ petitioner temple<br \/>\nwas based upon G.O.Ms.No.150 (Commercial Taxes Department) dated 22.09.2000, for<br \/>\nwhich there is no material available.  Under these circumstances, in the light<br \/>\nof the earlier decision in the Srirangam Temple Case, the writ petition will<br \/>\nstand allowed.  However, No order as to Costs.  Consequently Miscellaneous<br \/>\nPetition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>ba\/sr<\/p>\n<p>1.The Inspector General of Registration,<br \/>\n  Santhom High Road,<br \/>\n  Mylapore,<br \/>\n  Chennai 600 028.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Sub Registrar,<br \/>\n  Sankarankovil,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.Kalappakulam Village Panchayat,<br \/>\n  Kalappakulam,<br \/>\n  Sankarankoil Taluk,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 26 September, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26\/09\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD) No.9895 of 2005 and W.P.M.P(MD)No.10614 of 2005 Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy Thirukovil, Sankarankovil, Through its Deputy Commissioner\/ Executive Officer, Sankarankovil. &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General [&hellip;]<\/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-100560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of ... on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of ... on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-13T19:26:00+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 26 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-13T19:26:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1323,\"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\\\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of ... on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-13T19:26:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 26 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of ... on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of ... on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-13T19:26:00+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 26 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-13T19:26:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008"},"wordCount":1323,"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\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008","name":"Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of ... on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-13T19:26:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-sankaranarayanaswamy-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 26 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/100560","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=100560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}