{"id":111130,"date":"2010-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-01-21T14:34:56","modified_gmt":"2014-01-21T09:04:56","slug":"v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 19\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.10571 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 OF 2007\n\n\nV.Ganesan\t\t\t\t\t...  Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The District Collector,\n   Tirunelveli.\n\n2.The Deputy Director of Mines  and Geology,\n   Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.\n\n3.The Project Director,\n   Nuclear Power Corporation of\n    India Limited (A Govt. of India  Undertaking),\n   Koodankulam,  Tirunelveli District.\n\n4.A.K.A.Rajan\t\t\t\t\t..  Respondents\n\n\n\tThis writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus\nto call for the records of the first respondent in M1\/39272\/06 dated 26.09.2007\nquash the same from  permitting the fourth respondent from quarrying within 5\nKms. radius of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in violation of G.O.Ms.No.829,\ndated 29.4.1991.\n\n!For Petitioner   ... Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana\n^For Respondents  ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Spl.G.P. for R1 and 2\n\t\t      Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam for R-3\n\t\t      Mr.S.P.Maharajan for R-4\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to set aside<br \/>\nthe order dated  26.09.2007 wherein and by which the fourth respondent was<br \/>\npermitted to quarry.  This challenge is on the ground that the quarrying area<br \/>\ngranted to the petitioner is situated within 5 kms radius of the Koodankulam<br \/>\nNuclear Power plant and such a grant of license is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.829<br \/>\nPublic Works Department dated 29.04.1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Notice of motion was ordered on this writ petition on 14.12.2007.<br \/>\nPending the writ petition, this Court by an order dated 25.11.2008 appointed an<br \/>\nAdvocate Commissioner to visit the suit property and measure the property with<br \/>\nthe help of the Surveyor and to submit a report. Subsequently, by a further<br \/>\norder dated 28.07.2009, the Taluk Surveyor of Irukkandurai and Koodankulam were<br \/>\ndirected to be present on 19.08.2009 at Irukkandurai Village in S.Nos.181\/1,<br \/>\n183, 184\/3, 184\/7 and 185 along with respective Field Map Books.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The Advocate Commissioner so appointed submitted an interim report<br \/>\ndated 10.12.2008 and a final report dated 26.08.2009. In the final report, he<br \/>\nhad stated that the disputed quarries in S.Nos. 181\/1, 183, 184\/3, 184\/7 and 185<br \/>\nare all situated within the radius of 5 km from the Nuclear Reactor.  He also<br \/>\nsubmitted 3 Annexures along with the report.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. On behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit dated 05.11.2008<br \/>\nwas filed. The third respondent, Project Director of Nuclear Power Corporation<br \/>\nof India Limited had also filed a counter affidavit dated 15.11.2008 together<br \/>\nwith a typed set of documents containing the copy of minutes of Koodankulam<br \/>\nProject Local Committee meeting held on 14.07.2006, 14.02.2007 and 15.02.2008.<br \/>\nThe fourth respondent quarrying operator had filed a counter affidavit dated<br \/>\n14.09.2008 as well as an additional counter affidavit dated 17.11.2008. He had<br \/>\nalso filed a typed set of documents dated 23.09.2008<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The petitioner was a neighbouring land owner. According to the<br \/>\npetitioner, by G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department dated 29.04.1991, had<br \/>\nprohibited any quarrying operation within 5 kms radius of the Nuclear Power<br \/>\nPlant as it comes with the &#8216;Sterilization zone&#8217; and any permission for any<br \/>\nactivity cannot be done without the concurrence of the Koodankulam Project Local<br \/>\nCommittee.  The 4th respondent quarrying operation is not only within the<br \/>\nprohibited zone,  it will also destroy the Coconut Thoppu owned by him in the<br \/>\nIrukkanthurai village. It is also brought to the notice that the Collector did<br \/>\nnot carry out the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3293 of 2005 for<br \/>\ngranting permission.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The first respondent in his counter affidavit denied these allegations.<br \/>\nIn paragraphs 4 and 5, it was averred as folows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>4.It is respectfully submitted that the area applied for quarry lease was<br \/>\ninspected by Tahsildar, Radhapuram, Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi<br \/>\nand the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli and reported that<br \/>\nthe above lease applied areas are situated at a distance of 4.8 kilometres from<br \/>\nthe Atomic Reactor of Koodankulam Atomic Power Plant. Quarry lease for rough<br \/>\nstone was granted earlier in favour of Tmt.Sakthi and the quarry lease had<br \/>\nexpired on 29.10.2003 and after the expiry of the lease Thiru AK.A.Rajan has<br \/>\npurchased the above lands and applied for lease. Based on the reports of the<br \/>\nfield officers, who had recommended the quarry lease, after getting the<br \/>\nclearance from Koodankulam Atomic Reactor Project Local Committee&#8217;s concurrence.<br \/>\nThe Chairman, Koodankulam Project Local Committee and Project Engineer (Civil)<br \/>\nKoodankulam Project, Nagercoil has been addressed as per this office letter<br \/>\nNo.M.1\/39272\/06 dated 02.06.2006 with a request to place the subject before<br \/>\n&#8220;Koodankulam Project Local Committee&#8221; for clearance as per G.O.Ms.No.829 PWD<br \/>\nDated 29.04.1991.  The Commissioner, Radhapuram Panchayat Union, Radhapuram, in<br \/>\nhis letter No.A4\/3213\/04, dated 14.08.2006 has stated that in the meeting of<br \/>\nKoodankulam Project Local committee was conducted on 14.07.2006 and in the<br \/>\nmeeting the proposal of stone quarrying lease in S.F.NO.181\/1, 183, 184\/3 and 7<br \/>\nof Irukkanthurai Village, Radhapuram Taluk, placed and the committee has<br \/>\napproved the grant of this proposal for the period upto 31.12.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.It is respectfully submitted that considering all the factors framed in the<br \/>\nRules and Acts in force, recommendations of the field officers, concurrence of<br \/>\nthe Koodankulam Project Local committee  as per G.O.Ms.No.829 PWD dated<br \/>\n29.04.1991, the stone quarry lease to quarry rough stone\/jelly over an extent of<br \/>\n5.24.0 hectares of patta lands in  S.F.No.181\/1, 183 and 185 of Irukkanthurai<br \/>\nPart II Village, Radhapuram taluk, has been granted to the applicant and 4th<br \/>\nrespondent of this writ &#8211; Thiru AK.A.Rajan, son of A.Kirubanathi, 58, Veeramani<br \/>\nNagar, Kovilambakkam, Chennai -117 as per the Collector, Tirunelveli&#8217;s order<br \/>\nNo.M.1\/39272\/06 dated 26.09.2006 for a period of five years from the date of<br \/>\nexecution of lease subject to the further approval of the Koodankulam Project<br \/>\nLocal committee, Koodankulam beyond 31.12.2007. Subsequently, the clearance of<br \/>\nthe local committee is being granted by the committee every year. Now the<br \/>\ncommittee has given its clearance upto 28.02.2009. This is intimated by the<br \/>\nBlock Development Officer, Radhapuram vide his letter No.A4\/3213\/02 dated<br \/>\n18.09.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The third respondent Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, in<br \/>\ntheir counter affidavit in paragraphs  9 and 10 averred as follows:-<br \/>\n&#8220;9.  &#8230;The Kudankulam Local Committee met at Block Development Office on<br \/>\n14.07.2006. In that meeting, out of 07 members only 05 numbers of Committee<br \/>\nmembers were present as per G.O. The Committee members recommended for Quarry<br \/>\nLicence to Mr.A.K.A.Rajan under Survey No.181\/1, 183, 184\/3 and 184\/7 at<br \/>\nIrukkandurai Village up to a period of 31.12.2007. On 14.02.2007, Mr.A.K.A.Rajan<br \/>\n(4th respondent) again applied for Quarry Mining under Survey No.181\/2B.  The<br \/>\nKudankulam Local Committee Members gave permission up to 28.02.2008 with a<br \/>\ncondition that if need arises within a short notice of one month the Quarry<br \/>\noperation need to be suspended.  On 15.02.2008, the Kudankulam Local Committee<br \/>\nhad given only an extension for a further period up to 28.02.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Since Natural Growth cannot be prevented, Housing and Shops Construction<br \/>\nrequests are being normally recommended by the Kudankulam Local Committee.<br \/>\nHowever, for some of the Quarry operation, it is also recommended by the<br \/>\nKudankulam Local Committee with an observation that the safety care has to be<br \/>\nadhered without disturbing the nearby areas of the villagers. Based on the<br \/>\nDy.Director of Mines and Geology review and clearance in all these issues, an<br \/>\nultimate decision is being taken by the Collector after giving an opportunity of<br \/>\nbeing heard by the affected persons as per G.O.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The Resolution of the Koodankulam Project Local committee  dated<br \/>\n15.02.2008 produced in the typed set found at Pages 23 to 33  in Resolution No.5<br \/>\nhas granted &#8216;No Objection&#8217;.  The Quarry operator in his additional counter<br \/>\naffidavit had also raised the plea of alternative remedy for the petitioner to<br \/>\nmove in terms of Section 36-C(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession<br \/>\nRules ,1959. He also denied that there was any violation in the quarrying<br \/>\noperation to be carried out by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. With reference to the violation of the order passed by this Court in<br \/>\nW.P.No.3293 of 2005, in Paragraph 11 of the counter, the District Collector,<br \/>\nTirunelveli had stated as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  It is submitted that the order of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench,<br \/>\nMadurai, in W.P.No.3293\/2005 and Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai dated<br \/>\n01.06.2005 does not relate to this issue.  In this case after obtaining the<br \/>\napproval of the Koodankulam Project Local committee  as per G.O.Ms.No.829 dated<br \/>\n29.04.1991, the stone quarry lease had been granted subject to further approval<br \/>\no the committee beyond 31.12.2007 and every year committee reviews its<br \/>\npermission. No objection petitions was received on publication of &#8216;A1&#8243; Notice in<br \/>\nthe village and the writ petitioner is the one and only person raising objection<br \/>\nthat to after a lapse of nearly two years from the date of grant of quarry lease<br \/>\nin this area. Further it is state that no quarry lease has been granted in<br \/>\nS.F.No.184\/3 and 7 of Irukkanthurai II Village, Radhapuram Taluk.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department ,dated 29.04.1991 in P.2(iii)<br \/>\ngives discretion to the Collector for using the agricultural land for non-<br \/>\nagricultural purpose or for executing any mining  operations after consulting<br \/>\nthe Koodankulam Project Local committee  and the same has been done in the<br \/>\npresent case as set out above.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Therefore, even if the Advocate Commissioner&#8217;s finding was that the<br \/>\nsurvey lands are situated within 5 kms radius from the Koodankulam Nuclear Power<br \/>\nPlant, since necessary approval from the committee has been obtained, the prayer<br \/>\nmade by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In the light of the above,  the writ petition stands dismissed. No<br \/>\ncosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>svki<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The District Collector,<br \/>\n   Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Deputy Director of Mines  and Geology,<br \/>\n   Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Project Director,<br \/>\n   Nuclear Power Corporation of<br \/>\n    India Limited (A Govt. of India  Undertaking),<br \/>\n   Koodankulam,  Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19\/10\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.10571 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.1 OF 2007 V.Ganesan &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli. 2.The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Project Director, [&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-111130","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>V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010 - 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\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-21T09:04:56+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-21T09:04:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1449,\"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\\\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010\",\"name\":\"V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-21T09:04:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010 - 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\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-21T09:04:56+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-21T09:04:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010"},"wordCount":1449,"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\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010","name":"V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-21T09:04:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ganesan-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/111130","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=111130"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111130\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111130"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111130"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111130"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}