{"id":122659,"date":"2011-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-04-01T21:46:20","modified_gmt":"2018-04-01T16:16:20","slug":"c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 02\/03\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN\n\nW.P.(MD)No.1932 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011\n\n1.C.Duraisingam\n2.K.Sethuraman\n3.Smt.KR.Sivagami\n4.Mrs.S.Revathi\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\nVs.\n\n1.The District Revenue Officer,\n   Sivaganga,\n   Sivaganga District.\n\n2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n   Devakkottai,\n   Sivaganga District.\n\n3.The Tahsildar,\n   Karaikudi Taluk,\n   Sivaganga District.\n4.Selvaraj\t\t  \t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the\nrecords relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in\nN.K.P1\/57699\/2008, dated 18.01.2010 confirming the order of the second\nrespondent in P.M.A1\/1385\/2002, dated 10.03.2003 and quash the same and\nconsequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the patta as per the\norder of the third respondent dated 29.06.2001 in TPT.No.1531\/2000-01.\n\n!For Petitioners\t... Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan\n^For Respondents 1to3 \t... Mr.R.Manoharan\n\t\t\t    Government Advocate\nFor Respondent No.4\t... M\/s.K.Elilselvi\n\n********\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>******<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 18.01.2010 on<br \/>\nthe file of the District Revenue Officer, Sivaganga, confirming the order dated<br \/>\n10.03.2003 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai, whereby<br \/>\nand whereunder the order passed by the Tahsildar transferring patta was<br \/>\nrecalled.\n<\/p>\n<p>BACKGROUND FACTS:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The property comprised in Survey Nos.401\/1 and 401\/9A in<br \/>\nKaraikudi originally belonged to the common estate of Karaikudi Nattars, which<br \/>\nwas managed by the committee of Nattars, having office at Ananda Madam,<br \/>\nKaraikudi. There was a suit for partition in O.S.No.91 of 1927 on the file of<br \/>\nthe learned Subordinate Judge, Devakkottai. In the said suit, Thiru.Sowmiya<br \/>\nNarayana Iyengar was appointed as Court receiver. During the pendency of the<br \/>\nsuit, the receiver had passed away and as such, the suit was abandoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. The committee of Nattars were in management of the common estate<br \/>\nand they took steps for preservation and protection of estate from encroachers.<br \/>\nThe youth of Therkku Theru, Karaikudi were assisting the committee of Nattars in<br \/>\nmanaging the properties. In recognition of their services, certain properties<br \/>\nwere allotted to the youth of Therkku Theru Vallambars. The youth of Therkku<br \/>\nTheru Vallambars conveyed the property to the petitioners 1 to 3 and<br \/>\nThiru.C.Solaimalai Ambalam, the predecessor-in-interest of fourth petitioner.<br \/>\nThe petitioners 1 to 3 along with C.Solaimalai Ambalam made an application<br \/>\nbefore the Tahsildar and accordingly, they were given patta.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. The fourth respondent, who purchased certain items of property,<br \/>\nmade an appeal before the second respondent, challenging the order passed by the<br \/>\nthird respondent transferring patta to the petitioners 1 to 3 and predecessor-<br \/>\nin-interest of the fourth petitioner. The second respondent allowed the said<br \/>\nappeal and accordingly, the status quo ante was preserved. The said order was<br \/>\nchallenged by the petitioners 1 to 3 and predecessor-in-interest of the fourth<br \/>\npetitioner before the first respondent. The first respondent, as per his<br \/>\nproceedings dated 27.06.2006,  confirmed the order. The matter was taken up<br \/>\nbefore the Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai. The said proceeding<br \/>\nwas returned, as the power given to the Commissioner to exercise the second<br \/>\nrevision was withdrawn. The petitioners 1 to 3 and predecessor-in-interest of<br \/>\nthe fourth petitioner, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.9764 of 2008.<br \/>\nThe Writ Petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the first<br \/>\nrespondent for fresh consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. Subsequently, the matter was taken up by the first respondent and<br \/>\nwithout considering the locus standi of the fourth respondent to prefer appeal,<br \/>\nonce again confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Feeling<br \/>\naggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. The first respondent, in his counter-affidavit, justified the<br \/>\norder passed by him. According to the first respondent, the vendors of the<br \/>\npetitioners have no right, title, interest or possession in respect of the<br \/>\nproperty and as such, they were not empowered to execute a sale deed in favour<br \/>\nof the petitioners. The property stood in the name of Thiru.R.Sowmiya Narayana<br \/>\nIyangar, the receiver of Karaikudi Nattar and Iluppakudi Devasthanam Trust. The<br \/>\nname of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were never shown in the<br \/>\nsettlement register. Therefore, the second respondent was fully justified in<br \/>\nrestoring the earlier name. It was rightly confirmed by the first respondent.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the first respondent justified the action taken by him to confirm<br \/>\nthe order passed by the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>SUBMISSIONS:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order<br \/>\npassed by the first respondent was per se against the order of this Court dated<br \/>\n12.10.2009 in W.P.No.9764 of 2008. According to the learned counsel, there was a<br \/>\nspecific direction issued by the Court to consider the locus standi of the<br \/>\nfourth respondent to file an appeal before the second respondent. However, the<br \/>\nfirst respondent has not considered the said issue at all and passed the very<br \/>\nsame order once again. The learned counsel further contended that the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent has absolutely no right to challenge the order passed by the third<br \/>\nrespondent.  It was his further contention that the fourth respondent cannot be<br \/>\nconsidered as an aggrieved person so as to give a cause of action to him to<br \/>\nchallenge the order in the patta proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent justified the<br \/>\nimpugned order. According to the learned counsel, the predecessor-in-interest of<br \/>\nthe petitioners were never in enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the second<br \/>\nrespondent was correct in cancelling the entries and restoring the name of the<br \/>\nreceiver and Iluppakudi Devasthanam Trust in the settlement register.\n<\/p>\n<p>DISCUSSION:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. There is no dispute that there was a suit for partition in<br \/>\nO.S.No.91 of 1927 before the Sub Court, Devakkottai. The property, which is the<br \/>\nsubject matter of this Writ Petition, was shown as an item in the suit property.<br \/>\nThe learned Subordinate Judge, Devakkotai, was pleased to appoint Thiru.Sowmiya<br \/>\nNarayana Iyengar as a receiver. Accordingly, the name of the receiver was shown<br \/>\nas  pattadhar along with Iluppakudi Devasthanam Trust in respect of the property<br \/>\nin Survey Nos.401\/1 and 401\/9A  in Ward No.14, Block No.8 of Iluppakudi Village<br \/>\nin Karaikdi Taluk. There is nothing on record to show as to how the youth of<br \/>\nTherkku Theru Vallambars have got this property. According to the petitioners,<br \/>\nthe youth of Therkku Theru Vallambars assisted the nattars of Karaikudi to<br \/>\nmanage the property and in consideration of their service, they executed a<br \/>\ndocument conveying the property to them. The petitioners have not produced any<br \/>\ndocument to show that the suit was either decreed or any kind of orders were<br \/>\npassed in the said suit. When the committee of Nattars themselves were not<br \/>\nhaving any right to convey the property to the youth of Therkku Theru<br \/>\nVallambars, it was not possible for them to execute a sale deed without<br \/>\napproaching the Court. The petitioners would get a title, only in case their<br \/>\npredecessor-in-interest were having title in respect of the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. The Tahsildar of Karaikdui granted patta in respect of the<br \/>\nproperty solely on the basis of the sale deed executed by the youth of Therkku<br \/>\nTheru Vallambars in favour of the petitioners. However, the Tahsildar has not<br \/>\nconsidered the background facts including the suit in O.S.No.91 of 1927, wherein<br \/>\na receiver was appointed by the Court. Merely because the receiver died during<br \/>\nthe pendency of the suit, it cannot be said that the suit itself has gone. The<br \/>\nnattars of Karaikudi were not entitled to execute a sale deed in favour of the<br \/>\npredecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Therefore, the second respondent was<br \/>\nfully justified in cancelling the order passed by the third respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. The next question is as to whether the first respondent has<br \/>\ncomplied with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9764 of 2008. The earlier<br \/>\norder passed by the first respondent does not contain any reason. It was only in<br \/>\nthe said circumstances, this Court directed the revisional authority to record<br \/>\nreasons. The impugned order contains reasons, which made the first respondent to<br \/>\nconfirm the order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, the impugned order<br \/>\nwas in strict compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court in<br \/>\nW.P.No.9764 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. The question of locus standi does not arise in a matter like<br \/>\nthis. Even without an application from the fourth respondent, the second<br \/>\nrespondent could have taken up the matter suo motu. The third respondent was not<br \/>\ncorrect in transferring the patta, disregarding the appointment of a receiver<br \/>\nand indicating the name of the receiver in the settlement records. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe question of locus standi loses significance in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13. The second respondent has not passed an order granting patta to<br \/>\nthe fourth respondent. The order was to maintain status quo ante. Therefore, I<br \/>\nam of the view that no interference is called for in the order impugned in the<br \/>\nWrit Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>TO CONCLUDE:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the<br \/>\nconnected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The District Revenue Officer,<br \/>\n   Sivaganga,<br \/>\n   Sivaganga District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,<br \/>\n   Devakkottai,<br \/>\n   Sivaganga District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Tahsildar,<br \/>\n   Karaikudi Taluk,<br \/>\n   Sivaganga District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02\/03\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.1932 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.C.Duraisingam 2.K.Sethuraman 3.Smt.KR.Sivagami 4.Mrs.S.Revathi &#8230; Petitioners Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Sivaganga, Sivaganga District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai, Sivaganga [&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-122659","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011 - 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\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-01T16:16:20+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\\\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T16:16:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1347,\"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\\\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011\",\"name\":\"C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T16:16:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011 - 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\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-01T16:16:20+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\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T16:16:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011"},"wordCount":1347,"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\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011","name":"C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T16:16:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-duraisingam-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-2-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Duraisingam vs The District Revenue Officer on 2 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/122659","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=122659"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122659\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122659"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122659"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122659"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}