{"id":130076,"date":"2004-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004"},"modified":"2018-05-24T13:25:42","modified_gmt":"2018-05-24T07:55:42","slug":"p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 27\/04\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN\n\nWRIT PETITION NO.15287 OF 1997\n\n1. P.N.S.Gopinath\n2. P.N.Suruluvelu\n3. Sheela Devi\n4. Veni\n5. Chinnammal\n6. Ammaluammal\n7. Ponnuraj\n8. Vasagan\n9. Subramanian\n10.Kalia Gounder @\n     Subramanian                                ... Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The District Collector,\n   Theni.\n\n2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n   Periyakulam.\n\n3. The Tahsildar, Andipatti.\n\n4. Varashanadu Panchayat Board,\n   through its President at\n   Varashanadu.\n\n5. K.Mayiladumparai Panchayat Union\n    through its Chairman                        ... Respondents\n\n                Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution  of  India\npraying for issuance of a writ of certiorari as stated therein.\n\n!For Petitioners ..  Mr.  T.Srinivasaraghavan\n\n^For Respondents ..  Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai,\n                Government Advocate, RR1 to 3\n                Mr.S.Vijayakumar for\n                Mr.G.Sankaran for RR4 &amp; 5\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                The petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari<br \/>\nto  quash the proceedings of the second respondent in Roc.No.A4\/2476\/97, dated<br \/>\n27.09.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  According to the petitioners, the land comprised in Survey<br \/>\nNo.55  0,  Mayiladumparai  Village,  Andipatti   Taluk,   is   classified   as<br \/>\nPanchamthangi Kanmai Poramboke in the revenue records and the ancestors of the<br \/>\npetitioners,  about  40  years  ago,  planted  silk cotton, coconut, Tamarind,<br \/>\nMango, Jack Fruit and Naval trees on the poramboke land and  cultivated  them.<br \/>\nIt  is  further stated by the petitioners that the Government issued &#8216;B&#8217; Memos<br \/>\nto the petitioners and collected penal assessment from them.             The<br \/>\npetitioners have further stated that they applied to the third respondent  for<br \/>\nissuance  of  2C  Patta in their names in respect of the trees and the Special<br \/>\nOfficer of the 4th respondent  Panchayat  Board  passed  a  Resolution,  dated<br \/>\n03.09.1996,  recommending  the  issue  of  2C patta to the petitioners and the<br \/>\nthird respondent also made a  spot  inspection  and  passed  an  order,  dated<br \/>\n05.12.199  6, issuing 2C Patta to the petitioners with regard to the trees and<br \/>\nthe same was recorded in 2C Register.  It is further stated by the petitioners<br \/>\nthat  the  second   respondent,   by   order   dated   27.09.1997,   made   in<br \/>\nRoc.No.A4\/2476\/97,  cancelled  the 2C patta granted by the third respondent to<br \/>\nthe petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        According to the petitioners, the impugned  order  has<br \/>\nbeen  passed  without  notice  to  them and without giving them opportunity in<br \/>\nviolation of the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.    It<br \/>\nis  further  stated  by the petitioners that grant of 2C Patta is not merely a<br \/>\nlicence simplicitor,  but  coupled  with  an  interest  in  the  property  and<br \/>\ntherefore it cannot be revoked.  The petitioners have further stated that they<br \/>\nare not members of one family as alleged in the impugned order and it is based<br \/>\non mistake of fact and liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The first respondent has filed a detailed counter in which<br \/>\nit is stated that the Government in G.O.(Permanent) No.705, dated 19.06.19 92,<br \/>\nhas  issued  certain  instructions fixing the ceiling in issuing 2 C Pattas to<br \/>\none family to 5 tamarind trees or 25 coconut trees or 50 palm trees, etc.  and<br \/>\nwithout adhering to the above instructions,  the  4  th  respondent  panchayat<br \/>\npassed  a  resolution  stating  no  objection  to  grant  of  2C pattas to the<br \/>\npetitioners  and  based  on  the  resolution,  the  third  respondent,  namely<br \/>\nTahsildar, has granted 2C pattas to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        It is further stated in the counter that the Panchayat<br \/>\nResolution  was passed by the Panchayat Union Commissioner, in the capacity of<br \/>\nSpecial Officer and  that  was  cancelled  by  the  first  respondent  in  his<br \/>\nproceedings,  dated  29.05.1997, on the ground that the Divisional Development<br \/>\nOfficer (Panchayat) was the competent authority to pass  a  resolution  of  no<br \/>\nobjection as  per  the Panchayat Act.  The first respondent has further stated<br \/>\nin the counter that following the cancellation of  the  Panchayat  Resolution,<br \/>\nthe  second respondent in his proceedings Roc.No.A4\/2476\/97, dated 27.09.1997,<br \/>\ncancelled the 2C patta issued by the Tahsildar, on 05.12.1996.  It is  further<br \/>\nstated in the counter that 2C patta granted by the third respondent is against<br \/>\nthe instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.705, dated 19.06.1992 and hence the order<br \/>\ngranting 2C  Patta  is  not legal.  The first respondent has further stated in<br \/>\nthe counter that the action of the third respondent is prima facie  wrong  and<br \/>\nhence  it is not necessary to give opportunity to petitioners and the grant of<br \/>\n2C Patta is not a irrevocable licence.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  No counter has been filed by 4th and 5th respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  Heard the learned counsel  for  the  petitioners,  learned<br \/>\nGovernment  Advocate  for  Respondents  1  to  3  and  the learned counsel for<br \/>\nRespondents 4 and 5.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  The second  respondent  has  stated  two  reasons  in  the<br \/>\nimpugned  order  for cancellation of 2C patta granted by the third respondent.<br \/>\nThe first one being that the order issued by the Tahsildar, granting 2C Patta,<br \/>\nis contrary to Government instructions  issued  in  G.O.(  Permanent)  No.705,<br \/>\nRevenue  Department,  dated 19.06.1992 and the other being that the resolution<br \/>\nof no objection passed by the 4th respondent panchayat is without jurisdiction<br \/>\nand it was ordered to be cancelled by the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Learned counsel for  the  petitioners  contends  that  the<br \/>\npetitioners  are  not  members  of  one family and the Government instructions<br \/>\nissued in G.O.(permanent) No.705, dated 19.06.1992, is not applicable  to  the<br \/>\norder  of  the  third  respondent granting 2C Patta and the impugned order has<br \/>\nbeen passed in violation of the principles of natural justice  without  notice<br \/>\nto the petitioners and without giving them opportunity to explain and hence it<br \/>\nis liable  to  be  quashed.    The  learned  counsel further contends that the<br \/>\nimpugned order had to be made in consonance with the rules of natural  justice<br \/>\nwhen it affected the rights of the petitioners to property and to substantiate<br \/>\nthe  contention,  the  counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/485924\/\">The<br \/>\nD.F.O., South Kheri &amp; Others vs.  Ram Sanehi Singh,<\/a> reported in  AIR  1973  SC<br \/>\n205 .  Their Lordships of the Apex Court, while considering the Administrative<br \/>\nOrder of the Divisional Forest Officer, have laid down as follows.\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;5.  It is unnecessary to consider whether the order of the Divisional<br \/>\nForest Officer is made on &#8216;irrelevant grounds&#8217; because it is clear that before<br \/>\npassing  the  order  the  Divisional  Forest  Officer  did  not  call  for any<br \/>\nexplanation of the respondent, and gave him  no  hearing  before  passing  the<br \/>\norder.    It   is   averred  in  paragraph-22(i)  of  the  petition  that  the<br \/>\n&#8220;cancellation order is in violation  of  the  principles  of  natural  justice<br \/>\nhaving been done at a very late stage without affording any opportunity to the<br \/>\npetitioner  (respondent)  to  say  anything  against the action cancelling his<br \/>\ntallies&#8221;.  To that averment, no reply  was  made  by  the  forest  authorities<br \/>\nagainst whom   the   petition   was  filed.    Granting  that  the  order  was<br \/>\nadministrative and not quasijudicial, the order had still  to  be  made  in  a<br \/>\nmanner  consonant  with  the  rules  of  natural  justice when it affected the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s rights to property.  This Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1455346\/\">State of Orissa v.<br \/>\nDr.  (Miss)  Binapani  Dei,  AIR<\/a>  1967  SC  1269,  held  in  dealing  with  an<br \/>\nadministrative  order that &#8220;the rule that a party to whose prejudice the order<br \/>\nis intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applied  alike  to  judicial<br \/>\ntribunals  and  bodies  of  persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon<br \/>\nmatters involving civil consequences.  It is one of the fundamental  rules  of<br \/>\nour  constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of<br \/>\narbitrary authority by the State or its  officers&#8221;.    The  Divisional  Forest<br \/>\nOfficer  in  the  present  case  set  aside  the  proceeding  of a subordinate<br \/>\nauthority and passed an order which involved the  respondent  in  considerable<br \/>\nloss.  The order involved civil consequences.  Without considering whether the<br \/>\norder  of  the  Divisional  Forest  Officer was vitiated because of irrelevant<br \/>\nconsiderations, the order must be set aside on the simple ground that  it  was<br \/>\npassed contrary to the basic rules of natural justice.&#8221; (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>                8.   The  other  decision  relied on by the learned counsel is<br \/>\nLakshmi Ammal and another vs.  The Board of Revenue, Madras  (1965 -II Madras<br \/>\nLaw Journal Reports 95), in which a learned Judge  of  this  Court  held  that<br \/>\nwhere  a  quasi-judicial  Order  does  not  consider  the applicability of the<br \/>\nrelevant Government Order issued in that regard and the affected party is  not<br \/>\ngiven adequate opportunity to put forth his contention, the order is liable to<br \/>\nbe quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  It is true that the petitioners have been granted 2C Patta<br \/>\nwith conditions  attached  to  it.  It is not the case of the respondents that<br \/>\nthe cancellation was made on account of alleged  violation  of  any  of  those<br \/>\nconditions.   The third respondent, namely Tahsildar, is empowered to grant 2C<br \/>\nPatta.  But what is alleged against him  is  that  he  had  passed  the  order<br \/>\ngranting  2C  Patta  without taking into account the instructions contained in<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.705, dated 19.06.1992.  The instructions  in  the  above  Government<br \/>\nOrder  relate  to fixation of ceiling in the event of issue of 2C Patta to one<br \/>\nfamily.  According to the petitioners, they are not members of one family  and<br \/>\nthe  Government  Order itself is not applicable to the order granting 2C patta<br \/>\nto them.  In the counter, the first respondent has stated that petitioners 1 ,<br \/>\n2 and 4 belong to one family and petitioners 3 and 5 belong to another family.<br \/>\nThere  are  ten  petitioners  in  this  petition  and  in  that  context,  the<br \/>\napplicability  of  the  Government  Order in question to the order granting 2C<br \/>\nPatta to the petitioners  has  to  be  determined.    Admittedly,  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent did not give any notice to the petitioners and the petitioners have<br \/>\nnot  been  provided  with  any  opportunity to explain the position before the<br \/>\npassing of the impugned order affecting their right to property.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  The  law  is  well  settled  that  a  quasi  judicial  or<br \/>\nadministrative  order  has  to be made in a manner consonant with the rules of<br \/>\nnatural justice when it affects the right of  party  to  the  property.    The<br \/>\nimpugned  order  has  been  passed  in  violation of the principles of natural<br \/>\njustice and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.  The  petitioners<br \/>\nare entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  The  writ  petition  is allowed as prayed for.  No costs.<br \/>\nHowever, it is open to the authorities to proceed afresh, in  accordance  with<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>Internet:yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>gb.\n<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The District Collector,<br \/>\nTheni.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Revenue Divisional Officer,<br \/>\nPeriyakulam.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Tahsildar, Andipatti.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27\/04\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN WRIT PETITION NO.15287 OF 1997 1. P.N.S.Gopinath 2. P.N.Suruluvelu 3. Sheela Devi 4. Veni 5. Chinnammal 6. Ammaluammal 7. Ponnuraj 8. Vasagan 9. Subramanian 10.Kalia Gounder @ Subramanian [&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-130076","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>P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004 - 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\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-24T07:55:42+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\\\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-24T07:55:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1577,\"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\\\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004\",\"name\":\"P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-24T07:55:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004 - 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\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-24T07:55:42+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\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-24T07:55:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004"},"wordCount":1577,"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\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004","name":"P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-24T07:55:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-s-gopinath-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.N.S.Gopinath vs The District Collector on 27 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/130076","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=130076"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130076\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130076"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130076"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130076"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}