{"id":14377,"date":"2007-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007"},"modified":"2014-06-28T07:18:32","modified_gmt":"2014-06-28T01:48:32","slug":"the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 27\/11\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nAppeal Suit No.999 of 2003\nAppeal Suit No.1000 of 2003\nAppeal Suit No.1002 of 2003\nand\nCross Objections Nos.12 to 14 of 2007\n\nThe Special Tahsildar,\nMaster Plan Complex,\nVirudhunagar.\t\t  \t\t\t.. Appellant in all appeals and \t\t\t\t\n\t  \t\t\t\t\t\trespondents in all cross objections\n\nVs.\n\n\n1.Vijayaraman (Died)\n2.V.Rajalakshmi\n3.V.Rajaram\n4.V.Ganesh\n\t(R2 to R4 brought on record as Lrs.\n      of the dead 1st respondent vide\n\t Order dated 20.09.2005 made in\n\t CMP(MD)5613 to 5617\/2005 by\n\t PSJ & ZHJ)       \t\t\t.. Respondents in A.S.999\/2003 and \t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCross Objectors in Cross objection No.12\/2007\n1.V.Alagarsami Naicker (Died)\n2.A.Subbulakshmi\n3.A.Perumalsamy\n4.A.Solaisamy\n5.A.Sellatha\n6.A.Jamunarani\n\t(R2 to R6 brought on record as Lrs.\n      of the dead 1st respondent vide\n\t Order dated 20.09.2005 made in\n\t CMP(MD)5613 to 5617\/2005 by\n\t PSJ & ZHJ)      \t\t\t .. Respondents in A.S.1000\/2003 \t\t\t\t\n\t \t\t\t\t\t\tand Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.13\/2007\n\nP.Poochiammal      \t\t\t\t .. Respondent in A.S.1002\/2003 and \t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCross Objector in Cross objection No.14\/2007\n\nCommon Prayer\n\nThese  appeal suits have been filed under Section 54 of Land\nAcquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.1987 made in\nL.A.O.P.No.80, 81 and 83 of 1986 on the file of the  Subordinate Judge,\nSrivilliputhur.\n\nCommon Prayer\n\nThese  Cross Objections have been filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of\nCivil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.1987 made in\nL.A.O.P.No.80, 81 and 83 of 1986 on the file of the  Subordinate Judge,\nSrivilliputhur.\n\n\n\n!For Appellant \t \t... Mr.So.Paramasivan\n\t\t\t\tSpecial Government Pleader\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n^For Respondents\t... Mr.A.Sivaji\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThese appeals and cross objections are focussed as against the judgment
\nand decree dated 10.04.1987 made in L.A.O.P.No.80, 81 and 83 of 1986 on the file
\nof the  Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
\nof these appeals and cross objections would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 4(1) Notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, dated
\n24.04.1985, published for acquiring a large tract of land including the land
\ninvolved in these three appeals, in connection with setting up of a Master Plan
\nComplex in the newly formed district viz. Virudhunagar District. After complying
\nwith the procedural formalities, the land acquisition officer passed awards
\nfixing the compensation amount in favour of the land owners.  Being aggrieved by
\nsuch \tawarding of compensation, the land owners got the matter referred under
\nSection 18 of the land acquisition Act.  The Sub Court awarded compensation
\nenhancing the compensation in various matters.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Earlier the Government preferred appeal in A.S.No.1306 of 1989 in
\nrespect of the land of some other owners before this Court and the learned
\nSingle Judge of this Court enhanced the compensation and fixed it at Rs.1,200\/-
\nper cent considering various aspects.  Subsequently several sets of appeals were
\nfiled before this Court and the Division Bench of this court which was seized of
\nthe matter by its judgment dated 29.04.2002 passed orders confirming the
\nvaluation arrived at by the  single Judge and awarded Rs.1,200\/- per cent at
\nflat rate in respect of land covered under all the 4(1) notifications ranging
\nfrom 28.03.1985 to 31.08.1985.  The present appeals are relating to the Section
\n4(1) notification dated 24.04.1985 relating to the part of that large tract of
\nland.  The Subordinate Court on reference relating to these three matters,
\nenhanced the compensation amount from RS.30\/- per cent to Rs.200\/- per cent
\nrelying on Ex.A1 the sale deed dated 17.06.1983  ignoring the other sale deeds
\nEx.A2 to A5 which refer to higher value.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The land acquisition officer preferred these three appeals aggrieved by
\nthe enhancement of compensation from Rs.30\/- per cent to Rs.200\/- per cent.
\nWhere as the land owners filed cross objections expressing their grievance that
\non par with the earlier Division Judgment of this Court dated 29.04.2002, the
\ncompensation should be enhanced and fixed at the rate of Rs.1,200\/- per cent.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The point for consideration is as to whether the compensation of
\nRs.200\/- per cent has to reduced or it has to be enhanced to a tune of
\nRs.1,200\/- per cent?\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Point: The learned counsel for the land owners placing reliance on the
\ndecision of this Court dated 29.04.2002 passed by the Division Bench of this
\nCourt would highlight that even though the Sub Court awarded a compensation
\nranging from Rs.200\/- per cent to Rs.1,600\/- per cent, the Division Bench of
\nthis Court held that there should not be any discrimination in awarding
\ncompensation to the land owners and it could be at the flat rate of Rs.1,200\/-
\nper cent, irrespective of the fact that whether the land is nearer to the
\nNational Highway or away from the National Highway.  I am of the considered view
\nthat when a vast tract of land is acquired and that too for a common purpose,
\ndiscrimination need not be there.  In these circumstances, the decision of the
\nHonourable Apex Court in Smt.Lila Ghosh (dead) through LR v. The State of West
\nBengal reported in Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition (1994-2004)
\nVolume II page No.2053.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:
\n\t“5. We are of the opinion that this was not a fit case for application of
\nthe belting method.  The acquisition was of land on which a film studio stood.
\nThe acquisition was for the purposes of the film studio.  It was a compact block
\nof land which was acquired for a specific purposes.  The land was not acquired
\nfor development into small plots where the value of plots near the road would
\nhave a higher value whilst those further away from may have a compact blocks is
\nacquired the belting method would not be correct method.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The learned Additional Government Pleader  would agree with the facts
\nhighlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of the
\napplicability of the previous judgment of this Court pronounced on 29.04.2002
\nfor this case also.  An excerpt from it could rightly be extracted hereunder for
\nready reference.\n<\/p>\n
\t“4. Now let us proceed to decide the value of the lands with reference to
\ncategory no.1 referred to supra.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese lands are more or less similar and similarly placed when compared to
\nS.No.23 which was the subject matter in A.S.No.1306 of 89 etc. A.S.No.1306 of 89
\netc., came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge by judgment dated
\n12.11.1998 fixing the value of the land at  Rs.1,200\/- per cent after deducting
\n1\/3rd of Rs.1,800\/- on the ground that the area acquired is large when compared
\nto four sale transactions.  It is brought to the notice of this Court that as
\nagainst the said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.11.1998, none of
\nthe parties have approached the higher forum.  In fact, this Bench disposed of
\nanother batch of appeals i.e., A.S.Nos.187 to 189 of 1992 and in those appeals,
\nthis bench referred and placed reliance on the  judgment of the learned Single
\nJudge in A.S.No.1306 of 89 etc.
\n\tIn A.S.No.1306 of 89, the learned Single Judge has referred to four sale
\ntransactions. On 25.7.84, two sales were effected in respect of an area of 4.96
\ncents in each case in S.No.53\/3A for a consideration of Rs.9,000\/-.  The average
\nprice per cent works out to Rs.1,800\/-. The third sale transaction was on
\n27.7.84 under which an extent of 5.97 cents in S.No.53\/1 was sold for a price of
\nRs.10,800\/-, which would also work out to Rs.1,800\/- per cent.  On 8.8.94, yet
\nanother sale transaction was concluded, wherein an extent of 5 1\/2 cents in
\nS.No.60\/1 was sold for Rs.8,500\/- (i.e.) at the rate of Rs.1,600\/- per cent.
\nConsidering all these four sale transactions, the learned Single Judge thought
\nit fit to fix the value of the land per cent at Rs.1,800\/- with reference to
\nSurvey No.23 and out of which deducted 1\/3rd on the ground that the area
\nacquired is larger in the respective cases when compared to the said data sales.
\nWe are in entire agreement with the reasons given and the conclusions arrived at
\nby the learned Single Judge.  In other words, we are of the view that for the
\nlands which would come under category no.1, the compensation payable can be
\nfixed at Rs.1,200\/- per cent.  The following appeals would come under category
\nno.1.\n<\/p>\n
\tA.S.Nos.327\/88, 330\/88, 858\/88, 859\/88, 1280\/88, 1312\/88, 169\/89, 170\/89,
\n171\/89, 172\/89, 173\/89, 174\/89, 354\/90, 423\/90, 498\/96, 500\/96, 503\/96, 855\/96,
\n87\/97 & 280\/97.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. With reference to category no.2, the lands that are acquired are rather
\nsmaller in extent, in fact much less than one hectare.  Learned counsel for the
\nclaimants\/land owners contended that in view of the fact that the land owners
\npurchased the property for their personal use probably for construction of
\nresidential houses, more compensation may be awarded.  Learned counsel would
\nfurther elaborately submit that it is an accepted fact that smaller extent will
\nfetch proportionately more price.  We do see some substance in the said
\nsubmission.  But at the same time, it has to be remembered that the properties
\nconcerned in all the above appeals, referred to in this category, are situated
\nnot close to the National Highway.  To put differently, these lands are situated
\naway from the National Highway No.7 when compared to the lands which would come
\nunder category no.1.  The supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 1576 (Bhag Singh v. Union
\nTerritory of Chandigarh) and AIR<\/a> 1988 SC 1652 (Chimanlal v. Spl. Land
\nAcquisition Officer, Poona)<\/a> has ruled that the Court while fixing compensation
\nhas to necessarily has to do some guess work and strike at a balance and for
\nthat purpose, it has to draw a balance sheet to consider plus and minus factors.
\nAs far as the present case is concerned, it is true that the area concerned in
\neach of the appeals is smaller in extent.  But it has to be borne in mind that
\nthere is a minus factor i.e., the lands are away from the National Highway, when
\ncompared to the lands referred to in category no.1.  This minus factor
\nneutralises the plus factor.  Or in other words, the Court has to fix the
\ncompensation payable at the same rate (i.e.) Rs.1,200\/- per cent in respect of
\nlands under this category as well.  The lands that would fall under this
\ncategory are the subject matter in the appeals i.e., A.S.Nos.840 to 844\/87,
\n143\/88, 1191\/89, 328\/88, 329\/88, 331\/88 to 335\/88, 724\/88, 725\/88, 776\/88 to
\n785\/88, 787\/88, 857\/88, 941\/88 to 943\/88, 945\/88 to 952\/88, 530\/99, 985\/88 to
\n992\/88, 1025\/88 to 1038\/88, 1281\/88 to 1287\/88, 1313\/88, 1314\/88, 167\/89,
\n168\/89, 223\/89 to 228\/89, 233\/89, 274\/89 to 285\/89, 477\/89, 481\/89, 272\/90,
\n273\/90, 280\/90 to 288\/90, 332\/90 to 338\/90, 342\/90, 343\/90, 353\/90, 375\/90 to
\n393\/90, 421\/90, 422\/90, 424\/90 to 426\/90, 595\/90 to 604\/90, 1240\/90, 1283\/90,
\n1349\/90, 221\/91, 79\/92, 508 to 510\/96.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt this juncture, we have to mention that we are rejecting the contention
\nof the learned counsel that with reference to the lands concerned in A.S.Nos.64
\nto 67 of 94, higher value has to be fixed for the reason that those lands are in
\nKottaipatti village, which is comparatively nearer to Virudhunagar town and on
\nthe ground that no evidence has been let in by the land owners about the exact
\nlocation as to whether they are nearer to the National Highway or situated
\ninterior.  Hence, these appeals A.S.64 to 67\/94 also will come under the second
\ncategory.”\n<\/p>\n
It is therefore crystal clear that in respect of vast track of land covered by
\nthose notifications, the Division Bench of this Court awarded at the flat rate
\nof Rs.1,200\/- per cent.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Hence, I am of the  considered view that the appeals are liable to be
\ndismissed and the cross objections are liable to be allowed by  fixing the quantum at the rate of
\nRs.1,200\/- per cent.  I would like to make it clear that Rs.1,200\/- was arrived
\nat after deducting 1\/3rd from the original value of Rs.1,800\/- fixed by the
\nDivision Bench towards development charges.  All other statutory entitlements
\nshall follow.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In the result, these appeals are dismissed and the cross objections
\nare allowed and the respective awards of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur,
\nshall stand modified by reassessing the land value at the net rate of Rs.1,200\/-
\nper cent.  All other statutory entitlements shall follow.  In other aspects the
\naward shall hold good.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The  Subordinate Judge,
\n  Srivilliputhur.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27\/11\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Appeal Suit No.999 of 2003 Appeal Suit No.1000 of 2003 Appeal Suit No.1002 of 2003 and Cross Objections Nos.12 to 14 of 2007 The Special Tahsildar, Master […]<\/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-14377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-28T01:48:32+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-28T01:48:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1747,\"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\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007\",\"name\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-28T01:48:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-28T01:48:32+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-28T01:48:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007"},"wordCount":1747,"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\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007","name":"The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-28T01:48:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-vijayaraman-died-on-27-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Special Tahsildar vs Vijayaraman (Died) on 27 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/14377","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=14377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}