{"id":149959,"date":"1976-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2"},"modified":"2018-09-22T08:19:48","modified_gmt":"2018-09-22T02:49:48","slug":"state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1057, \t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 536<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. N. SHANMUGHA MUDALLAR &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/03\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1057\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 536\n 1976 SCC  (2) 406\n\n\nACT:\n     Land Acquisition  Act, 1894-Sections  23 and 24 Quantum\nof compensation\t -Madras Estates Abolition Act, 1948-Whether\ncompensation under  Land   Acquisition Act can be claimed if\nthe estate  is\tabolished-Interest  of\tcompensation  to  be\nallowed, from what date.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The State\tof Madras  acquired land  belonging  to\t the\nrespondent landlords.  The Land Acquisition officer gave his\naward determining  the compensation  payable. On a reference\nmade to\t the Subordinate  judge certain\t compensation\t was\ndetermined. Interest  was awarded  to the respondents on the\ncompensation amount  from 1st  December, 1949 because in the\nopinion of  the Subordinate   Judge,  possession of the land\nhad been taken on that date.\n     On an  appeal, the\t High Court affirmed the decision of\nthe Subordinate\t Judge\t regarding the rate of compensation.\nThe High Court also rejected the contention of the appellant\nthat the  land had vested in the Government under the Madras\nStates Abolition  Act, 1948, and, therefore, the respondents\nwere not entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition\nAct. The  High Court  found that  there was  no material  on\nrecord to  show that  the possession  of the  land had\tbeen\ntaken prior to the date of the award by the Land Acquisition\nofficer. Interest  was accordingly  directed to run from the\ndate of the award, i.e. November, 1951.\n     In an appeal by certificate, the appellant contended:\n\t  (1)  The  land   in  question\t  vested  under\t the\n\t       Abolition  Act\tin   the   State   and\t the\n\t       respondents were,  therefore, not entitled to\n\t       compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.\n\t  (2)  The quantum  of compensation  awarded by\t the\n\t       High Court was excessive.\n\t  (3)  Interest should\thave been  allowed from\t 1st\n\t       December, 1949.\n^\n     HELD: (  1 )  There were . two alternative courses open\nto the\tState either  to proceed  under the Land Acquisition\nAct or\tto take\t over the  land\t under\tthe  Abolition\tAct.\nAlthough the  estate was  notified under  the Abolition Act,\nthe proceedings\t under that  Act were  stayed and the matter\nproceed l under the Land Acquisition Act. It was not open to\nthe appellant  in  the\tparticular  reference  made  at\t the\ninstance of  the respondents to the Subordinate Judge to set\nup a  claim adverse  to the interest of the respondents. The\nHigh Court  rightly rejected the contention of the appellant\nin this behalf. [538D-E, G-H]\n     (2 )  Both the  High Court\t as well  as the Subordinate\nJudge  awarded\tthe  compensation  in  accordance  with\t the\nprevious decisions  which laid\tdown a\tformula.  No  cogent\ngrounds\t have  been  shown  to\tus  to\tinterfere  with\t the\nconcurrent findings in this respect. [539B-C]\n     (3) There\tis no reason to disagree with the High Court\njudgment regarding the date on which the interest should run\non the amount of compensation. [539-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1425 of<br \/>\n1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From the  Judgment and  Decree dated  the 5-8-74 of the<br \/>\nMadras High Court in Appeal No. 448 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n<p>     A. V. Rangam and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.<br \/>\n     K. Jayaram and R. Chandresekhar for Respondent No. 1<br \/>\n     Ex-parte for Respondents 2-8.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">537<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     KHANNA, J.\t This appeal  on certificate is by the State<br \/>\nof Madras,  now Tamil  Nadu, against  the judgment of Madras<br \/>\nHigh  Court   affirming\t on  appeal  the  award\t of  learned<br \/>\nSubordinate  judge   Salem  in\trespect\t of  the  amount  of<br \/>\ncompensation payable  to the  respondents for acquisition of<br \/>\nland  under  the  Land\tAcquisition  Act  (Act\t1  of  1894)<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred  to  as  the  Act).  The\tHigh  Court,<br \/>\nhowever, directed  that the  interest on  the amount awarded<br \/>\nshall run  from November  19, 1951, the date of the award by<br \/>\nthe Land  Acquisition officer  and not from December 1, 1949<br \/>\nas ordered by the Subordinate Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On July  12, 1949\tnotification under  section 4 of the<br \/>\nAct was\t issued for`the\t acquisition of 19 acres 45 cents of<br \/>\ndry land  situated in  Alegapuram Mitta\t for the  Salem Fair<br \/>\nLands  Co-operative  Society  Ltd.  On\tDecember  19,  1950.<br \/>\nAlegapuram Mitta  was  notified\t under\tthe  Madras  Estates<br \/>\nAbolition Act  (Act 26\tof 1948) (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\nthe Abolition  Act). A\twrit petition  was filed in the High<br \/>\nCourt to challenge that notification. Further proceedings in<br \/>\npursuance of  the notification were stayed by the High Court<br \/>\nby order  dated January.  1, 1951.  The\t Society  for  which<br \/>\nacquisition was\t being made  deposited in  the meantime\t the<br \/>\nprobable cost  of  the\tland  on  September  13,  1950.\t On,<br \/>\nNovember 19, 1951 the Land Acquisition officer announced his<br \/>\naward.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  respondents,\t it  may   be\tstated,\t  were\t the<br \/>\nMelevaramdars  (land  holders)\tof  the\t land  in  question.<br \/>\nKudiwaramdars\t(cultivators)\twere   also,   besides\t the<br \/>\nrespondents, parties  to the  proceedings  before  the\tLand<br \/>\nAcquisition officer.  The Land\tAcquisition officer  by\t his<br \/>\naward dated  November 19,  1951 awarded\t compensation to the<br \/>\ncultivators at\tthe rate  of Rs.  1,500 per acre for part of<br \/>\nthe land near the road and at the rate of Rs. 1,300 per acre<br \/>\nfor the\t rest  of  the\tland.  Rs.  520,  11  As,  1  P\t the<br \/>\ncapitalised value  of the  net rental  income was held to be<br \/>\nthe amount  payable to\tthe respondents.  The  Kudiwaramdars<br \/>\nwere content  with the compensation awarded to them, but the<br \/>\nrespondents  who   were,   as\talready\t  mentioned   above,<br \/>\nMelavaramdars asked  for a  reference to court under section<br \/>\n18 of  the Act for claiming enhanced compensation. According<br \/>\nto the\trespondents, they  were entitled to one-third of the<br \/>\nvalue of the totality of the interest in the land. According<br \/>\nfurther to  the respondents, compensation for the total land<br \/>\nshould be  awarded at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per acre Learned<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge held that the respondents were entitled to<br \/>\n50 percent  of the  compensation awarded  in respect  of the<br \/>\nMelawaram   interest in\t the land.  The Subordinate Judge in<br \/>\nthis context relied r upon an earlier decision of the Madras<br \/>\nHigh Court  wherein it\thad been  held that  the  rights  of<br \/>\nMelavaramdars were  not confined  only to rent from land and<br \/>\nthat they  had other  recognised rights and were entitled to<br \/>\ncompensation for  those rights.\t The respondents  were\tthus<br \/>\nheld  entitled\t to  compensation   for\t their\tMelavaramdar<br \/>\ninterest at  the rate of Rs. 750 per acre in respect of land<br \/>\nnear the  road and  Rs. 650  per  acre\tin  respect  of\t the<br \/>\nremaining land.\t Interest was  awarded to the respondents on<br \/>\nthe compensation amount from December 1, 1949 2-608SCI\/76<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">538<\/span><br \/>\nbecause, in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge, possession<br \/>\nof the land had been taken from that date.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On appeal\tthe High  Court affirmed the decision of the<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge  regarding the  rate of  compensation. The<br \/>\ncontention advanced  on behalf\tof the appellant that as the<br \/>\nland had  vested in  the Government under the Abolition Act,<br \/>\nthe respondents\t were not entitled to compensation under the<br \/>\nLand Acquisition  Act, was rejected. It was observed that in<br \/>\nthe land acquisition proceedings the Government was estopped<br \/>\nfrom denying  the absence  of any  interest in the claimants<br \/>\nwhom the  Government had  made parties\tto the\tproceedings.<br \/>\nRegarding the  date from  which interest  on the  amount  or<br \/>\ncompensation should  accrue, the High Court found that there<br \/>\nwas no material on the record to show that possession of the<br \/>\nland had  been taken  prior to\tthe date of the award by the<br \/>\nLand Acquisition  officer. Interest was accordingly directed<br \/>\nto run from the date of the award.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In appeal\tbefore\tus  Mr.\t Rangam\t on  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant-state has  urged that\t as the land in question has<br \/>\nvested under  the Abolition Act in the State the respondents<br \/>\nare not\t entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition<br \/>\nAct. We\t find it difficult to accede to this submission, for<br \/>\nwe are\tof the opinion that in case the State wanted to take<br \/>\nover the  land under  the Abolition  Act it  should not have<br \/>\nproceeded to  acquire the interest of the respondents in the<br \/>\nland in\t dispute under\tthe Land Acquisition Act. There were<br \/>\ntwo alternative courses open to the State, either to proceed<br \/>\nunder the  Land Acquisition  Act or  to take  over the\tland<br \/>\nunder the  Abolition Act.  Although the\t estate was notified<br \/>\nunder the Abolition Act, the proceedings under that Act were<br \/>\nstayed and  the matter\tproceeded under the Land Acquisition<br \/>\nAct. As\t the proceedings which were continued were under the<br \/>\nLand Acquisition Act the compensation payable had also to be<br \/>\npaid in\t accordance with  the provisions  of that  Act.\t The<br \/>\nreference which\t was made by the Land Acquisition officer to<br \/>\nthe  Subordinate   Judge  under\t  section  18  of  the\tLand<br \/>\nAcquisition  Act   was\twith   respect\tto  the\t quantum  of<br \/>\ncompensation  payable\tto  the\t  respondents  because\t the<br \/>\nrespondents had felt dissatisfied with the amount awarded to<br \/>\nthem as\t compensation by  the said  officer. The  underlying<br \/>\nassumption of those proceedings was that the respondents had<br \/>\nan interest in the land. If it was the case of the appellant<br \/>\nthat the  respondents had been divested of their interest in<br \/>\nthe land and the same had vested in the appellant State, the<br \/>\nappellant should have taken appropriate steps to make such a<br \/>\nclaim in  accordance with  law. No  such claim seems to have<br \/>\nbeen made.  The High  Court expressly left open the question<br \/>\nof the\tclaim of  the State  Government\t to  the  amount  of<br \/>\ncompensation  deposited\t  on  the   score  that\t Melwaramdar<br \/>\nrespondents were not entitled to it by reason of having lost<br \/>\nall their  interest in\tthe land  at the  relevant point  of<br \/>\ntime. We  agree with  the High Court that it was not open to<br \/>\nthe appellant-State  in the particular reference made at the<br \/>\ninstance of  the respondents to the Subordinate Judge to set<br \/>\nup a claim adverse to the interest of the respondents. There<br \/>\nis also\t we  find  nothing  in\tthe  award  of\tthe  learned<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge  to show  that  any  question\t was  raised<br \/>\nbefore him  that the  amount of compensation was not payable<br \/>\nto the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">539<\/span><br \/>\nrespondents in\taccordance with\t the provisions\t of the Land<br \/>\nAcquisition    Act.  This  question  appears  to  have\tbeen<br \/>\nagitated for  the first\t time only  in the appeal before the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  The High  Court rejected the contention in this<br \/>\nbehalf. We find no cogent ground to take a different view.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As regards\t the quantum of compensation, the High Court<br \/>\nhas referred  to the  previous decisions which show that the<br \/>\nformula gene- rally adopted is to pay one-third of the total<br \/>\ncompensation  to   Melavaramdars  and\ttwo-thirds  of\t the<br \/>\ncompensation  to  Kudiwaramdars.  In  accordance  with\tthat<br \/>\nformula, the  respondents would\t be entitled  to one-half of<br \/>\nthe  compensation   payable  to\t  Kudiwaramdars.  Both\t the<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge and the High Court awarded compensation in<br \/>\naccordance with\t this formula.\tNo cogent  ground  has\tbeen<br \/>\nshown  to  us  as  to  why  we\tshould\tinterfere  with\t the<br \/>\nconcurrent finding  in this  respect. We also find no reason<br \/>\nto disagree  with the  High Court  regarding the  date\tfrom<br \/>\nwhich interest should run on the amount of compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.<br \/>\n\t\t  P.H.P. Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">540<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1057, 1976 SCR (3) 536 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj PETITIONER: STATE OF MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: K. N. SHANMUGHA MUDALLAR &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/03\/1976 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976 - 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\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2\" \/>\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=\"1976-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-22T02:49:48+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-22T02:49:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2\"},\"wordCount\":1354,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2\",\"name\":\"State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-22T02:49:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976 - 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\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-22T02:49:48+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976","datePublished":"1976-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-22T02:49:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2"},"wordCount":1354,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2","name":"State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-22T02:49:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-k-n-shanmugha-mudallar-ors-on-4-march-1976-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madras vs K. N. Shanmugha Mudallar &amp; Ors on 4 March, 1976"}]},{"@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\/149959","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=149959"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149959\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}