{"id":153452,"date":"2011-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-03T08:37:59","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T03:07:59","slug":"smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana &#8230; vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana &#8230; vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 11\/04\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nWrit Petition (MD).No.10719 of 2007\n&amp;\nWrit Petition (MD).No.527 of 2008\n\nW.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007\n\nSmt.Avudaiparvathi alias Sugana Devi\n\t\t\t\t\t    .. Petitioner\nVs.\n\n1.The District Revenue Officer,\n  Tirunelveli.\n\n2.The Tahsildar,\n  Sivagiri Taluk,\n  Tirunelveli District.\n\n3.N.Kasturi Gandhi\t\t\t    ..  Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\nto issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to proceedings in\nU3\/48346\/2005, dated 11.09.2007 on the file of the first respondent and quash\nthe same as illegal.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Srinivasan\n\t\t    Senior Counsel\n^For Respondents... Mr.Pala Ramasamy for R1 &amp; R2\n\t\t    Special Government Pleader\n\t\t    Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy for R3\n\t\t    Senior Counsel for\n\t\t    Mr.R.Natesh Raja\nW.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008\n\nM.Pallayya Naicker\t          .. Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The District Revenue Officer,\n  Tirunelveli.\n\n2.The Tahsildar,\n  Sivagiri Taluk,\n  Tirunelveli District.\n\n3.N.Kasthuri Gandhi\n4.Aavudai Parvathi\t\t  ..  Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\nto issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned\norder of the first respondent made in U3\/48346\/2005, dated 11.09.2007, quash the\nsame, and pass such further or other orders as this Court deems fit and proper\nin the circumstances of the case.\n\nFor Petitioner ... Mr.R.Nandakumar\nFor Respondents... Mr.Pala Ramasamy for R1 &amp; R2\n\t\t   Special Government Pleader\n\t\t   Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy for R3\n\t\t   Senior Counsel for\n\t\t   Mr.R.Natesh Raja\t\t\t  \t\t\t  \t\n\t \t\n     \t\t  \t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007 is the daughter-in-law of one<br \/>\nTmt.Subbammal and the third respondent is the daughter of one Tmt.Guruvammal.<br \/>\nTmt.Subbammal and Tmt.Guruvammal are the daughters of one Thiru.Shanmugasundara<br \/>\nThevar. The land in Survey No.237 covering an extent of 10 cents, T.N.Pudhukudi<br \/>\nVillage, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District belong to Shanmugasundara Thevar<br \/>\nby virtue of the sale deed, dated 15.09.1928. In the year 1959, a partition was<br \/>\nentered into between the members of Thiru.Shanmugasundar Thevar by a partition<br \/>\ndeed, dated 30.03.1959 and the same was registered in the Sub Registrar Office,<br \/>\nPuliyangudi. The said document contains 11 Schedule.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. According to the third respondent, 10 cents in S.No.237 mentioned in<br \/>\nthe 11th schedule was allotted to the father of the third respondent in the<br \/>\npartition deed, who is the husband of Tmt.Guruvammal. According to the third<br \/>\nrespondent,  while 10 cents is a private property, the same was also classified<br \/>\nas &#8216;Manthai Poramboke&#8217; in revenue records. According to her, while S.No.237<br \/>\nshows that 74 cents as &#8216;Manthai Poramboke&#8217;, the afore-said land of 10 cents<br \/>\nforming part of the 74 cents is wrongly classified as &#8216;Manthai Poramboke&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The third respondent made representations to the first respondent to<br \/>\ncorrect the error in the revenue records by correctly classifying her land as<br \/>\n&#8216;grama natham&#8217;. The first respondent directed the Assistant Settlement Officer<br \/>\nto conduct survey and find out the truthfulness of the complaint made by the<br \/>\nthird respondent. Accordingly, the Assistant Settlement Officer has conducted<br \/>\nsurvey and submitted a report on 31.05.2005 stating that 10 cents in S.No.237 is<br \/>\na private land and it could not be classified under &#8216;Manthai Poramboke&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The first respondent also sought a report from the second respondent,<br \/>\nthe Tahsildar. The second respondent, the Tahsildar, after holding enquiry, he<br \/>\nhas also given a report to the first respondent endorsing the view of the<br \/>\nAssistant Settlement Officer. That is, the second respondent also stated in his<br \/>\nreport that 10 cents in S.No.237, in Puliyangudi, Sivagiri Taluk is a private<br \/>\nland.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. While so, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007, gave objections<br \/>\nto the first respondent not to grant exclusive patta to the third respondent and<br \/>\nsought joint patta for the afore-said 10 cents in S.No.237. The first respondent<br \/>\nheard the petitioner as well as the third respondent on the objections made by<br \/>\nthe petitioner. After hearing both sides, the first respondent passed the<br \/>\nimpugned order dated 11.09.2007 holding that 10 cents in S.No.237 is a private<br \/>\nland and the third respondent has established the possession of the said land.<br \/>\nIn these circumstances, he directed the Tahsildar to grant patta in favour of<br \/>\nthe third respondent. The petitioner has filed the writ petition<br \/>\nW.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007 to quash the afore-said order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. When the Government wanted to put up construction for a godown for<br \/>\nagriculturists in the  &#8216;Manthai Poramboke&#8217;, the same was objected in a<br \/>\nrepresentative capacity by one Muthiah Naicker and he filed a suit in O.S.No.81<br \/>\nof 1980 before the District Munsif, Sankarankovil for a declaration that land<br \/>\ncomprised in S.No.237 is &#8216;Manthai Poramboke&#8217; and also sought for permanent<br \/>\ninjunction  restraining the Collector and the Commissioner of Vasudevanallur<br \/>\nPanchayat Union from constructing godown in S.No.237, which is a &#8216;Manthai<br \/>\nPoramboke&#8217;. The suit was dismissed on 26.02.1986. Thereafter, an appeal was<br \/>\nfiled in A.S.No.84 of 1986 before the Sub Court, Tenkasi. The appeal was<br \/>\ndisposed of on 24.02.1990 holding that the construction was made only in 5 cents<br \/>\nin &#8216;Manthai Poramboke&#8217; and therefore, the villagers could use the rest of the<br \/>\nland for grazing purposes. One Thiru.M.Pallayya Naicker filed W.P.(MD).No.527 of<br \/>\n2008 to quash the afore-said order dated 11.09.2007 of the first respondent on<br \/>\nthe ground that the order of the first respondent is contrary to the order of<br \/>\nthe Sub Court, Tenkasi in A.S.No.84 of 1986, dated 24.02.1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent narrated<br \/>\nthe afore-said facts and fairly submits that the issue as to the ownership of 10<br \/>\ncents in S.No.237 relating to the 11th Schedule in partition deed, dated<br \/>\n30.03.1959 could be agitated by the writ petitioner (W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007)<br \/>\nbefore the competent civil Court and the findings of the first respondent could<br \/>\nnot come in the way of the decision to be rendered by the  Competent Civil Court<br \/>\nas to the ownership.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the writ<br \/>\npetitioner sought to quash the entire order dated 11.09.2007 of the first<br \/>\nrespondent, the petitioner confines for quashing of the order as to the grant of<br \/>\npatta to the third respondent and not relating to the finding of the first<br \/>\nrespondent as to the fact that the land in 10 cents in S.No.237 in the 11th<br \/>\nSchedule claimed by the third respondent as private land. However, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the first respondent could<br \/>\nbe set aside insofar as grant of patta to the third respondent and issue<br \/>\nrelating to the ownership can be decided before the competent civil Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.  The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008<br \/>\nreiterated his plea as found in the affidavit filed in support of the writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. I have considered the submissions made by both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In my view, after hearing both sides, the first respondent came to the<br \/>\nprima facie conclusion that the possession of the land was with the third<br \/>\nrespondent. In any event, as fairly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for<br \/>\nthe third respondent that if the writ petitioner establishes her title before<br \/>\nthe competent civil Court, that could give her automatic right over the property<br \/>\nconcerned and she could have joint patta.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in<br \/>\nthe order of the first respondent and the writ petitioner is at liberty to<br \/>\napproach the competent civil Court to establish her title and whatever is stated<br \/>\nin the impugned order  could not come in the way of the decision of the civil<br \/>\nCourt in the title suit that can be filed by the writ petitioner. The writ<br \/>\npetition W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007 is disposed of in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In W.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008, it is true that a suit in O.S.No.81 of<br \/>\n1980 was filed in a representative capacity of one Muthiah Naicker  seeking<br \/>\ndeclaration that S.No.237 is &#8216;Manthai Poramboke&#8217; and also he sought for<br \/>\npermanent injunction restraining the authorities from proceeding with the<br \/>\nconstruction of a Godown. The suit was dismissed on 26.02.1986. Against which an<br \/>\nappeal was filed in A.S.No.84 of 1986 and the same was also disposed of on<br \/>\n24.02.1990 holding that the construction of godown was only to an extent of 5<br \/>\ncents and therefore, the villagers could have balance land for grazing purposes.<br \/>\nIn the afore-said suit proceedings, the third and fourth respondent in<br \/>\nW.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008 were not parties. Further more, the issue that arose in<br \/>\nthe suit was not relating to whether 10 cents of private land were also<br \/>\nclassified as &#8216;Manthai Poramboke&#8217;. In any event, it is made clear that the<br \/>\nvillagers concerned or Muthiah Naicker or any body else can agitate before the<br \/>\ncompetent Court disputing the title of property of 10 cents in S.No.237. In view<br \/>\nof the afore-said finding, the villagers concerned are given liberty to approach<br \/>\nthe competent civil Court to dispute the title of the third and fourth<br \/>\nrespondent in W.P.(MD).No.527 of 2008, if they are so advised. The writ petition<br \/>\nNo.527 of 2008 is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>jikr<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The District Revenue Officer,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Tahsildar,<br \/>\n  Sivagiri Taluk,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana &#8230; vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11\/04\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN Writ Petition (MD).No.10719 of 2007 &amp; Writ Petition (MD).No.527 of 2008 W.P.(MD).No.10719 of 2007 Smt.Avudaiparvathi alias Sugana Devi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue [&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-153452","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>Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana ... vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 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\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana ... vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-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=\"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-03T03:07:59+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\\\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana &#8230; vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T03:07:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1295,\"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\\\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana ... vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T03:07:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana &#8230; vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 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":"Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana ... vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 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\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana ... vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-03T03:07:59+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\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana &#8230; vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T03:07:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011"},"wordCount":1295,"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\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011","name":"Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana ... vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T03:07:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-avudaiparvathi-alias-sugana-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Avudaiparvathi Alias Sugana &#8230; vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 April, 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\/153452","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=153452"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153452\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}