{"id":16104,"date":"2002-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002"},"modified":"2017-02-26T15:52:01","modified_gmt":"2017-02-26T10:22:01","slug":"p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 20\/08\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN\n\nWrit Petition No.33411 of 2002\n\n\nP. Joseph Prabu                                        ..      Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Estate Officer\n   C\/o. Defence Estate Office\n   Madras Circle\n   No.306, Anna Salai\n   Teynampet, Chennai \u2013 600 018.\n\n2. The Chief Executive Officer\n   Cantonement Board\n   St.Thomas Mount cum Pallavaram\n   Madras - 600 018.                            ..      Respondents\n\n        Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for  a\nwrit of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :       Mr.  Dulip Singh\n                        For M\/s.  King & Patridge\n\nFor Respondents :       ----\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        Aggrieved by the  notice dated 5.8.2002 vide Ref.  No.  EO\/N\/4\/PVM\/GC&
\nSt388\/121&122\/7mc issued under Section 5-A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction
\nof Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the  “Act”),
\nrequiring  the  petitioner  to showcause personally on 22.8.2002 at 1130 hours
\nwhy the unauthorised construction put up  by  the  petitioner  in  the  public
\npremises  should  not be removed, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to
\ncall for the entire records relating to the notice dated 5.8.2002 and to quash
\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  According to Mr.  Dulip Singh, learned counsel appearing  for  the
\npetitioner,  the  petitioner  has  not been heard before passing of the notice
\ndated 5.8.2002 under Section 5-A(2) of the Act, proposing  to  remove  alleged
\nunauthorised   constitution   in   the  public  premises;  and  when  the  Act
\ncontemplates the issue of notice to show cause against the order  of  eviction
\nunder Section 4 of the Act and to give an opportunity to the petitioner before
\npassing  an  order under Section 5 of the Act, which is admittedly appealable,
\nthe respondents ought not to have hastened to pass the  impugned  order  under
\nSection 5-A(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  In my considered opinion, the object of the procedure contemplated
\nunder  Section  4  and  5  of  the  Act  is quite different from the procedure
\ncontemplated under Section 5-A, 5-B and 5-C of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  In this regard, I am obliged to extract Sections 4,  5,  5-A,  5-B
\nand 5-C of the Act, which reads as under.\n<\/p>\n
Section 4:\n<\/p>\n
Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.-\n<\/p>\n
        (1)  If  the  estate  officer  is  of  opinion that any persons are in
\nunauthorised occupation of  any  public  premises  and  that  they  should  be
\nevicted,  the  estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a
\nnotice in writing calling upon all persons concerned  to  show  cause  why  an
\norder of eviction should not be made.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)     The notice shall –\n<\/p>\n
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made;
\nand\n<\/p>\n
(b) require all the persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or
\nmay be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises, –\n<\/p>\n
(i)  to  show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date
\nas is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven  days  from
\nthe date of issue thereof; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)to  appear  before  the estate officer on the date specified in the notice
\nalong with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of  the  cause
\nshown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.\n<\/p>\n
        (3)  The  estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having
\nit affixed on the outer door or some other  conspicuous  part  of  the  public
\npremises  and  in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice
\nshall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned.\n<\/p>\n
Section 5:\n<\/p>\n
Eviction of unauthorised occupants.-\n<\/p>\n
        (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by  any  person  in
\npursuance  of  a  notice  under  Section 4 and any evidence produced by him in
\nsupport of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under clause (b)
\nof sub-section (2) of Section 4, the estate  officer  is  satisfied  that  the
\npublic premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may make an
\norder  of  eviction,  for  reasons  to be recorded therein, directing that the
\npublic premises shall be vacated, on such date as  may  be  specified  in  the
\norder,  by  all  persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof,
\nand cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door  or  some  other
\nconspicuous part of the public premises.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)  If  any  person  refuses  or  fails  to  comply with the order of
\neviction on or before the date specified in the said order or  within  fifteen
\ndays of the date of its publication under sub-section (1), whichever is later,
\nthe  estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer
\nin this behalf may after the date so specified or  after  the  expiry  of  the
\nperiod  aforesaid,  whichever  is  later,  evict  that  person  from, and take
\npossession of the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as
\nmay be necessary.\n<\/p>\n
Section 5-A:\n<\/p>\n
Power to remove unauthorised constructions, etc.-
\n(1) No person shall\n<\/p>\n
(a) erect or place or raise any building or any movable or immovable structure
\nor fixture,\n<\/p>\n
(b) display or spread any goods,\n<\/p>\n
(c) bring or keep any cattle or other animal,
\non, or against, or in front of, any public premises except in accordance  with
\nthe  authority  (whether  by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under
\nwhich he was allowed to occupy such premises.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) Where any building or other immovable  structure  or  fixture  has
\nbeen  erected, placed or raised on any public premises in contravention of the
\nprovisions of sub-section (1), the estate officer may serve  upon  the  person
\nerecting  such  building or other structure or fixture, a notice requiring him
\neither to remove, or to show cause why he shall not remove  such  building  or
\nother  structure  or  fixture from the public premises within such period, not
\nbeing less than seven days, as he may  specify  in  the  notice;  and  on  the
\nomission  or  refusal  of  such person either to show cause, or to remove such
\nbuilding or other structure or fixture from the public premises, or where  the
\ncause  shown  is  not,  in  the opinion of the estate officer, sufficient, the
\nestate officer may, by order, remove or cause to be removed  the  building  or
\nother  structure  or  fixture from the public premises and recover the cost of
\nsuch removal from the person aforesaid as an arrear of land revenue.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) Where any movable structure or fixture has been erected, placed or
\nraised, or any goods have been displayed or spread, or  any  cattle  or  other
\nanimal  has  been brought to be kept, on any public premises, in contravention
\nof the provisions of sub-s on 91) by any person, the estate  officer  may,  by
\norder,  remove or cause to be removed without notice, such structure, fixture,
\ngoods, cattle or other animal, as the case may be, from  the  public  premises
\nand  recover  the  cost  of such removal from such person as an arrear of land
\nrevenue.\n<\/p>\n
Section 5-B:\n<\/p>\n
Order of demolition of unauthorised construction.-\n<\/p>\n
        (1) Where the erection of any building or execution of  any  work  has
\nbeen  commenced,  or is being carried on, or has been completed, on any public
\npremises by any  person  in  occupation  of  such  public  premises  under  an
\nauthority  (whether  by  way of grant or any other mode of transfer), and such
\nerection of building or execution of work  is  in  contravention  of,  or  not
\nauthorised  by,  such  authority, then, the estate officer may, in addition to
\nany other action that may be taken under this Act or in  accordance  with  the
\nterms  of  authority  aforesaid,  make  an  order,  for reasons to be recorded
\ntherein, directing that such erection of  work  shall  be  demolished  by  the
\nperson  at whose instance the erection or work has been commenced, or is being
\ncarried on, or has been completed, within such period, as may be specified  in
\nthe order:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be made unless the
\nperson  concerned  has been given, by means of a notice of not less than seven
\ndays served in the prescribed manner,  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  showing
\ncause why such order should not be made.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)  Where  the  erection  or  work has not been completed, the estate
\nofficer may, by the same order or by a separate order,  whether  made  at  the
\ntime of the issue of the notice under the proviso to sub-section (1) or at any
\nother  time, direct the person at whose instance the erection or work has been
\ncommenced, or is being carried on, to stop the  erection  or  work  until  the
\nexpiry  of  the period within which an appeal against the order of demolition,
\nif made, may be preferred under Section 9.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) The estate officer shall cause every order made  under  subsection\n<\/p>\n
91), or, as the case may be, under sub-section (2), to be affixed on the outer
\ndoor or some other conspicuous part, of the public premises.\n<\/p>\n
        (4) Where no appeal has been preferred against the order of demolition
\nmade  by  the  estate  officer  under  sub-section  (1)  or  where an order of
\ndemolition made  by  the  estate  officer  under  that  sub-section  has  been
\nconfirmed  on  appeal,  whether with our without variation, the person against
\nwhom the order has been made shall comply with the  order  within  the  period
\nspecified therein, or, as the case may be, within the period, if any, fixed by
\nthe  appellate  officer on appeal, and, on the failure of the person to comply
\nwith the order within such period, the estate officer  or  any  other  officer
\nduly  authorised  by the estate officer in this behalf, may cause the erection
\nor work to which the order relates to be demolished.\n<\/p>\n
        (5) Where an erection or work has been demolished, the estate  officer
\nmay,  by  order,  require  the  person  concerned  to pay the expenses of such
\ndemolition within such time, and in such number  of  instalments,  as  may  be
\nspecified in the order.\n<\/p>\n
Section 5-C:\n<\/p>\n
Power to seal unauthorised constructions.-\n<\/p>\n
        (1)  It shall be lawful for the estate officer, at any time, before or
\nafter making an order of demolition  under  Section  5-B,  to  make  an  order
\ndirecting  the  sealing  of such erection or work or of the public premises in
\nwhich such erection or work has been commenced or is being carried on  or  has
\nbeen  completed  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed, for the purpose of
\ncarrying out the provisions of this Act, or for preventing any dispute  as  to
\nthe nature and extent of such erection or work.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)  Where  any erection or work or any premises in which any erection
\nor work is being carried on has, or have been sealed, the estate officer  may,
\nfor  the  purpose  of demolishing such erection or work in accordance with the
\nprovisions of this Act, order such seal to be removed.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) No person shall remove such seal except-\n<\/p>\n
        (a) under an order made by the estate officer   under subsection  (2);
\nor\n<\/p>\n
        (b) under an order of the appellate officer     made   in   an  appeal
\nunder this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
        5.  While Section 4 and 5 of the Act deals with the  procedure  to  be
\nadopted  while  ordering  eviction  of  unauthorised occupants from the public
\npremises, Section 5-A, 5-B and 5-C of the Act deals with  removal,  demolition
\nand power to seal unauthorised construction put up in the public premises.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   A  bare reading of the above Sections makes it clear that whether
\nthe respondents do or do not propose to evict the petitioner under Sections  4
\nand 5 of the Act, the respondents are entitled to invoke Sections 5-A, 5-B and
\n5-C  of  the Act to remove, demolish or seal the unauthorised construction put
\nup by the petitioner in the public  premises.    Therefore,  pendency  of  the
\nproceedings  contemplated  under  Sections  4 and 5 of the Act, in the instant
\ncase, will not, in any way, be  an  impediment  to  invoke  proceedings  under
\nSection 5-A, 5-B and 5-C of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   That  apart,  I  am  unable  to  appreciate the contention of the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been heard  nor
\ngiven  an opportunity, before passing of the notice dated 5.8.200 2, proposing
\nto remove  the  unauthorised  construction.    No  doubt,  by   the   impugned
\nproceedings, the  respondents also proposed to remove the building.  But, both
\nthe clauses in the impugned notice has to be read  together,  viz.    to  show
\ncause  personally  on  22.8.2002  at  1130  hours why the alleged unauthorised
\nconstruction should not be removed and if he fails to show cause  against  the
\nproposed removal of unauthorised construction, then only the respondents would
\ntake action  to  remove the alleged unauthorised construction.  If that be so,
\nthe petitioner, by the impugned proceedings, cannot complain that he has  been
\ndeprived  of  putting  his  case to the respondents, since the impugned notice
\ndated 5.8.2002 itself provides an opportunity to the petitioner to show  cause
\npersonally  on  22.8.2002  at  1130  hours  as to why the alleged unauthorised
\nconstruction put up by him should not be removed on or  before  the  mentioned
\ndate.  It is left open to the petitioner to avail the opportunity given in the
\nnotice dated  5.8.2002  or not.  Therefore, the contention that the petitioner
\nhas been deprived of an opportunity to submit his  case  before  ordering  for
\nremoval of unauthorised construction cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   Hence,  except  to  permit  the petitioner to submit his detailed
\nexplanation or objection as the case may be, against the proposed  removal  of
\nalleged  unauthorised  construction  in  the public premises and to direct the
\nrespondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being  heard  in  that
\nregard,  before  passing  appropriate  orders, pursuant to the impugned notice
\ndated 5.8.2002 and to give reasonable time of one month to the  petitioner  to
\nwork  out  his  further  course  of  remedy  against  the  proposed removal of
\nunauthorised construction and till  then  to  restrain  the  respondents  from
\nremoving the alleged unauthorised construction, no further order is required.\n<\/p>\n
        The writ  petition  is dismissed with the above directions.  No costs.
\nConsequently, WPMP No.49506 of 2002 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
20.8.2002.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Estate Officer
\nC\/o.  Defence Estate Office
\nMadras Circle
\nNo.306, Anna Salai
\nTeynampet, Chennai \u2013 600 018.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Chief Executive Officer
\nCantonement Board
\nSt.Thomas Mount cum Pallavaram
\nChennai – 600 018.\n<\/p>\n
Kpl<\/p>\n
P.D.  DINAKARAN, J.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20\/08\/2002 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN Writ Petition No.33411 of 2002 P. Joseph Prabu .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Estate Officer C\/o. Defence Estate Office Madras Circle No.306, Anna Salai Teynampet, […]<\/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-16104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002 - 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\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-26T10:22:01+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=\"12 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-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-26T10:22:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2250,\"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-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002\",\"name\":\"P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-26T10:22:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@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. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002 - 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\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-26T10:22:01+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-26T10:22:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002"},"wordCount":2250,"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-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002","name":"P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-26T10:22:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-joseph-prabu-vs-the-estate-officer-on-20-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P. Joseph Prabu vs The Estate Officer on 20 August, 2002"}]},{"@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\/16104","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=16104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}