{"id":166977,"date":"2008-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-04T14:22:25","modified_gmt":"2018-09-04T08:52:25","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nLA.App..No. 465 of 2005()\n\n\n1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. POKKATTU RAGHAVAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOBY CYRIAC\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :02\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                         PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.\n     ---------------------------------------------------------------------\n     LAA. Nos.465\/05, 467\/05, 647\/05, 659\/05, 660\/05 & 811\/05\n     ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n              Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      All these appeals filed by the requisitioning authority, the<\/p>\n
Managing Director, KSIDC, Trivandrum are directed against a common<\/p>\n
judgment of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Quilandy in land<\/p>\n
acquisition reference cases pertaining to acquisition in Kinaloor Village<\/p>\n
for the purpose of widening of the Kinalur – Vattoli Bazar Public Road<\/p>\n
leading to the Industrial Growth Centre established by the appellant.<\/p>\n
The relevant notification under section 4(1) was on 25-4-1999. The<\/p>\n
land acquisition officer had categorised the lands involved in all these<\/p>\n
appeals other than LAA. No. 465\/05 as garden lands and had fixed the<\/p>\n
land value at the rate of Rs.3034\/- per cent relying on document<\/p>\n
No.227\/96 dated 12-7-1996 of SRO Thamarassery. Similarly for wet<\/p>\n
lands the land acquisition officer had awarded land value at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.367\/- per cent relying on the document which is marked in the case<\/p>\n
as Ext.R7. These references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
Act were initiated at the instance of the land owner claimants who<\/p>\n
were dissatisfied with the awards passed by the L.A. Officer. The<\/p>\n
learned Subordinate Judge would consolidate LAR. Nos.16\/03, 17\/03,<\/p>\n
19\/03, 20\/03, 33\/03, 34\/03, 52\/03, 60\/03, 64\/03 and 65\/03 and try<\/p>\n
LAA.N0. 465\/05 etc.
\n                                   -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
them jointly. LAA. No. 811 pertains to LAR. No. 20\/03 while LAA.<\/p>\n
Nos.465\/05, 660\/05, 659\/05, 467\/05 and 647\/05 pertain respectively<\/p>\n
to LAR. Nos. 33\/03, 64\/03, 34\/03, 16\/03 and 65\/03. The evidence<\/p>\n
before the Reference Court consisted of Ext.A1 copy of Kanam<\/p>\n
assignment deed dated 9-12-1997 and Ext.A2 copy of Jenmam<\/p>\n
assignment deed dated 7-2-1989 and the oral testimony of AW-1<\/p>\n
claimant in one of the cases on the side of the claimants. On the side<\/p>\n
of the respondents it consisted of Exts.R1 to R8 and oral testimonies of<\/p>\n
RW-1 and RW-2. Apart from that, report of a commissioner who was<\/p>\n
deputed by the court for the purpose of inspecting the properties and<\/p>\n
making a comparative assessment of the acquired properties and the<\/p>\n
properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 was marked as Ext. X-1. The<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner in Ext.X-1 recommended that a value of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- per cent be fixed for the garden lands and a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.3000\/- per cent be fixed for wet lands which were acquired. Ext.A1<\/p>\n
pertains to sale of 6 cents of garden land at the rate of Rs.20,000\/-<\/p>\n
per cent. It came out in evidence that A1 property was situated just<\/p>\n
half a kilometre away from the acquired property. The Commissioner<\/p>\n
had recommended a value ofRs.15,000\/- per cent for the acquired<\/p>\n
property after deducting Rs.5000\/- for the extra commercial<\/p>\n
LAA.N0. 465\/05 etc.
\n                                  -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
advantages which A1 properties were enjoyed. As for Ext.A2 it was<\/p>\n
noticed in evidence that the property covered by Ext.A2 was situated<\/p>\n
at a distance of 1 kilometre from the acquired land and that it did not<\/p>\n
have any road access. It was also noticed that the acquired property<\/p>\n
did not have road access and it was relying on Ext.A2 that the<\/p>\n
commissioner had recommended Rs.3000\/- per cent for the wet land.<\/p>\n
The reference court however did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A1<\/p>\n
on the reason that the vendor in Ext.A1 was interested in the land<\/p>\n
acquisition cases since other property of that vendor was also acquired<\/p>\n
for the very same purpose. For that reason the court below concluded<\/p>\n
that the sale revealed by Ext.A1 cannot be treated as a sale by a<\/p>\n
genuine seller to a genuine purchaser for a genuine price. Court below<\/p>\n
did not accept Ext.A2 either for the reason that A2 property was<\/p>\n
having proximity to the stadium as well as to the main areas of the<\/p>\n
town. Ultimately what the court below did was to notice the time land<\/p>\n
between the date of 4(1) notification and the basis document Exts.R7<\/p>\n
and R8 and also to notice the absence of tarred road frontage for the<\/p>\n
above properties covered by Exts.R7 and R8 and to enhance the value<\/p>\n
for dry lands to Rs.6000\/- per cent and the value of the wet lands to<\/p>\n
Rs.1250\/- per cent. For doing so, the reference court added a sum of<\/p>\n
LAA.N0. 465\/05 etc.
\n                                  -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.1966\/- per cent to the value of dry lands for passage of time and<\/p>\n
added a further amount of Rs.1000\/- per cent for the road frontage<\/p>\n
which the acquired properties were enjoyed.         Similarly a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.383\/- per cent was added to the value of wet lands for passage of<\/p>\n
time and a further sum of Rs.5000\/- was added for the road frontage<\/p>\n
advantage which the acquired properties were enjoying.<\/p>\n
      I have heard the submissions of Sri.Joby Cyriac, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant, Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the cross<\/p>\n
objector respondent and Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned counsel for the appellant would support the decision<\/p>\n
of the learned Subordinate Judge to discard Exts.A1 and A2.<\/p>\n
According to him having discarded Exts.A1 and A2 there was no<\/p>\n
evidence on the basis of which enhancement should be granted and<\/p>\n
the present enhancement and the enhancement now granted is not<\/p>\n
founded on any legal evidence.          Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the cross objector would assail the findings of the learned<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge regarding the market value of the acquired<\/p>\n
properties at the relevant time.       According to him the learned<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge was not at all justified in discarding Exts.A1 and A2.<\/p>\n
LAA.N0. 465\/05 etc.
\n                                  -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.X-1 commissioner’s report which was a part of the record in the<\/p>\n
case should have been accepted and value of dry land should have<\/p>\n
been fixed at Rs.12,000\/- per cent and value of wet land should have<\/p>\n
been fixed similarly at Rs.3000\/- per cent. He would further submitted<\/p>\n
that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the acquired<\/p>\n
properties did not have any commercial importance and that the<\/p>\n
properties could be used only as residential plots was also<\/p>\n
unreasonable.     The learned Government Pleader would support the<\/p>\n
findings of the learned    Subordinate Judge and submitted that there<\/p>\n
is absolutely no warrant for any interference. In reply the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the requisitioning authority (appellant) would read over to<\/p>\n
me the evidence which had been given by the vendor in Ext.A1 who<\/p>\n
had been examined as a witness in another case. He submitted that it<\/p>\n
is crystal clear from that evidence that the vendor in Ext.A1 had<\/p>\n
accepted Ext.A1 document showing an inflated value with the intention<\/p>\n
of staking a claim for that value before the awarding officer when he<\/p>\n
himself is called by the awarding officer for the enquiry in connection<\/p>\n
with acquisition of his common property. A2 property was situated<\/p>\n
near to the town and had a close proximity to the stadium and<\/p>\n
therefore there was no comparability between Ext.A2 and the acquired<\/p>\n
LAA.N0. 465\/05 etc.
\n                                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
property and the wet lands among the acquired property.<\/p>\n
      I have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. I<\/p>\n
have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and I have<\/p>\n
scanned the evidence which was recorded by that court.<\/p>\n
      Exts.A1 and A2 were the principal item of evidence on the basis<\/p>\n
of which the claimant respondents claim enhanced land value. A1 was<\/p>\n
rejected by the reference court on the reason that the vendor in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 was a party interested in the land acquisition since his<\/p>\n
properties were also acquired in the same acquisition and the very<\/p>\n
execution of Ext.A1 is at a time when he has been put to notice<\/p>\n
regarding the acquisition of his own properties. The evidence given by<\/p>\n
the vendor in Ext.A1 in another case which was read over to me which<\/p>\n
is established the very hilt that the finding of the learned Subordinate<\/p>\n
Judge that an inflated price has been shown in Ext.A1 is a correct<\/p>\n
finding. More over, in this case I find that no endeavour has been<\/p>\n
made by the claimants to prove Ext.A1 property by examining anybody<\/p>\n
connected with the execution of that document despite the challenge<\/p>\n
made on Ext.A1 by the respondents. Similarly I am of the view that<\/p>\n
the finding of learned Subordinate Judge that there is no comparability<\/p>\n
between the wet lands covered by A2 and the wet lands involved in<\/p>\n
LAA.N0. 465\/05 etc.
\n                                   -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
these cases is also reasonable. A2 properties were situated closer to<\/p>\n
town and very near to stadium.         A2 documents also was never<\/p>\n
attempted to be proved by examining any of the parties to the same.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless I feel that the learned Subordinate Judge had erred in<\/p>\n
concluding that the dry lands involved in this acquisition did not have<\/p>\n
any commercial      potentiality and could have been used only as<\/p>\n
residential sites. It is admitted that all the dry lands involved in the<\/p>\n
acquisition were having direct frontage of the Kinalur – Vattoli Bazar<\/p>\n
Public Road. The learned Subordinate Judge’s conclusion that these<\/p>\n
properties did not have commercial potentiality is based on the report<\/p>\n
of the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.X-1 that as matters obtained now<\/p>\n
these properties did not have nearness to any commercial<\/p>\n
establishment or offices. While assessing the potentiality of a given<\/p>\n
property for commercial use the question to be considered is not<\/p>\n
whether the properties having nearness to the existing commercial<\/p>\n
establishments the question to be considered is whether in future<\/p>\n
these properties can be diverted or is likely to be diverted as<\/p>\n
commercial properties. In my opinion any property having direct<\/p>\n
frontage of a public road within a town or village will have some<\/p>\n
commercial potentiality at least in the sense that shops or like<\/p>\n
LAA.N0. 465\/05 etc.
\n                                    -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
establishments can be put up. Land value of dry lands have been<\/p>\n
enhanced toRs.6000\/- per cent taking into account passage of time<\/p>\n
and nearness to road frontage. If the learned Subordinate Judge had<\/p>\n
taken into the possibility of the lands put to commercial use at least to<\/p>\n
a certain extent then at least Rs.1500\/- per cent would have been<\/p>\n
added to the value presently fixed by the learned Judge for dry lands. I<\/p>\n
add that amount to the value fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge<\/p>\n
and re-fix the land value of dry lands\/garden lands involving the<\/p>\n
acquisition at Rs.7500\/- per cent. It is almost on the same reasoning<\/p>\n
that the learned    Subordinate Judge re-fixed value of wet lands at<\/p>\n
Rs.1250\/-. According to Ext.X-1 report the ratio between the values of<\/p>\n
dry lands and wet lands in the locality is Rs.15,000- : Rs.3000\/-.<\/p>\n
According to the learned Subordinate Judge, the same is Rs.6000\/- :<\/p>\n
Rs.1250\/-. Thus according to the advocate commissioner and the court<\/p>\n
the ratio of Rs.3034\/- : 367 between the value of dry lands and wet<\/p>\n
lands maintained by the land acquisition officer is not the correct ratio.<\/p>\n
I am also inclined to take the view that the reference court as well as<\/p>\n
the commissioner have come to a more correct decision as regards the<\/p>\n
ration between the two categories of properties in the locality. When it<\/p>\n
is found that the correct value of dry lands is Rs.7500\/- per cent the<\/p>\n
LAA.N0. 465\/05 etc.
\n                                  -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
value of wet lands in my opinion should be Rs.1600\/- per cent. Thus<\/p>\n
dismissing the appeals and allowing cross objections in part I re-fix the<\/p>\n
value of garden lands acquired in all these cases at Rs.7500\/- per cent<\/p>\n
and the value of wet lands at Rs.1600\/- per cent. The claimants will<\/p>\n
be entitled   for all statutory benefits admissible to them including<\/p>\n
solatium, the amount under section 23-A and interest under 28.       The<\/p>\n
parties are directed to suffer their costs in the appeal and the cross<\/p>\n
objections.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM LA.App..No. 465 of 2005() 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, … Respondent 2. POKKATTU RAGHAVAN, For Petitioner :SRI.JOBY CYRIAC For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008 - 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-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-04T08:52:25+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-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T08:52:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1979,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T08:52:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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 Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008 - 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-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-04T08:52:25+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-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T08:52:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008"},"wordCount":1979,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008","name":"The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T08:52:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-the-district-collector-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/166977","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=166977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166977\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}