{"id":171509,"date":"2002-06-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-06-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002"},"modified":"2016-07-15T09:40:52","modified_gmt":"2016-07-15T04:10:52","slug":"ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED : 07\/06\/2002  \n\nCORAM :  \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR            \n\nWrit Petition No.359 OF 1996 AND Writ Petition No. 360 OF 1996  \n\n\nM\/s.Aruppukkottai Nadars \nUravinmurai Podhu Abiviruthi\nTrust, rep.by its President\nMr.M.Sudhahar.                          ..      Petitioner in both W.Ps.\n\n\n                                        -Vs-\n\n1.The Commissioner  \n  Aruppukkottai Municipality\n  Aruppukkottai.\n\n2.The Director of Town and\n  Country Planning\n  No.807, Anna Salai,\n  Madras-2.                             ..      Respondents in both W.Ps.\n\n\n        Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying\nfor the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner         :       Mr.S.S.Sundar\nFor Respondents        :       No appearance \u2013 for R1\n                                Mrs.T.Kokilavani \u2013 for R2\n                                Spl.Govt.Pleader\n\n                        * * * * *\n\n: O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>         This  judgment  shall  dispose  of  two  writ  petitions   namely<br \/>\n      W.P.No.359 of  1996 and W.P.No.360 of 1996.  The first writ petition<br \/>\n      is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling upon  the  quashing<br \/>\n      of   the   order  passed  by  the  first  respondent,  Commissioner,<br \/>\n      Aruppukkottai Municipality dated 7.11.1995.    By  that  order,  the<br \/>\n      permission to construct over T.S.Nos.28,29,42 and 43 was rejected on<br \/>\n      the  ground  that  those  lands  were  part of the scheme and in the<br \/>\n      scheme a road was said to be passing from those lands.\n<\/p>\n<p>         2.  The second Writ Petition No.  360 of 1996 is  well  connected<br \/>\n      with  the  first  writ  petition inasmuch as the relief asked for is<br \/>\n      quashing  of  the  order  Vide  Na.Ka.No.46451\/94,  DP  1(1)   dated<br \/>\n      16.8.1995,  passed  by  the  second respondent, Director of Town and<br \/>\n      Country Planning.  By that order, concerned officer had  refused  to<br \/>\n      delete these  above  mentioned  lands from the scheme.  It therefore<br \/>\n      follows that the petitioner, who wanted to  develop  the  lands  and<br \/>\n      construct   something   over   them,   required  the  permission  of<br \/>\n      Aruppukkottai Municipality.  However, since  these  lands  were  the<br \/>\n      part  of  the  scheme under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning<br \/>\n      Act, 1971, the Municipality refused the permission to construct and,<br \/>\n      therefore, the petitioner approached the Town  Planning  authorities<br \/>\n      to  get  these  lands deleted from the scheme, so that the hurdle of<\/p>\n<p>      the scheme was removed from his  way  for  making  constructions  on<br \/>\n      those lands.    Following factual background will help us understand<br \/>\n      the controversy.\n<\/p>\n<p>         3.  It is an admitted position that the petitioner  holds  pattas<br \/>\n      in respect   of   the  lands  in  question.    Though  in  1961  the<br \/>\n      Municipality opposed to grant pattas, the petitioner was granted the<br \/>\n      pattas in the year  1962  and  those  pattas  were  granted  by  the<br \/>\n      settlement officer  under  Act 26 of 1948.  Thereafter, in 1971, the<br \/>\n      Director, Town and Country Planning sanctioned a plan by  way  of  a<br \/>\n      scheme,  wherein  T.S.Nos.28,29,4 2 and 43 were shown to be required<br \/>\n      for public roads.  However, it  is  an  admitted  position  that  in<br \/>\n      pursuance  of  the scheme this land was never acquired either by the<br \/>\n      Municipality or by the  Government.    The  petitioner  applied  for<br \/>\n      permission to   construct,  which  application  was  granted.    The<br \/>\n      petitioner also received a letter dated 15.11.1994 to pay a  sum  of<br \/>\n      Rs.2,500\/- towards  plan  variation fee.  However, subsequently this<br \/>\n      permission  came  to  be  revoked  by  order  dated  16.8.1995  Vide<br \/>\n      Na.Ka.No.46451\/94, DP  1(1).  The petitioner, therefore, again filed<br \/>\n      an application for permission to put up construction.  On the  other<br \/>\n      side, the petitioner also applied for deletion of the lands from the<br \/>\n      scheme.   So, while the application before the Municipal Council was<br \/>\n      pending, the second respondent i.e., the Director, Town and  Country<br \/>\n      Planning  rejected  the application for deletion of these lands from<br \/>\n      the scheme.  Consequently, the application for construction made  to<br \/>\n      the Municipality was also rejected vide order dated 7.11.1995.  That<br \/>\n      was rejected on two grounds, firstly that the constructions were not<br \/>\n      in  keeping  with  the building rules as the petitioner had not left<br \/>\n      open space as per Rule  14(1)  and  secondly  that  the  lands  were<br \/>\n      included in the scheme.  It is against all this that the present two<br \/>\n      writ petitions came to be filed as stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>         4.    The  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  Mr.Sundar  has<br \/>\n      restricted his arguments mainly to Sections 37 and 38 of  the  Tamil<br \/>\n      Nadu  Town and Country Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the<br \/>\n      Act&#8217;).  The learned counsel points out that there can  be  no  doubt<br \/>\n      that this  was  a privately owned land.  He points out that the land<br \/>\n      is  well  covered  by  patta,  which  stands  in  the  name  of  the<br \/>\n      petitioner.  He then points out that for implementing the scheme, it<br \/>\n      was  necessary for the authorities to acquire the land under Section\n<\/p>\n<p>      37.  He points out that nothing of the sort was done  under  Section<br \/>\n      37  either  by  the  Municipality  or  by  the  Government after the<br \/>\n      publication of the development plan.  He then invites the  attention<br \/>\n      to Section 38, which is to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;Section 38:- If within three years from the date of the publication<br \/>\n      of the notice of Section 27 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (a)  no  declaration as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 37 is<br \/>\n      published in respect of any land reserved,  allotted  or  designated<br \/>\n      for  any purpose specified in a regional plan, master plan, detailed<br \/>\n      development plan or new town development plan covered  such  notice;<br \/>\n      or<\/p>\n<p>      (b)  such  land  is  not  acquired  by agreement, such land shall be<br \/>\n      deemed  to  be  released  from   such   reservation   allotment   or<br \/>\n      designation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>         5.   Very  heavily  relying  on  Section  38, the learned Counsel<br \/>\n      pointed out that since there was no declaration made in  respect  of<br \/>\n      any  land  covered  by a notice under section 26 or 27, within three<br \/>\n      years from the date of such notice  as  contemplated  under  Section<br \/>\n      37(2) and since the land was also not acquired by private agreement,<br \/>\n      the land is deemed to be released from the reservation, allotment or<br \/>\n      designation.   The  learned  counsel  points  out that notices under<br \/>\n      Sections 26 and 27 were published somewhere in the year 1971.   That<br \/>\n      position is  not  disputed by the Government Pleader.  He points out<br \/>\n      that since no effective steps were taken under Section 37 and  since<br \/>\n      the  land  just  remained  as  it was, the necessary consequences of<br \/>\n      Section 38 must follow.  Now, there can be no doubt that  after  the<br \/>\n      publication  of  the notices under Section 26 and 27, there arises a<br \/>\n      power to purchase or acquire the land specified in  the  development<br \/>\n      plan in  favour  of  the planning authority.  In this case, the said<br \/>\n      planning authority  would  be  the  Municipality.    Section   37(2)<br \/>\n      specifically  provides  that where the land concerned is required as<br \/>\n      per the development plan for  the  public  purpose,  an  application<br \/>\n      shall  be  made  suggesting  therein  that  the land is required for<br \/>\n      public purpose.  On that, a declaration in the nature of  Section  6<br \/>\n      of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  is published and the time limit for<br \/>\n      making such declaration is three years.    It  is  also  clear  from<br \/>\n      Section  37(3)  that  after  the publication of the declaration, the<br \/>\n      acquisition proceedings are taken by the Collector and the  land  is<br \/>\n      finally acquired.    Section  38  is  extremely  clear that where no<br \/>\n      declaration under Section 37 is made in respect of any land reserved<br \/>\n      for the development plan for three years or where the  land  is  not<br \/>\n      acquired  by  the  private  agreement,  the  land  is  deemed  to be<br \/>\n      released.  Therefore, the learned counsel is right in his contention<br \/>\n      that the land is deemed to have released  and  to  that  extent  the<br \/>\n      order  refusing  to  delete the lands from the scheme, passed by the<br \/>\n      second respondent is clearly incorrect.\n<\/p>\n<p>         6.  If this is so, then that objection by the  Municipal  Council<br \/>\n      for  refusing  to  grant the permission to construct would obviously<br \/>\n      not stand and the order refusing the permission to  that  extent  is<br \/>\n      clearly incorrect.  When we see the order passed by the Municipality<br \/>\n      refusing permission, it is seen that it is passed on two grounds and<br \/>\n      the  second  ground  is  that  the  land  is  a  part of the scheme.<br \/>\n      However, there is one more difficulty in the way of  the  petitioner<br \/>\n      by  way of the first ground, wherein the Municipal Council says that<br \/>\n      the plan is not in keeping with the rules.  Ordinarily, there  would<br \/>\n      be  no  question  of  interfering with the Municipal Council&#8217;s order<br \/>\n      insofar as the first ground is concerned.  That  will  be  upto  the<br \/>\n      Municipality  to  consider  and  it  will be up to the petitioner to<br \/>\n      remedy the defects shown by way of the first ground.  Till such time<br \/>\n      as the petitioner is not able to remedy the  defects  shown  in  the<br \/>\n      first  ground, there would be no question of issuing the permission.<br \/>\n      Therefore, though the order  is  incorrect  insofar  as  the  second<br \/>\n      ground  is  concerned,  that  does  not  solve the difficulty of the<br \/>\n      petitioner.   However,  the  petitioner  may  still   approach   the<br \/>\n      Municipal  Council  with  a  fresh  application  for  permission, if<br \/>\n      necessary, by remedying the defects.  However, it  is  obvious  that<br \/>\n      the lands stand released from the scheme by the operation of Section\n<\/p>\n<p>      38.<\/p>\n<p>         7.   The  learned  Government  Pleader  says  that if the land is<br \/>\n      permitted to be utilised by  raising  constructions  thereupon,  the<br \/>\n      public will  suffer  immensely.    In fact, the administrator of the<br \/>\n      Municipal Council was also present during  the  debate  before  this<br \/>\n      Court and he also reiterated that the Municipal Council has passed a<br \/>\n      resolution to acquire  this land.  That may be so.  The Municipality<br \/>\n      cannot be allowed to wait for years together to acquire the land  if<br \/>\n      they really  require  the  land  for public purpose.  The Government<br \/>\n      Pleader says that there are plans  to  acquire  this  land  and  the<br \/>\n      Government  would  be  taking  steps  to acquire the land under Land<br \/>\n      Acquisition Act.  They are at liberty to do so, but that too  cannot<br \/>\n      wait indefinitely for years together as has happened in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>         8.   Therefore,  the  writ petitions are disposed of by declaring<br \/>\n      that the  order  passed  by  the  Municipal  Council  rejecting  the<br \/>\n      permission  is  incorrect insofar as the second ground is concerned.<br \/>\n      As also, the order passed by the second respondent,  Director,  Town<br \/>\n      and Country  Planning  is  incorrect  deleting the scheme.  With the<br \/>\n      result, the lands automatically stand released from the  scheme  and<br \/>\n      the  petitioner  would  be  in  a  position  to apply afresh for the<br \/>\n      permission by remedying the defects shown in the first order of  the<br \/>\n      Municipality.   If  the  application  for permission to construct is<br \/>\n      made by the petitioner, such application shall be dealt with  within<br \/>\n      six months  thereof as per the Rules.  The Government as well as the<br \/>\n      Municipal Council are also at liberty to start the  proceedings  for<br \/>\n      acquisition on  these  lands.  While considering the application for<br \/>\n      permission to construct,  the  Municipal  Council  shall  take  into<br \/>\n      account any such acquisition proceedings if then pending.\n<\/p>\n<p>         9.  With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                         07.06.2002<\/p>\n<p>      kst.\n<\/p>\n<p>      To:  1.The Commissioner, Aruppukkottai Municipality Aruppukkottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.The  Director  of  Town  and  Country Planning No.807, Anna Salai,<br \/>\n      Madras-2.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                       V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                     ==================<\/p>\n<p>                                                  W.P.Nos.359 and 360   of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                         1996<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                                 7.6.2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07\/06\/2002 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR Writ Petition No.359 OF 1996 AND Writ Petition No. 360 OF 1996 M\/s.Aruppukkottai Nadars Uravinmurai Podhu Abiviruthi Trust, rep.by its President Mr.M.Sudhahar. .. Petitioner in both [&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-171509","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>M\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002 - 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\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-15T04:10:52+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\\\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-15T04:10:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1648,\"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\\\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-15T04:10:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 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":"M\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002 - 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\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-15T04:10:52+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\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002","datePublished":"2002-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-15T04:10:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002"},"wordCount":1648,"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\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002","name":"M\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-15T04:10:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-aruppukkottai-nadars-vs-the-commissioner-on-7-june-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Aruppukkottai Nadars vs The Commissioner on 7 June, 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\/171509","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=171509"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171509\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171509"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171509"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}