{"id":181027,"date":"2010-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-22T01:25:46","modified_gmt":"2015-05-21T19:55:46","slug":"a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 19\/01\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\nW.P(MD)No.13733 of 2009\n\nA.Subramanian\t\t\t\t        ..    Petitioner\n\nvs\n\n1. The Revenue Divisional Officer\n    Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District\n\n2. The Tahsidar\n    Rajapalayam\n    Virudhunagar District\t\t        ..    Respondents\n\n\tPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the\nissue of a Writ of  Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd\nrespondent in Proceedings No.Nee.Mu.(A3)\/3893\/01 dated 7.1.2008 and quash the\nsame and consequently direct the respondents to hold a proper enquiry in\naccordance with alw and to issue community certificate to the petitioner as\nHindu Malaikuravar Scheduled Tribe.\n\n!For Petitioner  ...  \tMr.S.Silambanan\n\t\t\tSenior Counsel for\n\t\t\tM\/s Profexs Associates\n^For Respondents ...  \tMr.D.Sasikumar\n\t                Government Advocate\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>D.MURUGESAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe writ petition relates to the challenge to the order of the Revenue<br \/>\nDivisional Officer, Sivakasi in refusing to issue the community certificate to<br \/>\nthe petitioner certifying himself to belong to Malaikuravar community, which is<br \/>\nnotified to be a Scheduled Tribe.  According to the petitioner, he belongs to<br \/>\nMalaikuravar community and the said community people originally resided in the<br \/>\nhilly areas of southern part of Tamil Nadu, which were popularly known as<br \/>\n&#8216;Kurunelu lands&#8217; during the Pandya Kings&#8217; rule.  The community had the<br \/>\noccupation of hunting, basket making out of bamboos, collecting and selling<br \/>\nhoney and palm reading.  As the hilly tribes are socially and educationally<br \/>\nbackward and their numeric is small, they used to migrate from one place to<br \/>\nanother and presently most of them are residing in places like Rajapalayam,<br \/>\nPuliangudi, Tenkasi, Kadayanallur, Sivagiri, Senkottai, Srivilliputhur, etc.<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The petitioner applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi for<br \/>\nthe grant of community certificate in the year 1999. That request was rejected<br \/>\nby the Sub Collector, Sivakasi in his proceedings dated 22.2.2000.  Questioning<br \/>\nthe same, he filed W.P.No.8069 of 2001 before this Court and this Court by order<br \/>\ndated 9.4.2007 set aside the order of the Sub Collector, Sivakasi and directed<br \/>\nthe authorities to reconsider the matter by taking into account the relevant<br \/>\naspects after giving further opportunity to the petitioner. By the impugned<br \/>\nproceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi has once again rejected<br \/>\nthe request of the petitioner for issuance of community certificate on the<br \/>\nground that sufficient materials were not produced by the petitioner for<br \/>\nissuance of such certificate.  Questioning the same, the present writ petition<br \/>\nis filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. We have heard Mr.S.Silambanan, learned senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioner and Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. In our opinion, the writ petition cannot be entertained, as the<br \/>\npetitioner has got an effective alternative remedy by way of  preferring appeal<br \/>\nto the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which was constituted as per the<br \/>\ndirections of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional<br \/>\nCommissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241.  The<br \/>\nfollowing are the relevant directions of the Apex Court issued to streamline the<br \/>\nprocedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their<br \/>\napproval:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the<br \/>\nRevenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and<br \/>\nthe certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer,<br \/>\nTaluk or Mandal level.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an<br \/>\naffidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-<br \/>\ngazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal<br \/>\ncommunity, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which<br \/>\nhe originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the<br \/>\nDirectorate concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny<br \/>\nCommittee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission<br \/>\ninto educational institution or an appointment to a post.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers,<br \/>\nnamely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer high-er in rank of<br \/>\nthe Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social<br \/>\nWelfare\/Tribal Welfare\/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in<br \/>\nthe case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the<br \/>\nverification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the<br \/>\nScheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying<br \/>\nthe tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal<br \/>\ncommunities.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior<br \/>\nDeputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police<br \/>\nInspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go<br \/>\nto the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate<br \/>\nhails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place<br \/>\nfrom which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally<br \/>\nverify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate<br \/>\nor the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school<br \/>\nrecords, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian<br \/>\nor the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have<br \/>\nknowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the<br \/>\nDirectorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in<br \/>\nparticular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological<br \/>\nand ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death<br \/>\nceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or<br \/>\ntribal communities concerned etc.<\/p>\n<p>6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer<br \/>\nif he found the claim for social status to be &#8220;not genuine&#8221; or &#8216;doubtful&#8217; or<br \/>\nspurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue<br \/>\nshow-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the<br \/>\ncandidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of<br \/>\nthe educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or<br \/>\nemployed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any,<br \/>\nwould be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in<br \/>\nno case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the<br \/>\nnotice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an<br \/>\ninquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such<br \/>\nrepresentation\/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint\/Additional<br \/>\nSecretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the<br \/>\ncandidate\/parent\/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A<br \/>\npublic notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in<br \/>\nthe village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim,<br \/>\nan opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him\/it. After giving such<br \/>\nopportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such<br \/>\ninquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-.-vis the objections<br \/>\nraised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief<br \/>\nreasons in support thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and<br \/>\ntrue, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars<br \/>\ngiven are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the<br \/>\nlatter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents\/guardian also<br \/>\nin case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in<br \/>\nhis or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by<br \/>\nday-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after<br \/>\ninquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious,<br \/>\nthey should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the<br \/>\nsame. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of<br \/>\nthe proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent\/guardian and the applicant.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the<br \/>\nlast date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an<br \/>\nofficer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or<br \/>\nsuch other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the<br \/>\nsocial status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the<br \/>\nparent\/guardian\/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such<br \/>\nadmission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of<br \/>\nthe inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject<br \/>\nto the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible<br \/>\nwithin a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ<br \/>\npetition\/miscellaneous petition\/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no<br \/>\nfurther appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to<br \/>\nspecial leave under Article 136.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be<br \/>\nfalse, the parent\/guardian\/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false<br \/>\nclaim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it<br \/>\ncould be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for<br \/>\nelective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local<br \/>\nbody, legislature or Parliament.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that<br \/>\nthe certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation<br \/>\nsimultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution<br \/>\nconcerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement<br \/>\ndue with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal<br \/>\netc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the<br \/>\nappointing authority, should cancel the admission\/appointment without any<br \/>\nfurther notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or<br \/>\ncontinue in office in a post.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The above directions of the Apex Court relate both to the issuance of fresh<br \/>\ncommunity certificates and the verification of the genuineness of the<br \/>\ncertificates issued already.  As far as the issuance of fresh community<br \/>\ncertificates is concerned, directions 1 &amp; 2 are referable, where the Apex Court<br \/>\nhas directed that the applications shall be made to the Revenue Divisional<br \/>\nOfficers who are competent to issue such certificates and the parent, guardian<br \/>\nor the candidate, as the case may be, shall also file an affidavit duly sworn<br \/>\nand attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with<br \/>\nparticulars of castes, sub-castes etc., for consideration.  The other directions<br \/>\nrelate to the genuineness of the community certificates. From those directions,<br \/>\nwe can only come to the conclusion that even when the applications for issuance<br \/>\nof community certificates are rejected, the aggrieved person can prefer appeal<br \/>\nto the Committee constituted to verify the genuineness of the community<br \/>\ncertificates and such Committee would be certainly entitled to entertain such an<br \/>\nappeal and decide the same on its own merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. In this context, we may also refer to the subsequent directions issued by the<br \/>\nApex Court. On an application filed before the Apex Court to recall the judgment<br \/>\ngiving various directions and to substitute in their place certain other<br \/>\ndirections, the Apex Court had observed in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v.<br \/>\nAdditional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others, (1997) 5 SCC 437<br \/>\nthat &#8220;in case any certificate has been wrongfully refused by the certificate<br \/>\nissuing authority, the aforesaid Committees also would go into the question and<br \/>\ndecide in that behalf, whether refusal was wrongful and in case it finds that<br \/>\nthe refusal was wrongful, they are at liberty to direct the authority to grant<br \/>\nthe certificate.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7. In view of the above, as against the order impugned in this writ petition,<br \/>\nthe petitioner has got an effective remedy of appeal before the State Level<br \/>\nScrutiny Committee.  Hence the writ petition cannot be entertained.  That apart,<br \/>\nthe petitioner would be in a better position to place all factual matters before<br \/>\nthe State Level Scrutiny Committee for its appreciation, as the High Court may<br \/>\nnot have jurisdiction to decide the disputed questions in exercise of the power<br \/>\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  Hence the writ petition is<br \/>\ndismissed. The petitioner is given six weeks from today to file the appeal.<br \/>\nConsequently, M.P.(MD) Nos.1 &amp; 2 of 2009 are also dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>ss<br \/>\nTo<\/p>\n<p>1. The Revenue Divisional Officer<br \/>\n    Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District<\/p>\n<p>2. The Tahsidar<br \/>\n    Rajapalayam<br \/>\n    Virudhunagar District<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19\/01\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P(MD)No.13733 of 2009 A.Subramanian .. Petitioner vs 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District 2. The Tahsidar Rajapalayam Virudhunagar District .. [&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-181027","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>A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010 - 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\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-21T19:55:46+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-21T19:55:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2026,\"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\\\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010\",\"name\":\"A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-21T19:55:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010 - 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\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-21T19:55:46+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-21T19:55:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010"},"wordCount":2026,"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\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010","name":"A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-21T19:55:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/181027","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=181027"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181027\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181027"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181027"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181027"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}