{"id":192680,"date":"2010-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-03T08:03:05","modified_gmt":"2019-03-03T02:33:05","slug":"anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 471 of 2001(E)\n\n\n\n1. ANAGANADI PANCHAYAT\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. K. RAMDAS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :28\/05\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                        ------------------------\n                         A.S.No.471 Of 2001\n                         ----------------------\n               Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010.\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The first defendant in O.S.No.77 of 1994 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Sub Court, Ottappalam is the appellant. The suit was one for<\/p>\n
declaration, permanent injunction and for realisation of money.<\/p>\n
The court below decreed the suit in part declaring that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not liable to pay the amount as per Exts.A3 and A4<\/p>\n
demand notices. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction<\/p>\n
was also passed restraining the defendants from realising the<\/p>\n
amount from the plaintiff. The claim for Rs.3,000\/- put forward<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff is disallowed. Parties are hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
as the plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit.<\/p>\n
      2.    The plaintiff was the convenor of a committee<\/p>\n
constituted by the local people to undertake public works under<\/p>\n
the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana Scheme.                The 1st defendant<\/p>\n
Panchayath allotted two works to the committee constituted by<\/p>\n
the people; Ananganadi-Cherampattakavu road and Vattar-<\/p>\n
Kallittamkuruchi road. Estimate for the first work was Rs.4 Lakhs<\/p>\n
and Rs.1.5 Lakhs for the second work. An amount of Rs.2 Lakhs<\/p>\n
A.S.No.471 Of 2001<\/p>\n
                                ::2::\n<\/p>\n
was advanced by the first defendant for the first work. It is the<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s case that he had completed the work of metalling and<\/p>\n
construction of the road. The plaintiff thereafter applied to the<\/p>\n
Panchayath for supply of 21 tonnes of tar for black topping the<\/p>\n
road.    The plaintiff further contended that the first defendant<\/p>\n
failed to supply the tar and hence work could not be completed.<\/p>\n
According to him the second work was completed.         It is the<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s case that he had spend Rs.3,000\/- excess amount for<\/p>\n
completion of the first work. Plaintiff further contended that the<\/p>\n
Panchayath did not claim any amount towards loss assessed by<\/p>\n
it, but, demanded Rs.56,741.17\/- towards the alleged loss<\/p>\n
sustained owing to the non-tarring of the first work on the basis<\/p>\n
of the loss assessed by the Vigilance Director. According to him,<\/p>\n
Panchayath initiated recovery proceedings on the basis of the<\/p>\n
directions issued by the Project Officer, DRDA, Palakkad to<\/p>\n
recover that amount from the plaintiff without enquiry and notice.<\/p>\n
      3.    The appellant contended that the plaintiff did not<\/p>\n
complete the work as per the agreement and failed to do the<\/p>\n
black topping of the road which consequently disturbed the top<\/p>\n
layer metal spread and caused considerable damage to the entire<\/p>\n
A.S.No.471 Of 2001<\/p>\n
                                 ::3::\n<\/p>\n
structure of the Ananganadi-Cherampattakavu road.                 The<\/p>\n
Panchayath maintained the stand that the damage was caused<\/p>\n
only due to the negligence of the plaintiff. The Panchayath also<\/p>\n
denied the allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff had given a<\/p>\n
letter requesting for supply of tar which was not complied with by<\/p>\n
the Panchayath. The Panchayath denied the issuance of such a<\/p>\n
letter and according to the Panchayath, it was the duty of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff to get necessary tar and if the plaintiff could not procure<\/p>\n
the tar in time he is responsible for the non-completion of the<\/p>\n
work.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Since   the  top    layer  metalling    was   completely<\/p>\n
damaged, the matter was enquired into by the Vigilance Director<\/p>\n
and it was found that there is inaction and negligence on the<\/p>\n
part of the plaintiff. Panchayath maintained the stand that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was present throughout the enquiry and further pleaded<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff had to pay Rs.220\/- to the Panchayath, which<\/p>\n
was received in excess by him. The appellant submitted before<\/p>\n
this Court that the application filed by the appellant to call for the<\/p>\n
records pertaining to the Vigilance Enquiry was dismissed by the<\/p>\n
trial court without sufficient reasons. The appellant is aggrieved<\/p>\n
A.S.No.471 Of 2001<\/p>\n
                                 ::4::\n<\/p>\n
by the decree passed by the court and according to the appellant<\/p>\n
the decree was passed without considering the legal questions<\/p>\n
properly.\n<\/p>\n
     5.     Learned counsel for the appellant\/1st defendant also<\/p>\n
referred to the relevant clause in the agreement which according<\/p>\n
to him, it is the duty of the plaintiff to apply tar by procuring the<\/p>\n
required quantity of tar. The learned counsel for the appellant\/1st<\/p>\n
defendant submitted that the plaintiff failed to produce any<\/p>\n
document to convince the court that he had at any point of time<\/p>\n
demanded tar from the Panchayath. From the facts and evidence<\/p>\n
adduced by the parties, it is seen that the plaintiff had taken no<\/p>\n
steps to prove that it is the duty on the defendant to supply tar.<\/p>\n
Even the agreement was not seen produced.             The trial court<\/p>\n
examined the question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to<\/p>\n
get a declaration with respect to the claim put forward by him.<\/p>\n
According to the appellant, there is no basis for the contention of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff that the defendant had not issued any notice nor any<\/p>\n
opportunity was afforded to him to substantiate his contentions<\/p>\n
during the Vigilance Enquiry and that he was not aware of such<\/p>\n
enquiry and therefore the amount assessed by the Vigilance is<\/p>\n
A.S.No.471 Of 2001<\/p>\n
                                ::5::\n<\/p>\n
without following the principles of natural justice and he is not<\/p>\n
liable to pay the amount.     Learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
pointed out that the plaintiff failed to prove that no notice was<\/p>\n
issued to him nor he was given an opportunity o substantiate his<\/p>\n
contentions during enquiry.    On the other hand the appellant<\/p>\n
contended that the plaintiff participated in the enquiry and he<\/p>\n
was given sufficient opportunity to substantiate his case. It is<\/p>\n
also contented by the appellant that there is no basis for the<\/p>\n
contention    that the   black    topping  of   the    Ananganadi-<\/p>\n
Cherampattakavu road could not be completed due to non-supply<\/p>\n
of the required tar by the first defendant Panchayath. I have<\/p>\n
stated the contention of the appellant regarding the stand taken<\/p>\n
by the Panchayath with respect to the alleged non-supply of tar.<\/p>\n
From the materials on records it can be seen that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
failed to substantiate his case that he submitted an application<\/p>\n
before the Panchayath for supply of required quantity of tar and<\/p>\n
in spite of repeated request Panchayath failed to supply the<\/p>\n
required tar and therefore he could not complete the black<\/p>\n
topping of the road. According to the appellant there is no basis<\/p>\n
for the submission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to adduce<\/p>\n
A.S.No.471 Of 2001<\/p>\n
                                  ::6::\n<\/p>\n
any evidence to prove that it is for the Panchayath to procure tar<\/p>\n
for the purpose of black topping. The trial court also wrongly<\/p>\n
placed onus of proof on the defendant to prove that there is<\/p>\n
latches and inaction of the part of the plaintiff in completing the<\/p>\n
construction of the said road. It is for the plaintiff to prove that<\/p>\n
the first defendant is duty bound to supply requisite quantity of<\/p>\n
tar and the work could not be completed due to non-supply of tar<\/p>\n
by the Panchayath etc. The court below also simply believed the<\/p>\n
case of the plaintiff that no notice was issued to him and no<\/p>\n
opportunity was afforded to him to substantiate his case during<\/p>\n
vigilance enquiry.     In fact, plaintiff failed to prove that no<\/p>\n
opportunity was afforded to him to substantiate his contentions<\/p>\n
during the enquiry proceedings. It is a fact that the plaintiff did<\/p>\n
not complete the work in accordance with the terms and<\/p>\n
conditions and therefore the Panchayath had to rearrange the<\/p>\n
work and as a result, Panchayath had suffered loss. If the work<\/p>\n
was not completed by the plaintiff in time and to due to his own<\/p>\n
default, the plaintiff will be liable to compensate the Panchayath<\/p>\n
to the extent of loss sustained due to rearrangement of work. In<\/p>\n
the aforesaid facts and circumstances granting of a decree, in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.471 Of 2001<\/p>\n
                                ::7::\n<\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiff cannot be upheld by this Court. The matter<\/p>\n
requires reconsideration at the hand of the trial court.<\/p>\n
     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The matter is<\/p>\n
remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The<\/p>\n
court below shall try and dispose of the suit within a period of six<\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n
Since the plaintiff\/respondent did not appear before this Court,<\/p>\n
notice shall be issued to the parties. There will be no order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                     Judge.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 471 of 2001(E) 1. ANAGANADI PANCHAYAT … Petitioner Vs 1. K. RAMDAS … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :28\/05\/2010 O R D E R […]<\/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-192680","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010 - 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\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-03T02:33:05+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-03T02:33:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1364,\"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\\\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-03T02:33:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 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":"Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010 - 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\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-03T02:33:05+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-03T02:33:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010"},"wordCount":1364,"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\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010","name":"Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-03T02:33:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anaganadi-panchayat-vs-k-ramdas-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anaganadi Panchayat vs K. Ramdas on 28 May, 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\/192680","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=192680"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192680\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192680"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192680"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}