{"id":194832,"date":"2009-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-24T18:51:04","modified_gmt":"2017-12-24T13:21:04","slug":"umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:   17\/09\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM\n\nWrit Petition No.5476 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007\n\nUmamakheswari\t\t\t\t... \tPetitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Secretary to Government,\n  Housing & Urban Development,\n  Fort St., George,\n  Chennai - 600 009.\n\n2.The Assistant Secretary,\n  Tamil Nadu Housing Board,\n  Nandanam,\n  Chennai - 600 035.\n\n3.The Executive Engineer,\n  & Administrative Officer,\n  Thanajavur Housing Unit (TNHB)\n  New Housing Unit Colony,\n  Thanjavur - 5.\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for\nthe issuance of  writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the\n3rd respondent in and by his proceedings in Lr.No.R5\/5930\/1994, dated 25.10.2006\nand consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in and by his proceeding in\nLr.No.Allot 2(5)\/58958\/2006, dated 26.02.2007 and quash the same and\nconsequently, direct the respondents not to demand any amount from the\npetitioner for executing the sale deed.\n\n!For Petitioner        \t   ... Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan\n^For Respondents 2 and 3   ... Mr.A.Kannan\nFor 1st Respondent         ... Mr.Pala.Ramasamy,\n\t\t\t       Special Government Pleader.\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tBy consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a Writ of
\nCertiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the third respondent, dated
\n26.02.2007 calling upon the petitioner to pay the final cost of Rs.1,96,956\/- in
\nrespect of the HIG house to the petitioner and consequently, direct the
\nrespondents not to continue any amount from the petitioner in executing the sale
\ndeed in her favour.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for allotment of
\nHIG house at the Thanjavur Neighbourhood Scheme promoted by the Tamil Nadu
\nHousing Board. The allotment was made in favour of the petitioner pursuant to a
\nGovernment Order in G.O.Ms.2(D)No.248, Housing and Urban Development Department,
\ndated 07.06.1994. Based on the said Government order, a letter of allotment was
\nissued on 28.07.1994 by the third respondent, allotting the house under hire
\npurchase scheme. The total area of the plot is 1 ground and 1163 sq.ft and the
\ncost of house including the tentative cost of the land was fixed at
\nRs.3,20,004\/-. The petitioner was directed to pay an initial deposit of
\nRs.1,36,904\/- and the remaining amount was payable in 14 years in monthly
\ninstallments of Rs.2716\/- along with maintenance charges  of Rs.60\/- totaling
\nRs.2,776\/-.  As per the sketch appended to the order of allotment, the linear
\nmeasurements were given for the total extent of one ground and 1163 sq.ft i.e.,
\n3563 sq.ft.  According to the  petitioner, she has paid initial deposit and has
\nbeen regularly paying monthly instalments without any default.  During 1999, the
\npetitioner has paid the entire tentative cost fixed in the order of allotment
\nand subsequently, on 07.08.2005, the third respondent also issued no due
\ncertificate for payment of the tentative cost.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.It is further submitted that on 06.12.2005, the third respondent
\ndirected the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs.1,489\/- towards outstanding
\ndue  which was also paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent by
\nletter dated 18.09.2006, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,29,300\/-
\ntowards the difference of land cost after fixing the final cost of the land and
\nthe petitioner was granted time till 30.09.2006 to enable her to get the sale
\ndeed registered. By subsequent letter dated 25.10.2006, the third respondent
\nstated that the difference of cost is Rs.2,11,400\/- and directed the petitioner
\nto pay the amount on or before 30.10.2006.  Since there was difference in the
\namount mentioned in the letters dated 18.09.2006 and 25.10.2006, the petitioner
\nrequested the third respondent to send the working sheet and as to how the
\ndifference in cost was fixed. On receipt of the working sheet, the petitioner
\ncame to know that the difference of amount  taken up by the third respondent was
\nnot on the final cost but for the cost for the difference in the land area
\nallotted to the petitioner and towards interest. In the working sheet it was
\nmentioned that the land cost was calculated by taking into consideration the
\nstandard extent of 2800 sq.ft. When the actual extent is  3563 sq.ft. and hence
\nthere was a difference of 752 Sq.ft. for which additional land cost was fixed at
\nRs.66,776\/- and the 10% of the land cost for the corner plot was fixed at
\nRs.11,510\/- totalling a sum of Rs.79,236\/- and the interest of Rs.1,33,201\/- was
\nlevied. On receipt of the working sheet, the petitioner is said to have
\napproached the third respondent and informed that she was allotted only 3563
\nSq.ft  for which the tentative cost was fixed at Rs.3,20,004\/- and it was not
\nmentioned that it was for 2800 sq.ft and even assuming that there is excess of
\nland and the petitioner contended that she is not liable to pay the interest of
\nRs.1,33,200\/-. A representation has also been sent to the second respondent on
\n21.11.2006 informing about the discrepancy.  On receipt of the said
\nrepresentation, the second respondent demanded Rs.1,96,956\/- to enable the
\npetitioner to get the sale deed executed and registered. The petitioner would
\nfurther state that the points raised in the representation were not considered
\nand an order has been passed mechanically.  Therefore, the petitioner would
\nchallenge the impugned order on the above grounds and also primarily contend
\nthat it is without jurisdiction and in violations of the principles of the
\nnatural justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.It is further submitted by the petitioner that the respondents ought to
\nhave considered that from the year 1994, the petitioner was directed to pay the
\ninstallments only for the extent of 3563 Sq.ft and without any notice to the
\npetitioner, the respondents cannot now say that the amount was demanded for only
\n2800 Sq.ft. It is further submitted that no enquiry was conducted prior to
\npassing of the said order.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending
\nthat the tentative cost of Rs.3,20,000\/- is not for the entire land but it is
\nonly for the standard size plot i.e., 2800 sq.ft only.  The Thanjavur
\nNeighbourhood Scheme was  developed under a phased manner and the houses were
\nconstructed in phases I to VI. The house No.797, is situated in phase No.IV, was
\nallotted in favour of the petitioner under the Government discretionary quota.
\nThe said plot is having a total plinth area of 3563 Sq.ft. During July 1994, the
\ntentative cost was determined on the standard size plot of 2800 sq.ft without
\nfixing the extra amount 10% for corner plot and additional amount for extra land
\ncost.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.It is further submitted by the respondent that as per G.O.Ms.No.1666,
\ndated 16.12.1988, whenever the houses are allotted under Government
\ndiscretionary quota the capitalization should be made for initial deposit and
\nmonthly instalments. In terms of the said order, the cost of capitalized and
\nallotment order was issued to the petitioner on 28.07.1994. It is further
\nsubmitted that no due certificate issued on 07.08.2005 is with a condition that
\nthe allottee to pay the amount, if the Audit Branch announced any amount left
\nout in her favour.  It is further submitted that the final cost of the scheme
\nfor Phase I to VI finalized by the Board, by proceedings dated 14.08.2006 and
\nfor the allotment made under Phase IV, the cost has been fixed for the land at
\nRs.55,000\/- per ground as on 31.12.1993.  Hence, before the final cost was fixed
\nfor the land the Board had issued demand letter on 06.12.2005 to remit a sum of
\nRs.1,489\/- as outstanding balance on the tentative cost.  After finalization of
\nthe final cost, the demand letter was issued on 18.09.2006.  Since it was some
\ncalculation error another demand letter was issued 25.10.2006 demanding
\nRs.2,11,400\/-. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no error in the said
\ncalculation. It is further submitted that when the petitioner has admitted to
\npay the amount for the extra land cost for the corner plot, she is also bound to
\npay the interest as per the rules and regulations of the Board. It is further
\nsubmitted that until the sale deed is issued for the land, the Board is entitled
\nto claim the additional cost.  Based on the above pleadings, learned counsel for
\nthe respondent Board prayed for dismissal of the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Heard Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
\nMr.Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent
\nand Mr.A.Kannan for the respondents 2 and 3 and perused the entire materials
\navailable on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the contentions
\nraised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would draw the
\nattention of this Court to the sketch appended to the order of allotment and
\nsubmit that it has been clearly mentioned that the extent of property is 1
\nground  and 1163 sq.ft and the sketch also gave a linear measurements of the
\nplot. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent Board cannot now demand
\nadditional cost on the ground that the plot is a corner plot and therefore, the
\noriginal tentative cost was calculated on standard size plot 2800 sq.ft and they
\nare not entitled to additional amount.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Learned counsel would further submit that by the various demands issued
\non different dates as mentioned above, it is not clear as to how the Board had
\narrived at the said figure and this confusion itself is sufficient to set aside
\nthe demand.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Learned counsel would further contend by relying upon the various
\nconditions in the lease cum sale agreement and state that absolutely no
\njustification for the respondent Board and would state that there is no
\ncondition in the lease cum sale agreement for a demand of such additional cost
\nand more particularly, the interest.  Learned counsel for the petitioner would
\nfurther submit that the petitioner had given a detailed representation on
\n21.11.2006 wherein after disputing the correctness of the calculation of the
\npetitioner, the second respondent directed the petitioner to pay the additional
\namount for the extra land to the extent of 752 sq.ft. However, learned counsel
\nwould submit that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the
\nrespondent Board in demanding interest.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Learned counsel would also place reliance on the decision of this Court
\nin A.Saravanan   Vs.   The Executive Engineer cum Administrative Officer and
\nothers reported in 2007 (5) CTC 340 and contend that for capitalisation of
\ninterest charges were not covered by agreement, advertisement, prospectus or
\nallotment orders and therefore, capitalisation of interest would not come within
\nthe purview of clause in agreement which enabled fixation of final price at it
\ncontemplated only final compensation and cost of construction and not
\ncapitalization  of interest.  On the above grounds, the learned counsel would
\nsubmit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the cost for the
\nadditional extent of land but demand for interest has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.It is seen from the orders of allotment dated 28.07.1994 that the cost
\nof the houses including the tentative cost of the land fixed at Rs.3,20,004\/-.
\nIt is further stated in the order of allotment, the final price of the land due
\nto the increase, cost of development charges, provision of amenities etc., will
\nbe determined only after all suits filed for determination of land cost has been
\ndisposed of and after all the land amenities, development charges etc., are
\nfinalised. This increase or difference in cost, if any should be paid by the
\nallottee on demand. It is further stated that the balance cost of the house
\ninclusive of the tentative cost of the land with interest at 15.75% per annum
\nshould be paid in monthly instalments within a period of 14 years at the rate of
\nRs.2,716\/- per annum and the provisional monthly maintenance charges is Rs.60\/-
\nin totalling Rs.2,776\/- and  penal interest shall be charged for belated payment
\nat 18.75% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In the sketch given to the petitioner, as noted above, the extent of
\nthe property has been mentioned as 1 ground and 1163 sq.ft with linear
\nmeasurements of 63 feet north to south on the eastern side 70 feet north to
\nsouth on the western side, 44 feet east to west on the northern side and 51 feet
\n6 inches east to west on the southern side together with a splay of 10 feet in
\nthe north eastern corner. This sketch has been signed by the third respondent,
\nHead surveyor, Thanjavur Housing Unit and  Surveyor, Thanjavur Housing Unit.
\nTherefore, it is to be noted that at the time of allotment, the extent which was
\nallotted to the the petitioner was 1 one ground and 1163 sq.ft. and it cannot be
\nnow state by the Board that the cost has been arrived at based on the standard
\nsize of the plot namely, 2800 sq.ft. In any event, the respondent Board now
\npleads that it is a mistake. If that be the case, such a wrong order or wrong
\nfixation shall not be allowed to stand and a party cannot be allowed to get an
\nunintended benefit on account of wrong committed by a statutory authority. This
\nerror is liable for correction and the petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine of
\npromissory estoppel. It is to be noted that the petitioner has also agreed that
\nshe is ready and willing to pay the additional land cost for the land to the
\nextent of 752 sq.ft.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The only issue to be considered is as to whether the petitioner could
\nbe called upon to remit the interest especially in the facts and circumstances
\nof the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Learned Standing counsel for the respondents Board would submit that in
\nterms of the conditions in the agreement, the Board is entitled to demand
\ninterest. Learned standing counsel would place reliance upon Clause 32 of the
\nLease cum Sale Agreement stating that in all matters, the decision of the third
\nrespondent, in the instant case final and binding.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.After perusing the entire materials on record as well as the after
\ngoing through the pleadings and hearing the arguments, I am of the view that the
\nstand adopted by the respondent Board is wholly unsustainable. It is true that
\nunder the terms and conditions of the Board, interest is contemplated for the
\npayment of installments and penal interest is contemplated in the event of
\ndefault. This peculiar contingency which has arisen in this case is not covered
\nunder any of the conditions in the agreement. In such circumstances, the
\nrespondent Board cannot contend that the orders passed by them are final in
\nterms of Clause 32 of the Lease cum Sale Agreement. The mutual rights and
\nobligations between the allottees and Housing Board is pursuant to  a contract
\nwhich is under the allotment order and Lease cum Sale Agreement. Therefore any
\nof the obligations on the parties to the contract has to be traced only to the
\nconditions of allotment and the respondent Board cannot rely upon any other
\ninstructions.  Clauses 14 and 32 cannot automatically give a right to the
\nrespondent Board for the purpose of demanding interest.  The interest in the
\npresent case is penal in nature in the sense it is an additional burden to the
\npetitioner for no default committed by the petitioner.  Admittedly, there is no
\ndefault in the payment of instalments as per the original schedule of payment.
\nIt is only much after the payment, the Board had now resorted to demand this
\nadditional amount stating that the extent has not been properly mentioned.  If
\nthat be the case, the said amount for the additional extent would become payable
\non the date when such a demand is raised. In fact, the petitioner has also
\nagreed to pay the said amount. Therefore, the question of computing the interest
\nfor the cost of the additional extent of 752 sq.ft.   does not arise and the
\nrespondent Board cannot demand interest.  Hence, the writ petition is allowed.
\nThe impugned order is quashed and the petitioner is directed to pay the
\nadditional amount of land cost to the extent of 752 sq.ft and the sale deed
\nshall be executed and registered in favour of the petitioner without demanding
\nany interest on the additional land cost payable for the extent of 752 sq.ft. No
\ncosts. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Sms<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary to Government,
\n  Housing & Urban Development,
\n  Fort St., George,
\n  Chennai – 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Assistant Secretary,
\n  Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
\n  Nandanam,
\n  Chennai – 600 035.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Executive Engineer,
\n  & Administrative Officer,
\n  Thanajavur Housing Unit (TNHB)
\n  New Housing Unit Colony,
\n  Thanjavur – 5.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17\/09\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.5476 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007 Umamakheswari … Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development, Fort St., George, Chennai – 600 […]<\/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-194832","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUmamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009 - 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\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-24T13:21:04+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-24T13:21:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2574,\"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\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-24T13:21:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009 - 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\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-24T13:21:04+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-24T13:21:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009"},"wordCount":2574,"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\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009","name":"Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-24T13:21:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umamakheswari-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Umamakheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/194832","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=194832"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194832\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194832"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194832"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194832"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}