{"id":204308,"date":"2010-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-24T05:40:58","modified_gmt":"2019-02-24T00:10:58","slug":"k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\n\nW.P.(MD)No.8336 of 2007\n&\nW.P.(MD)No.8337 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\n1.K.Parasuram Batta\n2.V.Seenivasaga Reddiar\n3.E.Subburam                            ... Petitioners in both W.Ps\n\nVs\n\n1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by the Secretary to Government,\n   Backward Classes Welfare Department,\n   Fort St. George,\n   Chennai.\n\n2.The Collector of Tuticorin District,\n   Tuticorin.\n\n3.The Special Thasildar (ADW)\n   Land Acquisition Department,\n   Tuticorin-1                             ... Respondents in both W.Ps.<\/pre>\n
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.8336 of 2007<\/p>\n
Writ Petition has been filed under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of
\nCertiorarified  Mandamus, to call for the records in G.O.(3D)No.20, Backward
\nClasses and most Backward Classes Welfare, dated 30.04.1997 issued under Section
\n6 of the Act and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.8337 of 2007<\/p>\n
Writ Petition has been filed under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of
\nCertiorarified  Mandamus,  to call for the records of the first respondent 4(I)
\npublication in G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 10.05.1989 Backward Classes and must
\nBackward Classes Welfare Department and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner    ... Mr.M.N.Padmanabhan\n                       Senior Advocate\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.D.Sasikumar\n                       Government Advocate\n\n\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n\tHeard both sides.\n\t\n<\/pre>\n
\t2.In both the writ petitions, the petitioners challenged the 4(1)
\nnotification, dated 10.05.1989 and section 6 declaration, dated 30.04.1997
\nissued under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.It is admitted that the lands in Survey Nos.177,178, 179\/1 and 179\/3
\nsituate at Sankara Peri Village, Tuticorin Taluk belonged originally to
\nS.Alagirisamy Naicker, S\/o.Sankarappa Naicker, Madurai, under a registered sale
\ndeed, dated 30.10.1987, document No.1530\/1987.  The said Alagirisamy Naicker
\nsold the aforesaid properties to one N.V.Srinivasan for valid consideration and
\never-since the sale, N.V.Srinivasan had been in possession and enjoyment of the
\nproperty.  It was also claimed that patta was also changed in the name of
\nN.V.Srinivasan on 08.12.1997.  Thereafter, in July 1989 N.V.Srinivasan
\napproached the Special Tasildhar, Land Acquisition, Tuticorin, to verify whether
\nthe lands are to be acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Special
\nTasildhar, Land Acquisition, Tuticorin, issued a certificate, dated 13.07.1989
\nthat the lands are not under the process of land acquisition for Housing Board.
\nThereafter, the said N.V.Srinivasan formed a lay out and sold various plots to
\nvarious persons and the petitioners have purchased 3 plots on different dates
\nfrom the said N.V.Srinivasan.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Meanwhile, the Government of Tamil Nadu had taken proceedings under the
\nLand Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the aforesaid lands for the purpose
\nof providing house sites to Washerman of Kandasamypuram, Sakthivinayagapuram,
\nPolanickenpettai and Selvanayagipuram in Tuticorin Town and issued
\nG.O.Ms.No.379, Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meals Programme and Social
\nWelfare, dated 20.04.1989  and the 4(1) notification was issued on 10.05.1989.
\nIt is admitted that in the 4(1) notification, the name of the original owner
\nAlagirisamy Naicker was found and the name of the purchaser, N.V.Srinivasan, who
\npurchased the property in the year 1987 was not mentioned in the said 4(1)
\nnotification.  Without knowing the acquisition process, the said N.V.Srinivasan
\nsold plots to various persons and the petitioners are the purchasers of some of
\nthe plots.  On coming to know of the acquisition proceedings in pursuance of
\n4(1) notification, dated 10.05.1989, N.V.Srinivasan appeared before the
\nAuthorities and informed that he was not given any notice and he purchased the
\nproperties and the 4(1) notification is also not valid as his name was not
\nmentioned in the 4(1) notification. He also objected to the acquisition of the
\nland and in the 5(A) enquiry conducted by the authorities, the Special
\nTasildhar, did not consider the objection of the said N.V.Srinivasan and the
\nGovernment issued section 6 declaration, dated 12.05.1990.  Therefore, the said
\nN.V.Srinivasan challenged the section 6 declaration by filing Writ Petition
\nNo.11653 of 1990 and that writ petition was allowed by this Court, by judgment,
\ndated 21.02.1992 and section 6 declaration was quashed.  Thereafter, proceedings
\nwere initiated and enquiry was conducted under section 5(A) and N.V.Srinivasan
\ndid not participate in the enquiry and finally, section 6 declaration was
\npublished on 30.04.1997.  This section 6 declaration, dated 30.04.1997 is
\nchallenged in W.P.(MD)No.8337 of 2007 and section 4(1) notification, dated
\n10.05.1989 is challenged in W.P.(MD)No.8336 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The respondents filed a common counter stating that as per the name
\nfound in the revenue records, the name of the owner, Alagirisamy Naicker was
\nmentioned in the 4(1) notification and the name of the subsequent purchaser,
\nN.V.Srinivasan was not entered in the revenue records when enquiries were
\nstarted and 4(1) notification was issued and therefore, there is no error in
\nissuing 4(1) notification mentioning the name of Alagirisamy Naicker and unless
\nthe subsequent purchaser’s name find a place in the revenue records, the
\nauthorities are not expected to know about the purchase by N.V.Srinivasan and
\ntherefore, section 4(1) notification was issued in accordance with law and it
\ncannot be quashed.  It is further stated that after 4(1) notification,
\nN.V.Srinivasan appeared through counsel and informed about his purchase and Form
\n3-A notice issued to him it could not be served on him and therefore, it was
\nserved by affixing the same in his land itself and 5(A) enquiry was conducted on
\n09.08.1989 and 31.08.1989 and section 6 declaration was made on 11.05.1990.  It
\nis further submitted that after section 6 declaration was quashed by this Court
\nin W.P.No.11653 of 1990, further proceedings were initiated and the 5(A) enquiry
\nwas conducted and notice was served on N.V.Srinivasan on 18.06.1992 and
\nN.V.Srinivasan filed O.S.No.235 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif
\nCourt,  Thoothukudi, for injunction, but no interim injunction was granted.
\nTherefore, 5-A enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent and after completing
\nthe enquiry, proceedings were initiated by the 3rd respondent, dated 19.06.1992
\nover-ruling the objection raised by the owner.  Thereafter, N.V.Srinivasan filed
\nW.P.No.11730 of 1992 challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, dated
\n19.06.1992 and the same was dismissed as premature.  Thereafter, the Government
\napproved the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in its
\nG.O.(3D)No.20, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare, dated
\n30.04.1997 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 02.05.1997.
\nThis G.O.(3D)No.20, was challenged by N.V.Srinivasan in W.P.(MD)No.8396 of 1997
\nand that was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.03.2006.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.It is further stated that section 6 declaration was published within the
\nstipulated time and in W.P.No.11653 of 1990, this Court while quashing section 6
\ndeclaration did not prescribe any time limit for the issuance of section 6
\ndeclaration after conducting 5-A enquiry and as no time limit is earmarked in
\nthe Court order, the declaration issued under section 6 of the Act, dated
\n30.04.1997 is well within time and cannot be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.It is submitted by Mr.M.N.Padmanabhan, the learned Senior Advocate,
\nappearing for the petitioners that having regard to the provision of section 4
\nand 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the time frame stipulated for the issuance of
\nsection 6 declaration notice is mandatory and when section 6 notification was
\nissued beyond the one year period from the date of publication of section 4(1)
\nnotification, it has to be quashed and in this case, admittedly, section 6
\ndeclaration was made on 11.05.1990 and it was beyond the period of one year from
\nsection 4(1) notification, dated 10.05.1989 and that was also quashed by this
\nCourt in W.P.No.11653 of 1990 and even assuming that the period during which the
\naforesaid writ petition was pending before this Court has to be excluded,
\nW.P.No.11653 of 1990 was allowed and section 6 declaration, dated 11.05.1990 was
\nquashed on 21.02.1992 and time begin to run from that date and section 6
\ndeclaration ought to have been made within one year from 21.02.1992, the date of
\njudgment of W.P.No.11653 of 1990 and admittedly, section 6 declaration was made
\nonly on 30.04.1997 and hence, it is beyond the period of one year and it is
\nliable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The learned Senior Advocate, Mr.M.N.Padmanabhan appearing for the
\npetitioners further submitted that as per proviso to Section 6 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, no declaration in respect of any of land covered by a
\nnotification under section 4(1) shall be made after the expiry of one year from
\nthe date of publication of the notification and in this case, admittedly, 4(1)
\nnotification was made on 10.05.1989 and section 6 declaration is now made only
\non 30.04.1997 and hence, it is beyond one year period and hence, it is liable to
\nquashed.  He further submitted that when the Act specifically provided that
\nsection 6 declaration has to be made within one year from the date of section
\n4(1) notification and when admittedly, section 6 declaration was made after the
\nexpiry of one year period, no proceedings can be initiated in pursuance to
\nsection 4(1) notification and therefore, section 6 declaration is also liable to
\nbe quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.He relied upon the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in
\n2002(3) SCC 533 in the matter of Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu,<\/a> which
\nwas followed in the judgment reported in 2009(9) SCC 92, in the case of Vijay
\nNarayan Thatte and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others<\/a>, in support of his
\ncontention and submitted that as section 6 declaration was passed after the
\nperiod of one year and therefore, no proceedings can be taken or initiated in
\npursuance to Section 4(1) notification and hence, 4(1) notification is also
\nliable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Mr.D.Sasikumar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
\nrespondents submitted that originally section 6 declaration was made in time and
\nwhen 4(1) notification was issued on 10.05.1989, as per the revenue records, the
\nname of Alagirisamy Naicker was mentioned in that notification and therefore,
\n4(1) notification was issued in accordance with law and while quashing section 6
\ndeclaration by  this Court, no time limit has been prescribed for the
\npublication of section 6 declaration and therefore, after conducting fresh
\nenquiry under section 5-A of the Act, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings,
\ndated 19.06.1992 and that was challenged by the owner, N.V.Srinivasan in
\nW.P.No.11730 of 1992 and that was disposed of on 18.08.1992 as premature and
\ntherefore, on 30.04.1997 section 6 declaration was issued and hence, it is valid
\nin law.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.He further submitted that N.V.Srinivasan challenged section 6
\ndeclaration by filing W.P.(MD)No.9380 of 1997 and that was dismissed for non-
\nprosecution on 17.03.2006 and the present writ petitions filed by the present
\npetitioners in the year 2007 challenging the 4(1) notification and section 6
\ndeclaration are also not maintainable and therefore, the petitions are to be
\ndismissed on the ground of latches and delay.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.In this case, the facts are admitted. The section 4(1) notification was
\nissued on 10.05.1989 and N.V.Srinivasan purchased the property on 30.08.1987 and
\nit is claimed that patta was also transferred in his name on 08.12.1987, but no
\nproof was filed by the petitioners that prior to 4(1) notification, patta was
\ntransferred in the name of N.V.Srinivasan.  It was only stated in the affidavit
\nthat patta was transferred in his name on 08.12.1987 and there is no specific
\ndenial by the respondents in their counter.  The respondents have stated that as
\non date of 4(1) notification, the name of the N.V.Srinivasan was not found in
\nthe revenue records and hence, his name was not included or mentioned in the
\n4(1) notification.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Further, section 6 declaration was made on 11.05.1990.  As per section
\n6 of the Land Acquisition Act, it has to be made within one year and  there is
\nno material available to show the last date of publication of section 4(1)
\nnotification and therefore, it cannot be stated that section 6 declaration
\nissued originally on 11.05.1990 was beyond the period of one year. However,
\nsection 6 declaration, dated 11.05.1990 was admittedly quashed by this Court in
\nW.P.No.11653 of 1990 on 21.02.1992.  Therefore, we will have to see whether the
\nsubsequent section 6 declaration was made within the period of one year from the
\ndate of 4(1) notification.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.Admittedly, section 6 declaration was made on 30.04.1997 and it is
\nbeyond the period of one year, even from the date of disposal of W.P.No.11653 of
\n1990.  Hence, it is beyond the period of one year and therefore, it is liable to
\nbe quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.The contention of Mr.D.Sasikumar, the learned Government Advocate
\nappearing for the respondents is that while quashing section 6 declaration by
\nthis Court, no time limit has been prescribed for issuing fresh declaration and
\ntherefore, after conducting 5-A enquiry, the 6 declaration was made on
\n30.04.1997 and hence, it cannot be stated that it was issued beyond the period
\nof one year. This was answered by the Constitution Bench of Honourable Supreme
\nCourt in the judgment reported in 2002(2) CTC 55, in the matter of Padmasundara
\nRao (Dead) & others vs. State of T.N. & others.  In that reported case, the
\ncontroversy that was resolved was whether after quashing the notification under
\nsection 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, fresh period of one year is available to
\nthe State Government to issue another notification under Section 6.  The
\nHonourable Supreme Court held that fresh period of one year is not available to
\nthe State Government for issuing section 6 declaration and even after quashing
\nsection 6 declaration, the subsequent declaration has to be made within one year
\nfrom the date of 4(1) notification.  This was made clear in the judgment of the
\nDivision Bench of this Honourable Court reported in 2006(3) MLJ 917 in the case
\nof Fathimabi and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu,<\/a> rep. by its Commissioner and
\nSecretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai and another.  In
\nthat judgment, his Lordship Justice Mr.P.Sathasivam as he then was, relied upon
\nthe Constitutional Bench judgment reported in 2002(3) SCC 533 = 2002(2)CTC 55 =
\n2002 SCC 1334 and held that the respondents are not permitted to proceed further
\nwith the existing 4(1) notification and if they so desire, they are free to
\nproceed afresh by issuing fresh 4(1) notification and in the recent judgment of
\nthe Supreme Court reported in 2009(9) SCC 92, in the case of Vijay Narayan
\nThatte and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others<\/a>, following the
\nConstitutional Bench of our Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in
\n2002(3) SCC 533, the Honourable Supreme Court in similar circumstances quashed
\nthe 6 declaration.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.Further, the contention of Mr.D.Sasikumar, the learned Government
\nAdvocate appearing for the respondents that no period has been prescribed, while
\nquashing the earlier section 6 declaration in W.P.No.11653 of 1990 and
\ntherefore, one year period need not be adhered to cannot be accepted. In the
\naforesaid Supreme Court judgments, all these aspects were also discussed and
\nheld that section 6 declaration has to be made within one year from the date of
\n4(1) notification and the Government cannot proceed further on the basis of 4(1)
\nnotification and if they so desire, they can issue fresh 4(1) notification for
\nthe same purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.For all the reasons and following the judgments of the Honourable
\nSupreme Court referred to above, section 6 declaration, dated 30.04.1990 is
\nquashed as it was made beyond the period of one year from section 4(1)
\nnotification and as result of quashing of 6 declaration, the Government cannot
\nproceed further in pursuance of section 4(1) notification and section 4(1)
\nnotification is also quashed. It is, however, open to the respondents to issue
\nfresh 4(1) notification, if they are keen in acquiring the lands by following
\ndue process of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed.  Consequently,
\nconnected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.8336 of 2007 & W.P.(MD)No.8337 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 1.K.Parasuram Batta 2.V.Seenivasaga Reddiar 3.E.Subburam … Petitioners […]<\/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-204308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 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\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-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=\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-24T00:10:58+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-24T00:10:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2462,\"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\\\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010\",\"name\":\"K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-24T00:10:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 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":"K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 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\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-24T00:10:58+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-24T00:10:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010"},"wordCount":2462,"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\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010","name":"K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-24T00:10:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-parasuram-batta-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Parasuram Batta vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 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\/204308","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=204308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204308\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}