{"id":207323,"date":"2006-12-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006"},"modified":"2018-04-11T09:10:38","modified_gmt":"2018-04-11T03:40:38","slug":"sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 25808 of 2006(V)\n\n\n1. SULEKHA BEEVI, W\/O.KHAHAR MEERA RAWTHER,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. KHADHAR MEERA RAWTHER,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACCHERRY.\n\n3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, CHENGANACHERRY.\n\n4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHANGANACHERRY.\n\n5. THE CHANGANACHERY MUNCIPALITY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SIBY MATHEW\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :20\/12\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                                     S. Siri Jagan,  J.\n\n                      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n\n                    W.P (C). Nos. 25808 & 28788  of 2006\n\n                      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n\n                     Dated this, the 20th December,  2006.\n\n\n                                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       Petitioners   in   W.P(C)   No.   25808\/2006   approached   this   Court<\/p>\n
seeking the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “i)     To   issue   a   writ   of   mandamus   or   any   other   appropriate<\/p>\n
              writ, order of direction to first  respondent directing  him  to<\/p>\n
              dispose   of   Ext.   P5   petition   in   accordance   with   law     and<\/p>\n
              within  a specified  period  of  time, that  may  be  fixed  by  this<\/p>\n
              Hon’ble Court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
              ii)     to   declare   that   the   illegal   acts   took   place   in   the<\/p>\n
              residential   property   of   petitioners   in   the   presence   of   3rd<\/p>\n
              respondent   with   the   support   of   5th  respondent   as   revealed<\/p>\n
              from  Ext.   P4 series   are   highly  illegal,   arbitrary,   unjust   and<\/p>\n
              without the authority of law.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2.     I   am   inclined   to   dismiss   this   writ   petition   with   exemplary<\/p>\n
costs since I am  of the opinion that the petitioners did not approach<\/p>\n
this Court   with clean hands and tried to mislead this Court     by not<\/p>\n
stating   the   entire   facts   of   the   case   and   without   impleading   the<\/p>\n
necessary parties.  The facts relating to the case are as follows.<\/p>\n
       3.    In  the  writ   petition,  the  1st  petitioner  stated  that  she  is   the<\/p>\n
owner of 19 cents of land comprised in  re-survey no. 7 in Block 173 of<\/p>\n
Changanacherry   village   as   per   sale   deed   no.   535\/71   of<\/p>\n
Changanacherry  Sub Registrar’s Office.  2nd petitioner is the husband<\/p>\n
of   the   1st  petitioner.     One   Muhammed   Kani   @   Mammu,   an   adjacent<\/p>\n
property   owner   of   the   petitioners,   filed   a   complaint   before   the<\/p>\n
authorities   under   the   Kerala   Land   Conservancy   Act   (for   short   ‘the<\/p>\n
Act’)   complaining   that   on   the   northern   boundary   of   the   petitioners’<\/p>\n
property, he has encroached into Government land and  constructed a<\/p>\n
compound   wall   enclosing   a   public   road.       The   authorities   under   the<\/p>\n
Act   took   up   the   matter   as   L.C.   No.   1\/1993,   against     which   the<\/p>\n
petitioners   filed   O.S.No.   119\/1993   before   the   Munsiff’s   Court,<\/p>\n
Changannacherry.     Against   another   neighbour,   namely,   one   Abdul<\/p>\n
W.P.C. Nos. 25808 & 28788\/2006          -:  2  :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Azeez   also,   proceedings     were   initiated   under   the   Act,   which   was<\/p>\n
taken up as L.C. No. 2\/1993.   The petitioners, together with the said<\/p>\n
Abdul   Azeez,   filed   O.S.No.   127\/94   before   the   Munsiff’s   Court,<\/p>\n
Changanacherry   and   obtained   interim   relief.     Finally,   both   the   suits<\/p>\n
O.S.Nos. 119\/93 and 127\/94,  were dismissed by  judgment dated 30-<\/p>\n
1-1999.     Appeals   preferred   against   those   original   suits,   namely,<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos. 37  & 38  of 1999  before the District Court,   Kottayam  were<\/p>\n
also   dismissed   by   a   common   judgment   dated   31-3-2006.     The<\/p>\n
petitioners   submitted   that   they   had   filed   second   appeal   against   the<\/p>\n
same.     When   the   3rd  respondent   issued   Ext.   P1   notice   dated   11-9-<\/p>\n
2006,   informing     the  1st  petitioner   that  boundaries of   her  residential<\/p>\n
property would be re-fixed on 225-9-2006  and she should be present<\/p>\n
at   the   site,     although,   by   Ext.   P2   letter   dated   23-9-2006,   the<\/p>\n
petitioners  informed  the 3rd  respondent that  second  appeal  has  been<\/p>\n
filed before this Court, the officers of the 3rd  respondent with help of<\/p>\n
the field staff of the 5th respondent-Municipality, demolished a portion<\/p>\n
of the petitioners’   compound wall.   In the circumstances, the 1st  the<\/p>\n
petitioner   filed   Ext.   P5   petition   dated   27-9-2006   before   the   District<\/p>\n
Collector to set aside the proceedings  for re-fixation of the boundary<\/p>\n
of the petitioners’ property.  Thereafter, on 29-9-2006, the petitioners<\/p>\n
have approached this Court  seeking the above said reliefs.<\/p>\n
       4.         On   29-9-2006,   when   the   matter   was   moved   as   ‘today<\/p>\n
moving’, while admitting the same, I directed that status quo shall be<\/p>\n
maintained.   Thereafter, on 25-10-2006,  the petitioners again sought<\/p>\n
permission of this Court  to re-construct the demolished portion of the<\/p>\n
compound wall of the petitioners’ residential            property   and   to   fix   the<\/p>\n
entrance   gate   in   the   compound   wall   at   its   original   position   and   to<\/p>\n
W.P.C. Nos. 25808 & 28788\/2006            -:  3  :-<\/span><\/p>\n
direct the 5th respondent to reimburse the expenses for the above said<\/p>\n
construction  works.  I  had,  by   order dated 25-10-2006,   permitted  the<\/p>\n
petitioners  to  re-construct  the  compound  wall   at   its  original   position<\/p>\n
at their own risk and cost subject to the condition that if, ultimately,<\/p>\n
the   writ   petition   is   dismissed,   they   would   be   liable   to   demolish   the<\/p>\n
same   at   their   own   costs.     Thereafter,   the   petitioner   in   W.P(C)   No.<\/p>\n
28788\/2006   filed   that   writ   petition   producing   a   copy   of   my   order<\/p>\n
seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to take all measures under<\/p>\n
law, to restore the road and poramboke land, which is subject matter<\/p>\n
of W.P(C) No. 25808\/2006.  In the same, the petitioners produced the<\/p>\n
lower   court     judgments   in   O.S.Nos.   119\/1993   and   127\/1994.     When<\/p>\n
that matter came up for admission before me on 2-11-2006, I directed<\/p>\n
that the same be posted along with W.P(C) No.  25808\/2006.  On 6-11-<\/p>\n
2006,   the   two   writ   petitions   came   up   together.     It   was   then   that   I<\/p>\n
noticed   that   the   petitioners   in   W.P(C)   No.   25808\/2006   have   cleverly<\/p>\n
hoodwinked   this  Court    by  not stating that in the  said original suits,<\/p>\n
there   was   a   specific   finding     by   the   lower   court   that   the   land   in<\/p>\n
question was a poramboke land.   The petitioners although mentioned<\/p>\n
the fact that those original suits were dismissed, they had cleverly not<\/p>\n
said the fact that there was a specific finding in the suit that the land<\/p>\n
in question was poramboke land and that it was pursuant to the same<\/p>\n
that the land conservancy proceedings   were proceeded with and the<\/p>\n
3rd respondent in W.P(C) No. 25808\/2006 initiated proceedings  for re-<\/p>\n
fixation   of   the   boundary   of   the   petitioners’   property   in   that   writ<\/p>\n
petition.     According   to   me,   in   order   to   prevent   this   Court     from<\/p>\n
knowing   these   details,   the   petitioners   deliberately     did   not   implead<\/p>\n
the legal heirs of deceased 3rd  defendant in O.S.No.37\/1999, who are<\/p>\n
W.P.C. Nos. 25808 & 28788\/2006             -:  4  :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the   petitioners   in   W.P(C)   No.   28788\/2006.     The   real   facts   came   to<\/p>\n
light only from W.P(C) No. 28788\/2006.  In the above circumstances, I<\/p>\n
dictated judgment in W.P(C) No. 25808\/2006 on 6-11-2006 dismissing<\/p>\n
the writ petition with costs of Rs. 15,000\/-, directing that it would be<\/p>\n
open to the respondents to take appropriate proceedings  on the basis<\/p>\n
of   the   interim   order   dated   25-10-2006.     I   also   observed   that   the<\/p>\n
petitioners would be liable to demolish the re-constructed portion and<\/p>\n
the respondents would be free to demolish the same at the cost of  the<\/p>\n
petitioners if the petitioners do not demolish the same.   At that time,<\/p>\n
the petitioners in W.P(C) No.25808\/2006 sought time to file a counter<\/p>\n
affidavit   in   W.P(C)   No.   28788\/2006.     In   the   above   circumstances,   I<\/p>\n
thought   it   fit   to   postpone   signing   of   the     judgment   in   W.P(C)   No.<\/p>\n
25808\/2006 and posted the same for “to be spoken to” on 8-11-2006.<\/p>\n
The   same   was   adjourned   to   22-11-2006   and   was   being   adjourned<\/p>\n
from   time   to   time   at   the   instance   of   counsel   for   the   petitioners.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the petitioners in that writ petition submitted that on 1-12-<\/p>\n
2006,   another     learned   Judge   of   this   Court     had   passed   an   interim<\/p>\n
order   in   I.A.No.   2631\/2006   in   R.S.A.No.   1097\/2006.     From   the<\/p>\n
pleadings   in   W.P(C)   No.   28788\/2006,   I   came   to   understand   that   the<\/p>\n
said   R.S.A   was   in   fact   filed   on   26-9-2006   and   it   is   after   filing   that<\/p>\n
R.S.A  that this writ petition was moved.  Although the petitioners had<\/p>\n
stated   that   a   second   appeal   was   filed   against   the     judgments<\/p>\n
dismissing   their   Appeal   Suits,   they   did   not   either   state   the   date   of<\/p>\n
filing of the R.S.A or the number of the same in the writ petition which<\/p>\n
was filed on 29-9-2006, i.e three days later.   In fact, it was after filing<\/p>\n
that R.S.A that Ext. P5 has been filed before the District Collector, on<\/p>\n
27-9-2006.\n<\/p>\n
\nW.P.C. Nos. 25808 & 28788\/2006            -:  5  :-<\/span><\/p>\n
       5.   From the same, it is evident that after filing   R.S.A on 26-9-<\/p>\n
2006, without moving  for interim orders in that R.S.A, the petitioners<\/p>\n
have filed W.P(C) No.25808\/2006  for the above said  reliefs.   I am of<\/p>\n
opinion that this is an abuse of the process of Court.  When there was<\/p>\n
a   specific   finding   in   the   lower   court     judgment   that   the   land   in<\/p>\n
question was a poramboke land and when the 3rd respondent initiated<\/p>\n
proceedings     in   accordance   with   the   findings   in   the   said     judgment<\/p>\n
without  moving  that R.S.A, the petitioners have filed another petition<\/p>\n
before   the   District   Collector   and   filed   this   writ   petition   seeking   a<\/p>\n
direction   to   the   District   Collector   to   dispose   of   Ext.   P5   which   the<\/p>\n
District   Collector   could   not   have,   since   the   matter   was   covered   by<\/p>\n
judgments of the lower court.   The petitioners have also deliberately<\/p>\n
did  not  implead   the  petitioners  in   W.P(C)   No.   28788\/2006  in  W.P(C)<\/p>\n
No.   25808\/2006,   although   they   were   necessary   parties   to   the   writ<\/p>\n
petition in view of the fact that it was in a   judgment in a civil suit in<\/p>\n
which they were also parties that the finding that the land in question<\/p>\n
was a poramboke pathway was entered.  For all these reasons, I am of<\/p>\n
opinion that the petitioners did not disclose the entire facts in the writ<\/p>\n
petition   and   obtained   orders   from   this   Court     on   false   pretensions.<\/p>\n
Therefore, I am of opinion that the status quo ante as obtaining  prior<\/p>\n
to my order dated 25-10-2006 has to be restored in this case.<\/p>\n
       6.     I   also   notice   that   in   R.S.A.No.   1097\/2006,     the   petitioners<\/p>\n
have obtained an order dated 1-12-2006 to the following effect:<\/p>\n
               “There will be an interim order that no pathway will be cut<\/p>\n
               open by respondents for a period of one week.”\n<\/p>\n
\nThereafter, the said order was extended by one month on 7-12-2006.<\/p>\n
In   view   of   the   above,   I   further   direct   that   although   status   quo   ante<\/p>\n
should   be   restored,   respondents   shall   not   cut   open   a   pathway   as<\/p>\n
W.P.C. Nos. 25808 & 28788\/2006              -:  6  :-<\/span><\/p>\n
directed   in   I.A.No.   2631\/2006   in   R.S.A.   No.   1097\/2006.   With   the<\/p>\n
above   directions,   the   writ   petition   is   dismissed.     I   also   direct   the<\/p>\n
petitioners  to  pay  costs of Rs. 10,000\/-  to the respondents  in  W.P(C)<\/p>\n
No. 25808\/2006.  The  judgment dictated on  6-11-2006 is recalled.<\/p>\n
        In W.P(C) No. 28788\/2006, after arguing for some time, when it<\/p>\n
was   pointed   out   that   the   petitioners’   remedy   lies   in   getting     the<\/p>\n
interim order in R.S.A.No.1097\/2006 vacated, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the same.   Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
said writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                       Sd\/-  S. Siri Jagan,  Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\nTds\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 25808 of 2006(V) 1. SULEKHA BEEVI, W\/O.KHAHAR MEERA RAWTHER, … Petitioner 2. KHADHAR MEERA RAWTHER, Vs 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. … Respondent 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACCHERRY. 3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, CHENGANACHERRY. […]<\/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-207323","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006 - 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\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-11T03:40:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-11T03:40:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1716,\"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\\\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006\",\"name\":\"Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-11T03:40:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006 - 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\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-11T03:40:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-11T03:40:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006"},"wordCount":1716,"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\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006","name":"Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-11T03:40:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulekha-beevi-vs-the-district-collector-on-20-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sulekha Beevi vs The District Collector on 20 December, 2006"}]},{"@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\/207323","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=207323"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207323\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}