{"id":208354,"date":"2011-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-18T12:36:27","modified_gmt":"2016-05-18T07:06:27","slug":"d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 09\/08\/2011\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE  MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA\n\nWrit Petition(MD)No.5881 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.3 of 2007\n\n1. D. Ravisankar,\n     S\/o. Late. Desikasankar,\n     140, P.K.S.Street,\n     Sivakasi.\n\n2. D. Prabusankar,\n     S\/o. Late. Desikasankar,\n     Plot No.644, K.K.Nagar,\n     Madurai, rep. by Power\n     Agent D. Ravisankar\n\n3. C. D. R. Chidambaram,\n     S\/o. D. Ravisankar,\n     140, P.K.S. Street,\n     Sivakasi.  \t\t\t\t...... Petitioners\n\nVs\n\n1. The Secretary to Government,\n     Municipal Administration and\n     Water Supply (MA. V) Department,\n     Fort. St. George, Chennai - 9.\n\n2. The District Collector,\n     Virudunagar District,\n     Virudunagar.\n\n3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n     Sivakasi.\n\n4. The Commissioner,\n     Sivakasi Municipality,\n     Sivakasi.  \t\t\t\t...... Respondents\n\n\t\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to\nthe proceedings of the respondents 1 to 3, relating to G.O.Ms.No.50 Municipal\nAdministration and Water Supply (MA. V) Department dated 20.04.2005, the\nDistrict together dated 26.02.2004 and Na.Ka.Aa.1\/16882\/2002 (award No.1 of\n2007) dated 17.04.2007 respectively and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.  A. Sivaji\n^For Respondents... Mr.  D. Muruganandam for R-1 to R-3\n\t\t    Additional Government Pleader\n\t\t    Mr.  N. Dilip Kumar for R-4\n- - - - - - - -\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t     The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of
\nCertiorari, to quash the acquisition proceedings relating to G.O.Ms.No.50
\nMunicipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.V) Department dated 20.04.2005, as
\nwell as the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and
\nthe award dated 17.04.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The case pleaded by the petitioner, is that his grand father
\nalong with his sons conveyed an area measuring 4750 sq. yards in 1957, to the
\nfourth respondent for municipal bus stand. The fourth respondent \/ Commissioner,
\nSivakasi Municipality thereafter demanded more area, on request, another 444 sq.
\nyards was conveyed in the year 1959.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. The municipal Committee, in violation of conveyance in their
\nfavour, encroached larger area, than the one assigned, for which the petitioner
\nhad taken steps to get eviction order.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. It is the case of the petitioner, that in view of the action
\ntaken against the fourth respondent, the proceedings were initiated to acquire
\nthe land of the petitioner. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
\nAcquisition Act was issued by the State Government on 25.02.1994, which was
\nfollowed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act on 16.05.1995. The
\nproceedings of acquisition were under challenge before this Court in
\nW.P.Nos.16033 of 1995, 13436 of 1996 and 12563 of 1997, the Notifications were
\nquashed, by this Court by allowing the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. After quashing of the Notification, the Government, again issued
\na Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It was followed
\nby Notification under Section 6 of the Act, and finally the Award dated
\n17.04.2007 stands passed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. The prayer of the petitioner, is that the acquisition proceedings
\nright from the stage of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are liable to
\nbe quashed for the reasons, that issuance of Notification in the District
\nGazette is illegal and contrary to law, being in violation of the statutory
\nprovisions as according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the
\nsubstance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is required to be
\npublished in the official Gazette, and not in the District Gazette.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. The other ground is that the costs of land was assessed by the
\nCollector at Rs.59,24,194\/-(Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand One
\nHundred and Ninety Four only), therefore, the Collector was not competent to
\nissue the Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. The petitioner also submits that there is violation in
\npublication of the substance of Notification in the local newspaper, by pleading
\nthat it was not done within the statutory period.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. The petitioner also claims, that there was violation of principle
\nof natural justice, in dealing with the objections filed under Section 5-A of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. The writ is opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader
\non the ground of its maintainability, after passing of the Award.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is
\nthat the petitioner  was given full opportunity while deciding objections under
\nSection 5-A of the Act, and it was only after hearing the objections of the
\npetitioner, that the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the fourth
\nrespondent, that notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, exercising
\nthe power of the District Collector, and in spite of the Notice, the petitioner
\nfailed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, therefore, it is not
\nopen to the petitioner to now challenge the acquisition proceedings after
\npassing of the Award.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the fourth
\nrespondent placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M\/S.
\nWASTE PRODUCTS RECLAIMOR PRIVATE LTD., ..VS.. M\/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD., AND
\nOTHERS (1993 SUPP (2) S.C.C. 358) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased
\nto lay down, that non publication of the Notification in Official Gazette is a
\ntechnical objection, which stands defeated by laches.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent also placed
\nreliance on the decision of this Court in RAMALINGAM AND OTHERS ..VS.. THE STATE
\nOF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS (2005 (2) L.W. 693), wherein this Court was pleased to
\nlay down as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“3. In these appeals, the facts are that the Award under Section 11
\nof the Land Acquisition Act was given on 07.11.1996 whereas the writ petitions
\nwere filed on 28.11.1996, i.e., after the award was passed. It has been
\nrepeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no writ petition should be entertained
\nafter the award under the Land Acquisition Act has been passed – Vide 2003 (4)
\nS.C.C. 485 (Tej Kaur and others ..Vs.. State of Punjab and others); A.I.R. 2000
\nS.C. 671 (Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar ..Vs.. Shah Hyder Beig); 1997 (9)
\nS.C.C. 224 (Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Divisionl, Uttar
\nPradesh ..Vs.. Suresh Nand Jayal); and 1996 (1) S.C.C. 250 (State of Tamil Nadu
\n..Vs.. L. Krishnan and others). Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the
\nopinion that the writ petitions itself were not maintainable and they should
\nhave been dismissed on this ground itself. Hence, the Writ Appeals are
\ndismissed. Connected WAMP Nos.1595 to 1599 of 2005 are closed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. Reliance was also placed on the Judgment of this Court in the
\ncase of CHINNAMMAL ..VS.. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU (2011 (4) C.T.C. 198) wherein
\nit was held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“It is trite law that once an award is passed, it is not open to the
\nparties to approach this Court to challenge the violations in the procedure
\nadopted in passing the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the
\nresultant declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, in law the
\npetitioners are barred from challenging the alleged irregularities said to have
\nbeen committed prior to the passing of the Award. Another question for
\nconsideration is as to whether the Petitioners can be permitted to raise the
\nadditional grounds at the time of hearing the writ petitions?  The petitioners
\nhave raised three contentions in the additional grounds such as non-application
\nof mind while passing the order under Section 5-A of the Act, not obtaining the
\nprior approval before the issuance of the Notification and not obtaining the
\nprior approval before passing the award. In the opinion of this Court, it is not
\nquite open to the petitioners to raise all these contentions for the first time.
\nBy raising these contentions, the petitioners are trying to get over the delay,
\nlaches and acquiescence on their part.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tTherefore, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitions are not
\nmaintainable in law and facts for having approached this Court much after the
\npassing of the award which they were quite aware of and raising the additional
\ngrounds at the time of hearing the Writ Petitions cannot be permitted. It is
\npertinent to note that the Writ Petitions have been filed in the year 2001 and
\n2003 respectively. Applications have been filed by the Respondents for vacating
\nthe interim stay in the year 2004. Thereafter, they have filed Applications for
\nfixing early dates for the disposal of the Writ Petitions. This Court has fixed
\nthe date in the year 2007 after a period of six weeks. There is absolutely no
\nexplanation from the Petitioners for not filing any Application for additional
\ngrounds till that point of time. The petitioners cannot be permitted to conduct
\na roving enquiry in a proceeding initiated under the Act. Hence, this Court is
\nof the view that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of
\ndelay, laches and acquiescence”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contended,
\nthat the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, will
\nnot be applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Award passed by the
\nRevenue Divisional Officer, is non est and void and therefore, cannot be said to
\nbe an Award in the eye of law, to bar the maintainability of writ petition, to
\nchallenge the acquisition proceedings, at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner
\nreferred to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, to contend, that the Award
\npassed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the face of it, is without
\njurisdiction, as the competence to pass an award is that of the Collector or a
\nperson notified by the Government. In the absence of a Notification \/
\nAuthorization, it cannot be said, that the Revenue Divisional Officer had the
\njurisdiction to pass an award.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
\nthat the Award is non est, as it was pre-requisite for the Revenue Divisional
\nOfficer \/ Collector to get an approval of the State Government, or persons so
\nauthorized before making of an Award. But, in this case, no such approval was
\nobtained before passing the Award.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t19. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE
\nOF U.P AND OTHERS ..VS.. RAJIV GUPTA AND ANOTHER (1994 (5) S.C.C. 686), wherein
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down, that prior approval of the
\nappropriate Government is necessary for making the Award, as in terms of Section
\n11 of the Act, no award can be made without prior approval of the Government or
\nits authorised officer, and any violation of such requirement renders the Award
\nnull and void and illegal.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t20. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is
\nthat once an Award is held to be null and void, then it will be no Award, in the
\neye of law, and therefore, the writ petition to challenge the acquisition will
\nbe maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t21. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
\ntherefore, is, that in this case, the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of
\nthe Act cannot be sustained, as the substance of the Notification was not
\npublished in the official Gazette, but only in the District Gazette, thus, it is
\nnot a valid Notification.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t22. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended, that in
\nview of the land value having been fixed as Rs.59,24,194\/-(Rupees Fifty Nine
\nLakhs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Four only), the Notification
\ncould only be issued by the State Government, whereas the Notification in this
\ncase was issued by the Collector, which renders the Notification under Section
\n4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act to be invalid, and  the petition deserves
\nto be succeed, by quashing the Notifications and the Proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t23. There can be no dispute with the contention raised by the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner that the Notification issued  under Section
\n4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act could be set aside on the grounds taken
\nin writ petition, in case there were challenge in time i.e., before passing of
\nthe award.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t24. The question to be decided in this case is, whether the
\npetitioner can question the acquisition proceedings after passing of the Award,
\nin view of the authoritative pronouncement by this Court in the case of
\nRAMALINGAM AND OTHERS ..VS.. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS (supra) and
\nCHINNAMMAL ..VS.. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU (supra).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t25. This only question to be decided is whether the Award is null
\nand void, for want of prior approval by the competent authority, to hold that
\nthere exists no award,  so as to adjudicate the contentions raised on merit.
\nThe answer to this question is in negative, for the reasons hereinafter stated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t26. On 12.05.2005, the Collector, Virudhunagar District,
\nVirudhunagar has passed the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t“ORDER
\n\t\tWhere as the Government of Tamil Nadu having been satisfied that the
\nland specified in the schedule attached have to be acquired for public purpose
\nand a declaration under section 6 of the land acquisition act 1894 (Central Act
\nof 1894) has already been published on 26.02.2004 in the localities.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. And where as the under clause (1) of Section 3 of the said Act
\nthe Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi has already been appointed to perform
\nthe functions of the Collector under said Act in the Notification under Section
\n4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) published at pages
\n3 – 4, of Virudhunagar District Gazette No.2, dated 09.06.2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. And where as in the Revenue Department, Notification No.11(2)
\nRevenue 3777\/94, dated 05.09.94 published at Page 916 of Part II section 207 the
\nTamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 23.09.94 all the District Collectors have
\nbeen authorised to issue direction under Section 7 of the said Act.
\nDirection
\n\t\tNow, therefore, by virtue of the Authorisation of the Government
\nunder Section 7 of the Act, the Collector of Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar
\nhereby directs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi to the lands specified
\nin the schdule attached and measuring 2080 sq.m which is needed for a public
\npurpose, for the extention of Sivakasi Bus Stand, shall be acquired for the said
\npurpose and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi is appointed to perform the
\nfunctions of the Collector under the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
Collector,
\nVirudhunagar District,
\nVirudhunagar.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t27. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that
\nthe Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi has no jurisdiction to pass an Award
\ndeserves to be rejected.  The valuation of the land was done and vide order
\ndated 22.03.2007, and the value of the land was fixed at Rs.17,68,460\/- (Rupees
\nSeventeen Lakhs Sixty Eight thousand Four Hundred and Sixty only). The
\njurisdiction of the Collector to issue the Notification for want of pecuniary
\njurisdiction also cannot be questioned.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t28. The Draft Award stood approved by the Collector, Virudhunagar
\nDistrict. It was only after approval by the District Collector, that the Award
\nwas passed by the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t29. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that
\nthe Award is null and void thus non est, cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t30. Once the validity of the Award is upheld, the writ petition to
\nchallenge the land acquisition proceedings, is not competent, in view of the
\nsettled law, that it is not open to the party, to challenge the acquisition
\nproceedings, after passing of the Award.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t31. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tNo costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tConsequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2007 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Dpn\/-\n<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1. The Secretary to Government,
\n     Municipal Administration and
\n     Water Supply (MA. V) Department,
\n     Fort. St. George, Chennai – 9.\n<\/p>\n
2. The District Collector,
\n     Virudunagar District,
\n     Virudunagar.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
\n     Sivakasi.\n<\/p>\n
4. The Commissioner,
\n     Sivakasi Municipality,
\n     Sivakasi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 09\/08\/2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Writ Petition(MD)No.5881 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2007 1. D. Ravisankar, S\/o. Late. Desikasankar, 140, P.K.S.Street, Sivakasi. 2. D. Prabusankar, S\/o. Late. Desikasankar, […]<\/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-208354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nD. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011 - 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\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-18T07:06:27+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\\\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-18T07:06:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2362,\"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\\\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011\",\"name\":\"D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-18T07:06:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011 - 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\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-18T07:06:27+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\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-18T07:06:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011"},"wordCount":2362,"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\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011","name":"D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-18T07:06:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ravisankar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D. Ravisankar vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/208354","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=208354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208354\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}