{"id":21111,"date":"2007-11-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007"},"modified":"2019-01-15T14:38:51","modified_gmt":"2019-01-15T09:08:51","slug":"the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 01\/11\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nAppeal Suit No.692 of 2003\nand\nC.M.P.No.11449 of 2003\n\n\nThe Special Tahsildar,\nAdi Dravidar Welfare,\nRamanathapuram.\t\t\t... \tAppellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1.Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died)\n2.Avudaiyappan\n3.Govindan\n4.Radhakrishnan\n5.Raghupathi\n6.Jeeva\n7.Chandira\n8.Shanmughasundari\n9.Bala\n10.Karpagavalli\n11.Sankari\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\t\n\nPrayer\n\n\nThis  appeal suit has been filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition\nAct, against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2002 made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of\n1996 on the file of the  Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.\n\n\n!For Appellant \t \t\t...\tMr.So.Paramasivan\n\t\t\t\t\tSpecial Government Pleader\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n^For Respondents\t\t...\tMr.Alagu Balakrishnan\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated
\n03.01.2002 made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1996 on the file of the  Subordinate Judge,
\nRamanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer is  focussed as against the
\nenhancement of compensation awarded by the learned II Additional Subordinate
\nJudge, Ramanathapuram, vide. order dated  03.01.2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. During the pendency of the L.A.O.P. before the Subordinate Judge,
\nRamanathapuram, the land owner died and hence his Legal heirs were impleaded and
\nduring the pendency of the matter before this Court among the Legal heirs the
\nwife of the original land owner viz. Seethalakshmi Ammal, first respondent
\nherein also died.  The remaining legal heirs are the Legal Heirs of the deceased
\nSeethalakshmi and they already on record.  No impleadment of fresh parties are
\nrequired and necessary changes in the cause title has to be effected.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The facts in nutshell would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 4(1) Notification of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the
\nGazette by the Government dated 02.03.1994 after complying with the procedures.
\nThe land acquisition officer assessed the value of one cent at Rs.412\/- taking
\ninto consideration of the sale deed dated 02.06.1992, bearing No.432, in Survey
\nNo.353(A).  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such award of compensation,
\nthe land owner asked for reference and accordingly the Subordinate Court who was
\nseized seized of the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act decided
\nto enhance the compensation from Rs.412\/- per cent to Rs.3,000\/- per cent.
\nAggrieved by such enhancement the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal
\nbefore this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The point for consideration is to whether the learned Subordinate Judge
\nis justified in assessing the value of the land from Rs.412\/- per cent to
\nRs.3,000\/- per cent?\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The learned Special Government Pleader would argue that the Land
\nAcquisition Officer relied upon the document bearing No.432 relating to the land
\nin Survey No.353(A) and assessed the value.  Whereas the learned Subordinate
\nJudge took into account the sale deed which emerged on the same date ie.
\n02.06.1992 in other part of the Survey No.353 and assessed the quantum at
\nRs.3,000\/- per cent.  Accordingly, the learned Special Government Pleader prays
\nfor modification.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Whereas the learned counsel for the claimants would convincingly and
\ncorrectly highlights the fact to the effect that the sale deed taken by the Land
\nAcquisition Officer relates to the land situated near the burial ground and the
\nacquired land  situated far away from it and it had the potentiality of housing
\nplots.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Read the map concerned and also perused the relevant records.  The
\ndocument relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer refers to an extent of 30
\ncents and which was valued at the rate of Rs.412\/- per cent approximately and
\nthat itself will clearly show the 30 cents were related to agricultural land
\nnear the burial ground which did not have the potentiality of becoming the house
\nsites  in the near future.  The acquired land is also situated in the big survey
\nnumber 353 and it is situated in the municipal limits, however the sale deed
\nrelied on by the claimants refers to 5 cents of land so as to say approximately
\na plot size  which was valued in a sum of Rs.50,000\/- at the rate of Rs.10,000\/-
\nper cent and accordingly the Subordinate Judge took the value of one cent as
\nRs.3,000\/-.  Whereas the Land Acquisition Officer took into account only the
\nagricultural land value and that land taken as sample had certain drawbacks as
\nalready highlighted supra. It could broadly be taken that the plot value per
\ncent is Rs.3,000\/- in a developed area which is municipality.  In such a case  I
\ncould see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Subordinate
\nJudge.  Further more the learned Subordinate Judge in para No.14 elaborately
\ndealt with the matter by discussing that normally as per the guideline value
\nalso once in five years the value of the immovable land  gets doubled and
\naccordingly he took into account the guideline value in the year 1980 and
\nvisualised during the year 1994, that per cent, the value of land would be
\nRs.3,000\/-.  The learned Subordinate Judge resorted that to such reasoning and I
\nam not incline to intervene and it seems to be a reasonable amount. The learned
\nAdditional Government Pleader could not point out as to how the reasons set out
\nby the Sub Court is wrong.  Hence, I am of the considered  opinion that the the
\nlearned Subordinate judge was right in assessing the value of one cent at
\nRs.3,000\/- in that area.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. However, the contention of the Government Pleader is that 1\/3rd amount
\ntowards development charges has not been deducted after assessing the plot value
\nand he prays for deducting 1\/3rd amount by placing reliance on the decision of
\nthe Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006(2) C.T.C. 733 (The Special
\nTahsildar (Land Acquisition) v. Valliammal).\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The perusal of the Judgment cited  would clearly demonstrate that
\nthere should be deduction towards development charges when the acquired land is
\nnot a developed land.  The core question arises as to what should be the quantum
\nof deduction relating to the agricultural land.  If the agricultural land is a
\nstripe of land abetting the main road, then the question of development charge
\nwould not arise at all for the reason that the person who may have the house
\nbuilt there would have ingress and egress by using the available road which is
\nadjacent to the land, but on the other hand in case of vast extent of land,
\nthere is bound to be lot of house sites in the interior portion of it and
\nnecessarily there should  be roads and other amenities.  An excerpt from the
\ndecision of the said Division Bench cited supra would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“12. The Apex Court in the judgment Karan Singh v. Union of India<\/a> 1998(1)
\nMLJ 35 SC, has held that “it is only the previous judgment of a Court or an
\naward which can be made the basis for assessment of the market value of the
\nacquired land subject to the party relying on such judgment, to adduce evidence
\nfor showing that due regard being given to all attendant facts, it could from
\nthe basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land”.  In this case,
\nadmittedly the order dated 12.12.1997 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.9, 10 and 11 of
\n1995 has not been produced before the Court and no evidence has been adduced
\nand therefore the Reference Court erred in relying on the same.  The Apex Court
\nin the decision Padma Uppal and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1977(1)
\nSCC 330, has held that “it is the settled proposition that price fetched for
\nsmall plots of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large extent
\nand that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate
\nat which small plots are sold”.  In the case Gulzara Singh and others v. State
\nof Punjab and others, 1993 (4) SCC 245, the Apex Court has upheld the deduction
\nof 1\/3rd land towards the developmental charges.  In K. Vasundara Devi v.
\nRevenue Divisional Officer (LAO),<\/a> 1995(5)SCC 426, the Apex Court reiterated that
\nwhen genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to
\ndetermine the market value, the same will not form the sole basis to determine
\nthe market value of large tracts of land.  Sufficient deduction should be made
\nto arrive at the just and fair market value for large tracts of land.  In
\nSpecial Land Acquisition Officer v. V.T. Velu,<\/a> 1996(2) SCC 538, the Apex Court
\nhas held that at least 1\/3rd of the land acquired is to be set apart for road
\npurpose, developmental purpose and other civil amenities.  In U.P. Avas Evam
\nvikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and<\/a> another, 1998 (2) SCC 467, the Apex Court
\nupheld the deduction of 1\/3rd price towards the cost of development for the
\nhousing scheme.  It has been held in Ravinder Narain and another v. Union of
\nIndia, 2003(4) SCC 481:\n<\/p>\n
\t“It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the
\nrates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate.
\nFor example, where there is no other material, it may in appropriate cases be
\nopen to the adjudicating Court to make comparision of the price paid for small
\nplots of land.  However, in such cases necessary deductions\/adjustments have to
\nbe made while determining the prices”.\n<\/p>\n
In the same judgment, it has been laid down that while determining the market
\nvalue of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that
\nthere is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue
\ndeprivation on the part of the owner.  The compensation must be determined by
\nreference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive
\nfrom the willing purchaser.  While considering the market value, disinclination
\nof the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of  the purchaser
\nto buy it must alike to be dis-regarded neither must be considered as acting
\nunder any compulsion.  The value of the land is not be estimated as its value to
\nthe purchaser.  But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some
\nparticular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be
\ndisregarded.  The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may
\nalways be taken into consideration for what it is worth.  Section 23 of the Act
\nenumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation.  The first
\ncriterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the
\ndate of publication of the notification under Section 4(1).  Similarly, Section
\n24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take into
\nconsideration in determining the compensation.  A safeguard is provided in
\nSection 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Court
\nshall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.
\nValue of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available
\nand without indulgence in any fits of imagination.  Impracticability of
\ndetermining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases.  There is
\nbound to be some amount of guesswork involved while determining the
\npotentiality.  It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is
\nreduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value
\nwith reference to comparable sales are made:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) The sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under
\nSection 4(1).\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) It should be a bona fide transaction.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) It should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the
\nland acquired; and\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) It should possess similar advantages.\n<\/p>\n
It is only when these facts are present, it can merit a consideration as a
\ncomparable case.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that there is no
\nhard and past rule that 1\/3rd amount should be deducted towards development
\ncharges and placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2001(3)
\nC.T.C. 69 (The Special Tahsildar (L.A.)(Adi Dravidar Welfare) v. S.M. Seigu
\nJalaiudeen)<\/a>  would submit that 20% might be deducted towards development
\ncharges.  While justifying the stand taken by the Subordinate Judge the learned
\ncounsel for the respondents would highlight that the sum of Rs.3,000\/- per cent,
\nwas fixed considering it as a developed area.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. But here the area is 5.52 acres and necessarily as contemplated in the
\nabove cited decision of the Division Bench of this Court various amenities such
\nas road and other civil amenities should be provided and in such a case  I am of
\nthe considered view that 1\/3rd amount has to be deducted towards development
\ncharges. Hence, after deducting 1\/3 value of the land towards developmental
\ncharges the value of land for one cent comes to Rs.2,000\/-. Accordingly, the
\naward amount is modified as under:<\/p>\n
\n\n(i) Value of 5 acre 52 cents \tat the\n   rate of Rs.2,000\/- per cent \t  \t\t  .. Rs.11,04,000.00\n(ii) 30% Solatium  \t\t\t\t  .. Rs. 3,31,200.00\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     ---------------\n\t\t\tTotal\t  \t\t  .. Rs.14,35,200.00\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     ---------------\t \t\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t14. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the
\nSubordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram is reduced from Rs.21,52,800\/-(Rupees
\nTwentyone Lakhs Fiftytwo Thousand  and eight hundred only) to Rs.14,35,200\/-
\n(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs  Thirty Five Thousand and two hundred only).   In other
\naspects the award shall hold good. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.11449 of
\n2003 is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The  Subordinate Judge,
\n  Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01\/11\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Appeal Suit No.692 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.11449 of 2003 The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Ramanathapuram. … Appellant Vs. 1.Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) 2.Avudaiyappan 3.Govindan 4.Radhakrishnan […]<\/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-21111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007 - 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\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-15T09:08:51+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T09:08:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2080,\"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\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007\",\"name\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T09:08:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007 - 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\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-15T09:08:51+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T09:08:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007"},"wordCount":2080,"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\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007","name":"The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T09:08:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-seethalakshmi-ammal-died-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Special Tahsildar vs Seethalakshmi Ammal (Died) on 1 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/21111","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=21111"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21111\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}