{"id":211765,"date":"2005-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005"},"modified":"2019-01-30T02:34:48","modified_gmt":"2019-01-29T21:04:48","slug":"l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 28\/04\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE            \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA         \n\nWrit Appeal No.2062 of 2003 \n\n\nL. Boomiraja                                   .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe District Collector,\nDindigul District at\nDindigul.                                               .. Respondent\n\n\n        Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters  Patent  against  the\norder passed in Writ Petition No.8567 of 2003 dated 19.3.2003.\n\n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.  G.  Rajagopalan\n                Senior Counsel\n                for Mr.  N.  Damodaran\n\n^For respondent :  Mr.  V.Raghupathy\n                Govt.  Pleader\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nThe Honourable the Chief Justice)<\/p>\n
        This  writ  appeal  has  been  filed against the impugned order of the
\nlearned single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.8567 of 2003 dated 19.3 .2003.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  It appears that a lease deed dated 26.9.2001 was executed  between
\nthe  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu and the appellant, by which, lease of certain
\nlands were granted  to  the  appellant  for  the  period  from  1.4.1  998  to
\n31.3.2003.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Since the lease deed was executed only on 26.9.2001 and registered
\non  23.10.2001, the appellant filed the writ petition praying for extension of
\nthe period of lease alleging that it should be deemed to have  commenced  from
\nthe date of execution of the lease deed.  Since the lease deed was executed on
\n26.9.2001  his  prayer  was  that it should be treated to continue for another
\nfive years from 26.9.2001 i.e.  upto 26.9.2006.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The learned single Judge in his impugned order has  directed  that
\nthe  lease shall continue till 7.10.2003 subject to payment of 40% extra lease
\namount.  The learned single Judge has treated the lease deed  as  having  been
\nexecuted on 8.10.1998 although the lease deed produced before us shows that it
\nwas executed on 26.9.2001.  Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied on
\nthe decision of  the Supreme Court in V.  Karnal Durai v.  District Collector,
\nTuticorin<\/a> (1999) 1 SCC 475 and also the decision in Beg Raj Singh vs.    State
\nof U.P.<\/a>  (2003) 1 SCC 726.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   A  Division  Bench  of  this Court in Director General of Foreign
\nTrade, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi vs.  M\/s.  R.B.  & Sons.,  Chennai  and<\/a>
\nanother  (Writ  Appeal  No.3891  of  2004  decided  on  7.12.2004) has already
\ndistinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in Beg Raj Singh’s case  cited
\nsupra.   The  Division  Bench held that a Court cannot direct extension of the
\nperiod of a licence, lease or other grant where it is for a fixed  period  and
\nthe Court  must  maintain  judicial  restraint  in  this  connection.   If the
\nlicensee or lessee was prevented to operate for a part of the  period  of  the
\nlicence  or lease, then his remedy is to get refund of proportionate amount of
\nlicence or lease fee or compensation for any damage he  might  have  suffered,
\nbut the  period  of  licence or lease cannot be extended by the Court.  Courts
\nmust exercise self restraint and should not encroach into the  domain  of  the
\nExecutive or the Legislature, as held by this Court in Rama Muthuramalingam v.
\nDy.  S.P., AIR 2005 Mad.1.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  No doubt, if there are statutory rules, then of course, the matter
\nwill  be  covered  by the statute, because it is well settled that the statute
\nwill override the contract.  In the present case, there  are  statutory  rules
\ncontained  in  Rule  8  of  the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1959
\n(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”).  Clause (i) of Rule 8 of  the  Rules
\nstates:\n<\/p>\n
        ”  The  date of commencement of the period of lease granted under this
\nRule shall be the date on which the lease deed is executed.”\n<\/p>\n
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has emphasised on Rule  8(i)  of  the
\nRules  which  states  that  the  date  of  commencement of the period of lease
\ngranted under this Rule shall be the date on which the lease deed is executed.
\nSince the lease deed was executed on 26.9.2001 he has contended that  it  will
\ncontinue till 26.9.2006.  We do not agree.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      Clause (ii) of Rule 8(1) of Rules states:-\n<\/p>\n
“the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and in no case
\nextension of the period of lease shall be made.”\n<\/p>\n
        9.   Clause  (ii)  of Rule 8 of the Rules specifically states that the
\nlease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed.  It further states
\nthat in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  The language of clause (ii)  of  Rule  8  (1)  of  the  Rules  is
\nmandatory and  peremptory.  A perusal of the lease deed shows that it has been
\nspecifically mentioned in Clause 4 that the said premises shall be held by the
\nlessee from the 1st day of April 98 to the 31st day of March 2003 which  shall
\nhowever be  determinable  as  hereinafter  provided.    In  V.Karnal  Durai v.
\nDistrict Collector (supra) the Supreme Court no doubt quoted clause  (ii)  but
\nthereafter it  did not deal with it, and it cosnidered only clause (i).  Hence
\nthe decision is distinguishable.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In the present case, the lease deed itself states that the  lease
\nshall expire  on 31.3.2003.  In view of clause (ii) of Rule 8 of the Rules, we
\nhave to hold that the appellant’s lease expired on 31.3.200 3.   We  may  also
\nnote  that clause (ii) of Rule 8 of the Rules uses negative language in saying
\n“in no case extension of the period of lease shall be made.” It is  a  settled
\nprinciple  of  interpretation  that  when  a  statute  is  couched in negative
\nlanguage, it is all the more mandatory and peremptory.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     As stated by Crawford:-\n<\/p>\n
“Prohibitive or negative words can rarely, if ever, be directory.  And this so
\neven though the statute provides no penalty for disobedience”, (vide  Crawford
\n“Statutory Construction”)<\/p>\n
The same  view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Haridwar Singh v.  Bagun
\nSumbrui, AIR<\/a> 1972 SC 1242, (vide page-1247), Lachmi Narain v.  Union of India,
\nAIR<\/a> 1976 SC 714, (vide page-726), Mannalal Khetan v.   Kedarnath  Khetan,  AIR<\/a>
\n1977 SC 536, etc. <\/p>\n
        13.     In M.   Pentiah  v.    Muddala Veeramallappa, AIR<\/a> 1961 SC 1107
\n(vide page-113), the Supreme Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Negative words are clearly prohibitory and are ordinarily used  as  a
\nlegislative device to make a statute imperative”\n<\/p>\n
The same view has been taken in Nasiruddin v.  Sita Ram Agarwal,<\/a> (2003 ) 2 SCC
\n577 (vide page-589)<\/p>\n
        14.     A  provision requiring ‘not less than three months’ notice was
\nhence regarded as mandatory, vide Lachmi Narain v.  Union of India,  AIR<\/a>  1976
\nSC 714  (vide  page-726).    For  the  same reason, Section 10A of the Medical
\nCouncil Act, 1956 (as amended in 1993) has been held  to  be  mandatory,  vide
\nK.S.  Bhoir v.    State of Maharashtra, AIR<\/a> 2002 SC 444 ( vide page 448).  For
\nthe same reason, Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (as
\namended  in  1993)  has  been  held by the Supreme Court to be mandatory, vide
\n(Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank v.  Ram Gopal Sharma, AIR<\/a> 2002 SC  643
\n(vide page-648).\n<\/p>\n
        15.     Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that clause\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  of Rule 8 of the Rules will not apply when the lease deed is executed on
\na date subsequent to the period from which it  is  to  commence.    We  cannot
\nagree.   If  we  accept this contention, we will be adding a proviso to clause\n<\/p>\n
(ii) of Rule 8 of the Rules.  It is well settled  that  Court  cannot  add  or
\ndelete  from  a  statute  as  that  is  the function of the Legislature or its
\ndelegate.\n<\/p>\n
        16.     As observed by the Privy Council:-\n<\/p>\n
        “We cannot aid the legislature’s defective  phrasing  of  an  Act,  we
\ncannot  add  or  mend and, by construction make up deficiencies which are left
\nthere” (vide Crawford v.  Spooner, (1846) 6 Moore PC1)<\/p>\n
This view has been followed in Lord Howard de Walden v.  IRC, (1948) 2 All  ER
\n825 (vide  page-830)  (HL); Nalinakhya Bysack v.  Shyamsunder Halder, AIR 1953
\nSC 148 (vide page-152):  1953 SCR 533; State of Madhya Pradesh v.  G.S.   Dall
\nand Flour  Mills,  AIR<\/a>  1991  SC  772 (vide page-785):  1991 Supp (1) SCC 565;
\nGrasim Industries Ltd.  v.  Collector of Customs,  AIR<\/a>  2002  SC  1706,  (vide
\npage-1709):  (2002) 4  SCC  297.   See further Union of India v.  Deoki Nandan
\nAggarwal, AIR<\/a> 1992 SC 96 (vide  page-101):1992  Supp.(1)  SCC  323;  State  of
\nGujarat v.    Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel, JT<\/a> 1998 (2) SC 253, (vide page-255):
\n1998 (2) Scale 145 (vide page-147).\n<\/p>\n
        17.     In Renula Bose (Smt.) v.  Rai Manmathnath Bose,  AIR  1945  PC
\n108 (vide page-110), the Privy Council observed:-
\n“It  is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless
\nit is absolutely necessary to do so”\n<\/p>\n
        The same view has  been  taken  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  Assessing
\nAuthority-cum-Excise and Taxation  Officer  v.    East  India Cotton Mfg.  Co.
\nLtd,   AIR<\/a>   1981   SC   1610   (vide   page-1615)   and   Director   General,
\nTelecommunications v.  T.N.  Peethambaram, AIR<\/a> 1987 SC 162.  Hence, it is well
\nsettled that the Court cannot reframe the legislation, because it has no power
\nto legislate.\n<\/p>\n
        18.     In  holding that Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
\nis exhaustive of defences open to an insurer, the Surpeme Court refused to add
\nthe word “also” after  the  words  ‘on  any  of  the  following  grounds’  and
\nobserved:   “This,  the rules of interpretation, do not permit us to do unless
\nthe section as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning” vide  “British
\nIndia General Insurance Co.  Ltd.  v.  Capt.  Itbar Singh, AIR<\/a> 1959 S.C.  1331
\n(1334, 1335)”.\n<\/p>\n
        19.     The  same  view  was  taken  by  the  Supreme Court in Sri Ram
\nRamnarain v.  State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459 (vide page-470);  Ramnarain  v.
\nState of  U.P, AIR 1957 SC 18; Jumma Masjid v.  Kodimaniandra, AIR<\/a> 1962 SC 847
\n(vide page-850); K.M.  Viswanatha Pillai v.  K.M.  Sanmughan Pillai, AIR<\/a>  1969
\nSC 493 (vide page-495); C.V.Raman v.  Management of Bank of India, AIR<\/a> 1988 SC
\n1369 (vide  page-1377) and Union of India v.  Deoki Nandan Aggarwala, AIR<\/a> 1992
\nSC 96, etc.<\/p>\n
        20.     The literal rule of interpretation has  to  be  applied  under
\nwhich  if the language of statute or rule is clear then the Courts must follow
\nthe plain language, vide Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg.  Co.  v.  Custodian, AIR<\/a> 1990
\nSC 1747 (page-1752), Md.  Ali Khan v.  CWT, AIR 1997 SC 1165 (vide page-1167),
\nInstitute of Chartered Accountants v.  Price Waterhouse, AIR<\/a> 1998 SC 74  (vide
\npage-90), Dental  Council  of  India  v.   Hari Prakash, AIR<\/a> 2001 C 3303 (vide
\npage-3308), etc.  ‘Courts must not add or delete words in a statute’.  In  the
\npresent case  the language of clause (ii) is clear.  Hence we are of the clear
\nopinion that the only relief which the lessee can get (if at all) is to get  a
\ndirection  for refund of the proportionate amount of the lease\/licence amount\/
\ndamages\/compensation in accordance with law, but he cannot  get  extension  of
\nthe lease.    The  impugned  order  is set aside and it is substituted by this
\njudgment.   The  writ  petition  and  the  writ  appeal  are  both  dismissed.
\nW.A.M.P.No.761 of 2005 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        21.   Learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the  appellant contended that the
\ninterpretation which we have given will cause hardship and will be inequitable
\nto the appellant.  It is well settled that when there is  a  conflict  between
\nlaw and  equity,  it  is  the  law  which  has  to  prevail.   Equity can only
\nsupplement the law but cannot supplant it.\n<\/p>\n
        22.     In Madamanchi Ramasppa v.   Muthalur  Bojjappa,  AIR<\/a>  1963  SC
\n1633, the Supreme Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
“What   is   administered   in   Courts  is  justice  according  to  law,  and
\nconsiderations of fair play and equity, however important they  may  be,  must
\nyield to clear and express provisions of the law”\n<\/p>\n
        23.     Similarly in Gauri Shankar Gaur v.  State of U.P., AIR<\/a> 1994 SC
\n16 9 (vide para 14), the Supreme Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
“In  construing  a statute equity will not relieve against a public statute of
\ngeneral policy in cases admitted to fall within the statute and it is the duty
\nof the Court to give effect to he legislative intent.”
\nThus, it is well settled that equity can supplement to but cannot supplant the
\nstatutory provisions.  Where the language of the law  is  clear,  “it  is  not
\n‘safe’  to  bend  the  arms  of law only for adjusting equity”, vide Ahmedabad
\nMunicpal Corporation v.  Virendra Kumar Patel, AIR 1997 SC  3002.    The  same
\nview was taken  in  Smt.   Rampati Jaiswal v.  State of U.P., AIR 1997 All 170
\nand Chhetrapal Singh v.  State of U.P., 2004 All.L.J.  993.\n<\/p>\n
        24.     Hence while dealing  with  statutory  provisions,  the  Courts
\nshould not be guided by ‘humanitarian consideration’ and emotional appeal, for
\nthe reason that if Courts proceed on these basics, it would amount to altering
\nor amending  the  statutory  provisions  or requirements of law.  Instead, the
\nCourt should be guided by the maxim “dura les sed lex”, which means  “the  law
\nis hard, but it is the law”.\n<\/p>\n
        25.     Thus  equity  considerations  are  not applicable in a case of
\nclear statutory provisions nor are the  Courts  empowered  to  pass  an  order
\ncontrary to  law  on  the  basis of ‘humanitarian considerations’.  It is only
\nwhen there is a gap in the law or there is ambiguity in it, that equity can be
\napplied.\n<\/p>\n
        26.     In the present case, the law i.e.  Clause (ii) of  Rule  8  of
\nthe Rules is clear and there is no scope for importing equity into it.\n<\/p>\n
        27.     In  view  of  the  above  the impugned Judgment of the learned
\nsingle Judge cannot be sustained, and it is set aside.  The writ  petition  is
\ndismissed, and the writ appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
Vu <\/p>\n
To
\nThe District Collector,
\nDindigul District at
\nDindigul.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 28\/04\/2005 Coram THE HON’BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA Writ Appeal No.2062 of 2003 L. Boomiraja .. Appellant -Vs- The District Collector, Dindigul District at […]<\/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-211765","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nL. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005 - 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\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-29T21:04:48+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\\\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T21:04:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2089,\"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\\\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005\",\"name\":\"L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T21:04:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005 - 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\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-29T21:04:48+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\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T21:04:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005"},"wordCount":2089,"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\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005","name":"L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T21:04:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-boomiraja-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005"}]},{"@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\/211765","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=211765"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211765\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211765"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211765"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211765"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}