{"id":212152,"date":"2009-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-05T16:50:38","modified_gmt":"2018-04-05T11:20:38","slug":"santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Santosh vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 17 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Santosh vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 17 November, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 17\/11\/2009\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nC.M.A.(MD).No.636 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\nSantosh\t\t\t         ... Appellant\/Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Inspector General of Registration and\nChief Revenue Controlling Authority,\n120, Santhom Highway,\nPattinapakkam,\nChennai - 600 028.\t                 ... 1st Respondent\/Respondent\n\n2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),\nCollectorate Building,\nMadurai - 625 020.\n\n3.The Sub-Registrar,\nNilakottai,\nDindigul District. \t                 ... Respondents\/Third parties\n\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nAppeal filed under Section 47(A)(10) of the Indian Stamp Act ,  against\nthe  order dated 17.04.2009 of the  Inspector General of Registration in\nproceedings No. g.K. .No.4835\/N 4\/07.\n\n\t\t\n!For Petitioner\t      ...  Mr.K.Sekar\n^For Respondents      ...  Mr.So.Paramasivam\n\t\t\t   Government Advocate.\n\n                      ***\n\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of the<br \/>\nInspector General of Registration in proceedings No. g.K.No.4835\/N 4\/07 dated<br \/>\n17.04.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The appellant is the successful bidder in an auction conducted by the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Industrial  Investment Corporation Limited, established under the<br \/>\nIndian Companies Act,  with respect to the lands measuring about 1.08 Acres and<br \/>\nthe building in Survey Nos.23\/2, 23\/4 and 23\/6 in Veelinaickenpatty, Nilakkottai<br \/>\nTaluk, Dindigul District and 3 Acres 3 cents in survey No.11\/2 in the same<br \/>\nvillage.  The sale was conducted on 03.03.1998 and the sale price was<br \/>\nRs.65,000\/-.  The sale deed was executed by the above  Corporation on 17.08.1999<br \/>\nand the same was registered on 27.04.2000.  At the outset, for Rs.65,000\/-,<br \/>\nstamp duty was paid and was accepted. Thereafter deficiency in stamp duty of<br \/>\nRs.12,840\/- was collected from the appellant, under Section 41 of the Indian<br \/>\nStamp Act, by the Sub-Registrar, Nilakkottai, as per the guideline valuation of<br \/>\nthe above said property as on the date of the sale.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madurai, issued Form No.1 to the<br \/>\nappellant requiring him to pay additional stamp duty of Rs.16,112\/-, assessing<br \/>\nthe market value of the property at Rs.3,06,268\/-.  Thereafter, he preferred an<br \/>\nappeal before the first respondent.  The first Respondent, in turn, directed the<br \/>\nDistrict Registrar, Dindigul, to inspect the property, in pursuance of which, he<br \/>\nvisited the property and submitted the report to the first respondent stating<br \/>\nthat the property remains as a barren land, that there are small rocks and that<br \/>\nthere was no symptom to ascertain  running any factory<\/p>\n<p>or construction of any building and recommended that the sale price fixed by the<br \/>\ncorporation may be accepted as market value of the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. However, the first respondent did not concede the report containing the<br \/>\nrecommendations of the District Registrar, Dindigul and proceeded to assess the<br \/>\nmarket value of the property on the basis of the guidelines value maintained for<br \/>\nthe above said survey numbers.  As per the guideline value, the market value is<br \/>\nRs.3\/- for one sq.ft. in Survey No.23\/3 and for 1 cent Rs.500\/- for survey<br \/>\nNo.11\/2, thereby the valuation made in the Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madurai,<br \/>\ncould be sustained and directed the appellant to pay as required by the Deputy<br \/>\nCollector (Stamps).  Challenging the above said proceedings of the first<br \/>\nrespondent, the appellant is before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Mr.K.Sekar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the<br \/>\nguideline value maintained by the Sub-Registrar&#8217;s Office, would not reflect the<br \/>\nactual market value of the property and that when a statutory body fixes its<br \/>\nmarket value of the property for the purpose of  conducting auction, it has to<br \/>\nbe treated as market value of the property and the observations of first<br \/>\nrespondent are not at all maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Conversely, Mr.So.Paramasivam, learned Government Advocate, would<br \/>\nsubmit that there is no wrong on the part of the first respondent to reject the<br \/>\nrecommendations of the District Registrar, Dindigul and that the present market<br \/>\nvalue of the property has been correctly fixed as per the guideline value and<br \/>\nthe appellant has been required to pay the additional stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. In support of his Contentions,  the learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nwould place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in VI(2009) SLT<br \/>\n673=2009 (3) L.W.236 (DB),  in V.N.Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer,<br \/>\nCum-INS and Others, wherein their Lordships were pleased to observe that the<br \/>\nExplanation to Sub-rule (5) of the Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, makes the<br \/>\nposition clear that the value would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the<br \/>\nopen market  on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance and that<br \/>\nproperty was offered for sale in open market and bids were invited by the<br \/>\nstatutory body i.e. part of Industrial and Financial Reconstructions and the<br \/>\nAppellate authority and that no question of any intention  to defraud revenue or<br \/>\nnon- disclosure of correct price would arise.  The relevant portion of the<br \/>\nJudgment goes thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;10. Market value is a changing concern.  The explanation to Sub-rule (5) makes<br \/>\nto position clear that value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch<br \/>\nif sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of<br \/>\nconveyance.  Here, the property was offer for sale in the open market and bids<br \/>\nwe invited.  That being so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the<br \/>\nrevenue or non disclosure of the correct price.  The fact scenario as indicated<br \/>\nabove goes to show to the properties were disposed of by the order of BIFR<br \/>\n\tand AIFR and that too on the basis of value fixed by ASG.  The view<br \/>\nexpressed by the Assets Sales committee which consisted of members such as<br \/>\nrepresentatives of IDBI, Debenture Holders, Government of West Bengal and<br \/>\nSpecial Director of BIFR.  That being so, there is no possibility of any under<br \/>\nvaluation and, therefore, Section 47-A of the Act has no application.  It is not<br \/>\ncorrect as observed by the High Court that BIFR was only a mediator.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 7. The said decision has been followed by this Court in the judgment<br \/>\nreported in 2009(4) L.W.532,  in Ramkumar Giri Vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue<br \/>\nAuthority cum Inspector General of Registration and Others,  wherein the learned<br \/>\nJudge has opined that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had  relied upon<br \/>\nonly the guideline value. The guideline value is not the market value. He has<br \/>\nnot substantiated with any material also in his order for fixing the market<br \/>\nvalue of the property.  Concluding the Judgment, it is stated that it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid in this case that the market value of the property which is the subject<br \/>\nmatter of conveyance, has not been truly set forth with a view to fradulently<br \/>\nevade payment of proper stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.  Following the ratio laid down in the above said Honourable Supreme<br \/>\nCourt decision, it is to be held that there could be no malafide intention on<br \/>\nthe part of the statutory authority, namely, the Corporation and the market<br \/>\nvalue as fixed by the said authority for the purpose of auction, could be<br \/>\ntreated to be the market value of the property and the collection of stamp duty<br \/>\non that basis, is appropriate.  Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act  was<br \/>\nincorporated in the Indian Stamp Stamp Act with an intention to curtail the<br \/>\nparties to enter into  transactions relating to the immovable properties to show<br \/>\nlesser valuation of the properties so as to defraud the revenue to the<br \/>\nGovernment. But if any malafide intention could not be ascertained in the minds<br \/>\nof the parties, then the Court may interfere and direct the authorities to abide<br \/>\nby the settled procedures.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. In such view of this matter,  this Court is of the considered opinion<br \/>\nthat there was no suppression of material factors on the part of the Corporation<br \/>\nand the appellant and the sale price mentioned in the sale deed is correct and<br \/>\nthere is no need to pay further stamp duty as called for in the impugned<br \/>\nproceedings<\/p>\n<p>passed by the first respondent.  The appeal deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  10. In fine, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the<br \/>\nconnected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>ssl<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe Inspector General of Registration and<br \/>\n\t  Chief Revenue Controlling Authority<br \/>\n\t120, Santhom Highway<br \/>\n\tPattinapakkam<br \/>\n\tChennai &#8211; 600 028.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)<br \/>\n\tCollectorate Building<br \/>\n\tMadurai &#8211; 625 020<\/p>\n<p>3.\tSub-Registrar<br \/>\n\tNilakottai,Dindigul District<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Santosh vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 17 November, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17\/11\/2009 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU C.M.A.(MD).No.636 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 Santosh &#8230; Appellant\/Petitioner Vs 1.The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, 120, Santhom Highway, Pattinapakkam, Chennai [&hellip;]<\/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-212152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Santosh vs The Inspector General Of ... on 17 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santosh vs The Inspector General Of ... on 17 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-05T11:20:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santosh vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 17 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-05T11:20:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1246,\"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\\\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Santosh vs The Inspector General Of ... on 17 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-05T11:20:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santosh vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 17 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Santosh vs The Inspector General Of ... on 17 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santosh vs The Inspector General Of ... on 17 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-05T11:20:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santosh vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 17 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-05T11:20:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009"},"wordCount":1246,"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\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009","name":"Santosh vs The Inspector General Of ... on 17 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-05T11:20:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-17-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santosh vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 17 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/212152","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=212152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}