{"id":214159,"date":"2008-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-18T11:59:06","modified_gmt":"2015-06-18T06:29:06","slug":"collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  567 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nCollector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS. Sultan\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/03\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nREPORTABLE<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  567 OF 2008
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 993 of 2007)
\nWith
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  568 OF 2008
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1308 of 2007)
\nWith
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  570 OF 2008
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2089 of 2007)
\nWith
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  569 OF 2008
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2090 of 2007)
\nWith
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  571 OF 2008
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2091 of 2007)<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted in each case.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tChallenge in these appeals is to the order passed in each
\ncase by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
\nwrit petitions filed for quashing the order of detention passed
\nby the Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore, under
\nSections 3(1), 3(2) read with Section 2(a) and (g) of A.P.
\nPrevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits,
\nDrug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land
\nGrabbers Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’) in respect of Shri
\nPralayakaveri Bhaskar. Sri Pamanji Chenna Reddy, Sri
\nPralayakaveri Gnanaiah, Sri Voila Babu and Sri Pamanji Babu
\n(each described as ‘detenu’ hereinafter)  <\/p>\n
3.\tRespondent claiming to be a friend of  the detenu
\nchallenged the validity of the order stating it to be illegal,
\narbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 22 of the
\nConstitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’). The
\nmain ground of challenge was that the grounds of detention
\nreferred to certain acts which are punishable under the Indian
\nPenal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’), as well as the Explosive
\nSubstances Act, 1908 (in short ‘Explosive Act’) and, therefore,
\nshows non-application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIt was the stand of the writ petitioner who had filed the
\nHabeas Corpus Petition that the instances referred to do not
\naffect the public order at all and in any event since some of the
\ngrounds related to offences punishable under the Explosive
\nAct, the detention under the Act was impermissible. The High
\nCourt accepted the stand and quashed the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIn support of the appeals, learned counsel for the
\nappellants submitted that Section 2(g) of the Act defines a
\n‘goonda’.  Undisputedly, all the instances detailed in the order
\nof detention related to offences punishable under IPC and also
\nunder some of the provisions of the Explosive Act.  Therefore,
\nthe impugned judgment of the High Court is indefensible.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn response, learned counsel for the respondent
\nsubmitted that some of the instances are not relatable to
\noffences punishable under IPC and, therefore, Section 2(g) of
\nthe Act has no application. In any event, it is submitted that
\nmost of the incidents highlighted are stale incidents and do
\nnot in any manner constitute violation of public order.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tSection 2(g) of the Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Goondas means a person, who either by
\nhimself or as a member of or leader of a gang,
\nhabitually commits, or attempts to commit or
\nabets the commission of offences punishable
\nunder Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter
\nXXII of the Indian Penal Code.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tUndisputedly, in all the instances given in the grounds of
\ndetention, the indicated offences are punishable under either
\nChapters XVI or XVII and\/or XXII. In addition, in certain
\ninstances reference has been made to offences punishable
\nunder the Explosive Act.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tTherefore, it is not correct as observed by the High Court
\nthat some of the grounds related to offences punishable under
\nSections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Act only. It is really not so.
\nEven otherwise, all instances indicated are in respect of
\noffences covered by the definition of the expression ‘goonda’.
\nThe test is whether the detenu is a “goonda” in terms of
\nSection 2(g) of the Act. Reference to other provisions does not
\naffect that conclusion. There may be cases where offences may
\nbe punishable under different statutes.  Inevitably, therefore,
\nreference has to be made to them when giving details of an
\nincident.  That will not be a factor to render detention invalid.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tSo far as the stand that incidents were stale incidents, it
\nis to be noted that most of the incidents highlighted are of
\nNovember 2005. The order of detention was passed on
\n20.3.2006. The State Government approved the order of
\ndetention on 28.3.2006. The Advisory Board confirmed the
\norder of detention and based on the recommendation of the
\nAdvisory Board, the Government confirmed the order of
\ndetention for a period of 12 months from the date of detention.
\nThat being so, it cannot be said that the order of detention was
\nbased on stale incidents.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tSo far as the question as to whether the public order was
\ninvolved, the grounds of detention elaborately described the
\nacts which created dangerous and terrorized situations in the
\nvillage and frequently disturbed public peace and public order
\nbecause of the acts of violence and danger was caused to the
\nlives of the villagers. In all these instances deadly weapons
\nwere used causing injuries to various persons.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe crucial issue, therefore, is whether the activities of
\nthe detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the
\nexpression ‘law and order’ is wider in scope inasmuch as
\ncontravention of law always affects order. ‘Public order’ has a
\nnarrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only
\nsuch contravention which affects the community or the public
\nat large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the
\ncommunity taking the country as a whole or even a specified
\nlocality. The distinction between the areas of ‘law and order’
\nand ‘public order’ is one of the degree and extent of the reach
\nof the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act
\nto disturb the even tempo of life of the community which
\nmakes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If
\na contravention in its effect is confined only to a few
\nindividuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum
\nof public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the
\nlength, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed
\nby a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it
\nas an act affecting ‘public order’ from that concerning ‘law and
\norder’. The question to ask is: “Does it lead to disturbance of
\nthe current life of the community so as to amount to a
\ndisturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an
\nindividual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed”?
\nThis question has to be faced in every case on its facts.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t“Public order” is what the French call ‘ordre publique’
\nand is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and
\norder. The test to be adopted in determining whether an act
\naffects law and order or public order, is: Does it lead to
\ndisturbance of the current life of the community so as to
\namount to disturbance of the public order or does it affect
\nmerely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society
\nundisturbed?  (See Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal (AIR<\/a>
\n1972 SC 1656).\n<\/p>\n
14.\t“Public order” is synonymous with public safety and
\ntranquility: “it is the absence of disorder involving breaches of
\nlocal significance in contradistinction to national upheavals,
\nsuch as revolution, civil strife, war, affecting the security of the
\nState”. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder.
\nEvery breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder.
\nWhen two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but
\nnot public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers
\nto maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the
\nground that they were disturbing public order. Disorder is no
\ndoubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but
\ndisorder is a broad spectrum, which includes at one end small
\ndisturbances and at the other the most serious and
\ncataclysmic happenings. (See Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State
\nof Bihar and Ors. (1966 (1) SCR 709)<\/p>\n
15.\t‘Public Order’, ‘law and order’  and the ‘security of the
\nState’ fictionally draw three concentric circles, the largest
\nrepresenting law and order, the next representing public order
\nand the smallest representing security of the State. Every
\ninfraction of law must necessarily affect order, but an act
\naffecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the
\npublic order. Likewise, an act may affect public order, but not
\nnecessarily the security of the State. The true test is not the
\nkind, but the potentiality of the act in question. One act may
\naffect only individuals while the other, though of a similar
\nkind, may have such an impact that it would disturb the even
\ntempo of the life of the community. This does not mean that
\nthere can be no overlapping, in the sense that an act cannot
\nfall under two concepts at the same time. An act, for instance,
\naffecting public order may have an impact that it would affect
\nboth public order and the security of the State. [See Kishori
\nMohan Bera v. The State of West Bengal<\/a>  (1972 (3) SCC 845);
\nPushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal<\/a> (1969 (2) SCR\n<\/p>\n
635); Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal<\/a> (1970 (3) SCR 288);
\nNagendra Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal<\/a> (1972 (1) SCC\n<\/p>\n
498).\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThe distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’
\nhas been pointed out succinctly in Arun Ghosh’s case (supra).
\nAccording to that decision the true distinction between the
\nareas of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is “one of degree and
\nextent of the reach of the act in question upon society”. The
\nCourt pointed out that “the act by itself is not determinant of
\nits own gravity. In its quality it may not differ but in its
\npotentiality it may be very different”. (See Babul Mitra alias
\nAnil Mitra v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1973 (1) SCC 393,
\nMilan Banik v. State of West Bengal<\/a> (1974 (4) SCC 504).\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe true distinction between the areas of law and order
\nand public order lies not merely in the nature or quality of the
\nact, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society.
\nActs similar in nature, but committed in different contexts and
\ncircumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case it
\nmight affect specific individuals only, and therefore touches
\nthe problem of law and order only, while in another it might
\naffect public order. The act by itself, therefore, is not
\ndeterminant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ
\nfrom other similar acts, but in its potentiality, that is, in its
\nimpact on society, it may be very different.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe two concepts have well defined contours, it being
\nwell established that stray and unorganized crimes of theft
\nand assault are not matters of public order since they do not
\ntend to affect the even flow of public life. Infractions of law are
\nbound in some measure to lead to disorder but every
\ninfraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder.
\nLaw and order represents the largest scale within which is the
\nnext circle representing public order and the smallest circle
\nrepresents the security of State. “Law and order” comprehends
\ndisorders of less gravity than those affecting “public order” just
\nas “public order” comprehends disorders of less gravity than
\nthose affecting “security of State”. [See Kuso Sah v. The State
\nof Bihar and Ors.<\/a>  (1974 (1) SCC 185, Harpreet Kaur v. State
\nof Maharashtra (1992 (2) SCC 177, T.K. Gopal v. State of
\nKarnataka<\/a> (2000 (6) SCC 168, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd.
\nYakub<\/a> (1980 (2) SCR 1158)]. In the instant case, the incidents
\nrelated to public order situations.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tLooked at from any angle, the impugned judgment of the
\nHigh Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. However, the
\nperiod of detention as fixed in the detention order is already
\nover. It would be open to the State Government to consider
\nwhether there is a need for detaining the detenu for the
\nbalance period covered by the original order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tThe appeals are allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 567 of 2008 PETITIONER: Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors RESPONDENT: S. Sultan DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/03\/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCollector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008 - 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\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-18T06:29:06+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-18T06:29:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1973,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-18T06:29:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008 - 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\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-18T06:29:06+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-18T06:29:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008"},"wordCount":1973,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008","name":"Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-18T06:29:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-dist-magistrate-ors-vs-s-sultan-on-31-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan on 31 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/214159","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=214159"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214159\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}