{"id":215911,"date":"2009-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-23T23:54:10","modified_gmt":"2015-11-23T18:24:10","slug":"a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 07\/07\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nW.P.(MD)No.2686 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\nA.Vaidyanathan                                           ...Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The District Revenue Officer,\n   Pudukkottai District,\n   Pudukkottai.\n\n2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n   Pudukkottai.\n\n3.The Special Tahsildar,\n   Natham Land Survey,\n   Thirumaiyam,\n   Pudukkottai District.\n\n4.Krishnasamy,\n   S\/o.Arumugha Servai\n   Power Agent of Kannan @ Thangaraj\n\n5.Saraswathi\n6.Kalai Selvi\n7.Poovendran\n8.Dinesh\n9.Lavenya                                                ...Respondents\n\n\tWrit Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of  Certiorarified Mandamus, to call\nfor the records relating to the proceedings rP.k.M.3\/2\/07, of the 1st respondent\ndated 03.03.2009 and quash the same and confirm the proceedings c.M.tp.vz;.2\/96\nof the 3rd respondent dated 31.05.1997.\n\n!For Petitioner           ...   Mr.V.Sitharajandas\n^For Respondents 1 to 3   ...   Mr.D.Gandhi Raj\n                                Government Advocate\n                                                    -----\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of 7-1\/2 Cents of<br \/>\nNatham land in Survey No.996\/6, Thirukalambur Village, Thirumaiyam Taluk,<br \/>\nPudukktotai District, having purchased the same from one Jaganathan  on<br \/>\n10.04.1987.  One Late Kannan @ Thangaraj, who was in Malaysia wanted some land<br \/>\nin Thirukalambur village and there was an agreement between the petitioner and<br \/>\nthe said Kannan @ Thangaraj. In pursuance of the agreement both of them executed<br \/>\nan unregistered deed of exchange on 30.09.1992 and as per the unregistered deed<br \/>\nof exchange, 7-1\/2 Cents of Natham house site in Survey No.996\/6 with specific<br \/>\nboundaries was given by the petitioner to the said Kannan @ Thangaraj and in<br \/>\nexchange of that property, the petitioner has got 364 sq.feet. of house site in<br \/>\nold Survey No.313\/3, New Survey No.974\/23.  The 4th respondent was the Power<br \/>\nAgent of Kannan @ Thangaraj and with the help of his son, who was employed in<br \/>\nthe Department of Land Survey,  the 4th respondent obtained patta No.495 for 13<br \/>\nCents in Survey No.996\/6 and sub-divided the same as Survey No.996\/10, whereas<br \/>\nKannan @ Thangaraj was only entitled to 7-1\/2 Cents as per the unregistered deed<br \/>\nof exchange.  Therefore, an objection was raised by the petitioner and the 3rd<br \/>\nrespondent by his proceedings c.M.tp.vz;. 2\/96 \/ dated 31.05.1997 allotted 2.5<br \/>\nares of Natham  house site to the petitioner and assigned new survey as Survey<br \/>\nNo.996\/10 in favour of the petitioner and allotted the remaining natham house<br \/>\nsite in favour of Kannan @ Thangaraj and assigned the new survey No.996\/11 after<br \/>\nfurther sub-dividing the Survey No.996\/10.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent as Power Agent of Kannan @<br \/>\nThangaraj filed an appeal before the second respondent in A6.3624\/98 and while<br \/>\nthe appeal was pending the said Kannan @ Thanragaj died on 30.08.1998.  This was<br \/>\nbrought to the notice of the second respondent by the petitioner and contended<br \/>\nthat as the principal died on 30.08.1998, the 4th respondent cannot prosecute<br \/>\nthe appeal as the Power Agent of Kannan @ Thangaraj and the appeal has to be<br \/>\ndismissed or appeal can be prosecuted only by the legal-heirs of the deceased<br \/>\nKannan @ Thangaraj.  Unfortunately, the second respondent without considering<br \/>\nthe locus standi of the 4th respondent, who was only the Power Agent, heard the<br \/>\nappeal and set aside the order of the 3rd respondent by his order dated<br \/>\n30.11.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision before the first<br \/>\nrespondent impleading the deceased Kannan @ Thangaraj as respondent, knowing<br \/>\nfull well that Kannan @ Thangraj was dead and that revision was taken on file by<br \/>\nthe 1st respondent and the 1st respondent also failed to appreciate the<br \/>\nrevision, which is not maintainable as it is against the dead person. Even<br \/>\nthough a memo was filed by the 4th respondent informing the details of the legal<br \/>\nheirs of the deceased Kannan @ Thangaraj before the first respondent, the<br \/>\npetitioner did not take any steps to implead the legal-heirs of the deceased<br \/>\nKannan @ Thangaraj and after hearing both parties viz., the petitioner and the<br \/>\nPower Agent of Kannan @ Thangaraj, the first respondent dismissed the revision<br \/>\non merits by his proceedings in rP.k.M.3\/2\/07 dated 03.03.2009.  Aggrieved over<br \/>\nthe said order, this writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the<br \/>\norder of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.Heard both parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.It is admitted by both parties that during the pendency of the appeal<br \/>\nbefore  the 2nd respondent, the appellant died and therefore, the Power Agent<br \/>\nhas no authority to prosecute the appal and  despite that the appeal was heard<br \/>\non merits and the appeal was allowed by the 2nd respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.It is well settled that when the principal dies, the power executed by<br \/>\nhim comes to end and the Power Agent cannot derive any right of title under that<br \/>\npower and therefore, the 4th respondent had no authority to prosecute the appeal<br \/>\nbefore the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent either directed the 4th<br \/>\nrespondent to implead the legal heirs of the deceased Kannan @ Thangaraj or<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant is dead and the legal<br \/>\nheirs were not impleaded.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.On the other hand, the 2nd respondent even after knowing that the<br \/>\nprincipal is dead, allowed the appeal to be prosecuted by the Power Agent and<br \/>\npassed an order on merits.  Therefore, the order passed by the 2nd respondent is<br \/>\ntechnically not valid in law. While so, the petitioner being aggrieved by the<br \/>\norder of the 2nd respondent filed the revision before the first respondent by<br \/>\nimpleading only the dead person.  Therefore, the revision filed by the<br \/>\npetitioner is also not valid in law and the first respondent ought not to have<br \/>\ntaken the revision on file after knowing that the respondent is dead and his<br \/>\nlegal-heirs were not impleaded.  Therefore, in this case, both the 4th<br \/>\nrespondent and the petitioner have omitted to bring on the legal-heirs of the<br \/>\ndeceased Kannan @ Thangaraj, while prosecuting the appeal and revision and<br \/>\ntherefore, the orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondent are not valid in the eye of<br \/>\nlaw and therefore, they are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.Having held that the order of the 2nd and 1st  respondent are not valid<br \/>\nin law and are liable to be set aside, it is easy for this Court to pass an<br \/>\norder after set asiding the orders of the 1st  and 2nd respondent and remanded<br \/>\nthe case to the 2nd respondent granting liberty to the parties to implead the<br \/>\nlegal-heirs of the deceased Kannan @ Thangaraj and prosecute the appeal.  But in<br \/>\nthis writ petition the legal-heirs were brought on record and and summons were<br \/>\ntaken to the legal heirs, who are respondents 5 to 9 and their names appeared in<br \/>\nthe cause list, but none of them appeared for the respondent 5 to 9.  In such<br \/>\ncircumstances, in the interest of justice, I decided to dispose of the writ<br \/>\npetition on merits having regard to the scope of the controversy in this writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.Admittedly, Kannan @ Thangraj claimed right over 7-1\/2 Cents under the<br \/>\nunregistered deed of exchange executed between himself and the petitioner though<br \/>\nit is stated in the said unregistered deed of exchange that the property within<br \/>\nfour boundaries mentioned therein was given in the exchange for other property<br \/>\nand  there is one more recital in that exchange deed that the said Kannan @<br \/>\nThangaraj takes the risk of the property within that specified boundaries even<br \/>\nit exceeds 7-1\/2 Cents or less then 7-1\/2 Cents. This was taken advantage of by<br \/>\nthe 4th respondent before the authorities that though 7-1\/2 Cents was given to<br \/>\nhis principal  under unregistered exchange deed, the property which was<br \/>\navailable within the four boundaries is more than 7-1\/2 Cents and that was taken<br \/>\ninto consideration while granting patta in favour of Kannan @ Thangaraj for 13<br \/>\nCents.  In my opinion, Kannan @Thangaraj can claim title only to 7-1\/2 Cents as<br \/>\nper the exchange deed.  Though the exchange deed is unregistered and therefore,<br \/>\nboth of them cannot claim any title under that exchange deed, having regard to<br \/>\nthe fact that the parties accepted that 7-1\/2 Cents of land was exchanged for<br \/>\n364 sq. ft. of land, in my opinion, the 3rd respondent was right in acting on<br \/>\nthat admission and issued the patta.  The 2nd respondent while entertaining the<br \/>\nappeal filed by the Power Agent, the 4th respondent, without appreciating that<br \/>\nKannan @ Thangaraj got only 7-1\/2 Cents granted patta in favour of Kannan @<br \/>\nThangaraj in Patta No.495 in Survey No.996\/10 of an extent of 0.05.0 ares, which<br \/>\nis equivalent to 13 Cents. The 1st and 2nd respondents failed to appreciate that<br \/>\nKannan @ Thangaraj was entitled to 7-12\/ Cents and he cannot be given patta for<br \/>\n13 Cents as was given originally by setting aside the order of the 3rd<br \/>\nrespondent, who granted patta in favour of Kannan @ Thangaraj for 7-1\/2 Cents.<br \/>\nFurther, the 1st respondent erred in relying on the judgment reported in<br \/>\n2007(1)CTC 577 to grant patta for 13 Cents.  As stated supra, the deed of<br \/>\nexchange is an unregistered one and hence, the 1st respondent should not have<br \/>\ntaken the recitals in the exchange deed viz., whatever land available within the<br \/>\nboundaries shall be the property of Kannan @ Thangaraj into consideration for<br \/>\nallotting 13 Cents.  Further the 3rd respondent after conducting physical<br \/>\nverification passed the order allotting patta to the Revenue Petitioner to an<br \/>\nextent of 03.0 ares, 7-1\/2 Cents.  Therefore, the extent which was available<br \/>\nwithin the boundaries also could not be more than 7-1\/2 cents. The 3rd<br \/>\nrespondent therefore was right in allotting 00.5 ares in Survey No.995\/15 and<br \/>\n02.5 ares in Survey No.996\/11 totalling 03.0 ares equivalence to 7.5 Cents to<br \/>\nKannaj @ Thangaraj.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.Therefore, the orders of the 1st  and 2nd  respondents are liable to be<br \/>\nset aside and the order of the 3rd  respondent is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the 1st<br \/>\nand 2nd respondents are set aside and the order of the 3rd respondent is<br \/>\nconfirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n<p>To,<\/p>\n<p>1.The District Revenue Officer,<br \/>\n   Pudukkottai District,<br \/>\n   Pudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,<br \/>\n   Pudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Special Tahsildar,<br \/>\n   Natham Land Survey,<br \/>\n   Thirumaiyam,<br \/>\n   Pudukkottai District.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Government Advocate,<br \/>\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n   Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07\/07\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.2686 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 A.Vaidyanathan &#8230;Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai. 3.The Special Tahsildar, Natham [&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-215911","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 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\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-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=\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-23T18:24:10+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-23T18:24:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1521,\"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\\\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009\",\"name\":\"A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-23T18:24:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 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":"A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 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\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-23T18:24:10+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-23T18:24:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009"},"wordCount":1521,"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\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009","name":"A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-23T18:24:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vaidyanathan-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Vaidyanathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 July, 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\/215911","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=215911"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215911\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215911"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215911"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215911"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}