{"id":220066,"date":"2008-06-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-09T13:58:15","modified_gmt":"2017-11-09T08:28:15","slug":"smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 1246 of 2004(B)\n\n\n1. SMT.T. NAFEESA, D\/O.LATE KUNHIMOIDEEN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SMT.T. ASMABI, D\/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN,\n3. SRI. T. ABDUL RASHEED, S\/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN\n4. SMT.T. NASEEMA, D\/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN,\n5. SMT.T. RASHEEDA, D\/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE ESTATE OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN\n\n3. THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :04\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                          HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                       ------------------------------------------\n                          C.R.P No. 1246 of 2004\n                     -------------------------------------------\n                   Dated this the 4th day of June 2008\n\n                                     ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      The revision petitioners 1 to 5 are the appellants in C.M.A. 27\/1998<\/p>\n
on the file of the District Judge Thalassery. By the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
under revision the appellate court confirmed the order dated 23.2.1998 of<\/p>\n
the Estate Officer of the Souther Railway Divisional Office, Palakkad in<\/p>\n
the proceedings directing the eviction of the revision petitioners from Bunk<\/p>\n
No. 2 which is allegedly installeld in the premises of the Kannur railway<\/p>\n
Station The Estate Officer passed Orders directing the revision petitioners<\/p>\n
to vacate the said premises in the proceedings initiated against them<\/p>\n
under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised<\/p>\n
Occupants) Act 1971 .\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of one Kunhalima who<\/p>\n
was the licensee     in respect of Bunk No. 2                  belonging to Kannur<\/p>\n
Municipality. According to the revision petitioners their predecessor-in-<\/p>\n
interest was in occupation of the Bunk from the year 1970 onwards. It is<\/p>\n
also contended that the Licencee received a notice in the year 1989 to<\/p>\n
show cause why she should not be evicted from the site where the bunk<\/p>\n
is situated. Pursuant to the proceedings initiated the first respondent<\/p>\n
passed order on 29.7.1992 whereby the licencee was directed to vacate<\/p>\n
C.R.P No. 1246 of 2004                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
the said premises within 15 days. The matter was taken up in appeal as<\/p>\n
C.M.A. 7\/1994 . Prusuant to order passed by the lower appellate court<\/p>\n
the present order was passed by the Estate Officer which was confirmed<\/p>\n
by the lower apepllate court in C.M.A. No. 27\/1998.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        It is contended by the       southern    Railway that the    Kannur<\/p>\n
Municipality have constructed the Bunk No. 2 near to the Kannur Railway<\/p>\n
station by encroaching an area of 10 Sq. meters into the railway land.<\/p>\n
During the survey the encroachment was noticed by the Southern Railway<\/p>\n
and therefore eviction proceedings were initiated on the then licencee.<\/p>\n
Smt. Kunhalima. The Municipality issued notice to the revision petitioners<\/p>\n
stating that the Southern Railway wants to get the land evicted and<\/p>\n
therefore directed the revision petitioners to evict the property .<\/p>\n
      The Estate Officer of the Souther Railway by the impugned order<\/p>\n
dated 23.2.1998 passed an order of eviction by resorting to the provisions<\/p>\n
of Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act) 1971 . The<\/p>\n
Estate Officer on a perusal of the records found that the Bunk is located<\/p>\n
partly in the Municipal area and partly in the railwayy land. Admittedly the<\/p>\n
Bunk was constructed by the Municipality and the revision petitioners are<\/p>\n
the one time licencee for conducting the business in the bunk. The<\/p>\n
Estate Officer also noticed the facts    that the licence period of the Bunk<\/p>\n
C.R.P No. 1246 of 2004               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
has expired on 31.3.1994. and now the occupation of the Bunk itself is<\/p>\n
unauthorised. The Railway issued notice to the Municipality to direct the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners to evict the premises and to hand over the possession<\/p>\n
of the railway rand to the      Southern Railway.   In the meanwhile        the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners filed O.S. 159\/1996 before the Munsiff Court Kannur.<\/p>\n
The Munsiff Court disposed of the said suit that the Estate Officer of the<\/p>\n
Southern Railway is at liberty to initiate necessary action under Public<\/p>\n
Premises ( Eviction of unauthorised occupants ) Act 1971          against the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners who are the plaintiffs in that suit. In that suit filed by<\/p>\n
the revision petitioners, whether the action of the respondents for eviction<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff is illegal or not whether an area of an extent of 10Sq.<\/p>\n
meters of railway land was encroached while constructing the Bunk by<\/p>\n
the Municipality whether the 3rd defendant (Estate Officer) is competent to<\/p>\n
initiate eviction proceeding as per the provisions of law and a number of<\/p>\n
other issues were formulated and decided by the Munsiff Court.<\/p>\n
        At the time of final hearing before the Estate Officer the counsel<\/p>\n
for the revision petitioners admitted that they do not possess any title<\/p>\n
deed or documents to substantiate their ownership or to legalise the<\/p>\n
occupation of the Bunk.          The Estate Officer     found that in such<\/p>\n
circumstances no valid grounds are made out to substantiate or to justify<\/p>\n
the unauthorised occupation of the public premises. The Estate officer<\/p>\n
C.R.P No. 1246 of 2004                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
also noted the submission made on behalf o the Muncipal Engineer tha<\/p>\n
the has no objection to evict the unauthorised encroachers in the area<\/p>\n
under dispute. The Municipality also submitted a detailed plan before the<\/p>\n
Estate Officer The said plan shows that the area under dispute is in the<\/p>\n
Railway premises and the           revision petitioners are        unauthorised<\/p>\n
occupants of the same. On the factual position as stated above the Estate<\/p>\n
Officer rightly found that ta portion of the area covered by the location of<\/p>\n
the Bunk belongs to the Southern railway and therefore the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners are in unauthorised occupation<\/p>\n
       The revision petitioners appealed to the District Court Thalassery .<\/p>\n
The appellate court also         examined the file and the two sketches<\/p>\n
concerning the land in question. The sketches produced will go to show<\/p>\n
that the Bunk has been constructed encroaching a portion of the railway<\/p>\n
land. The appellate court taken note of       all the findings entered by the<\/p>\n
Munsiff Court in O.S. 159\/1996 and held that an extent of 10 sq. maters of<\/p>\n
railway land has been encroached by the Municipality while constructing<\/p>\n
the Bunk in question. The learned Munsiff rejected the contention of the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners that the railway has no right      to initiate proceedings<\/p>\n
for eviction of the occupants in accordance with the provision of the said<\/p>\n
Act. The appellate court also noted the findings of the Munsiff Court<\/p>\n
which has become final that the Bunk is situated by 10 Sq. meters into the<\/p>\n
C.R.P No. 1246 of 2004               -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
railway land .\n<\/p>\n
 This Civil Revision petition is filed by the occupants challenging orders<\/p>\n
passed by the Estate Officer . The finding entered by the Estate Officer<\/p>\n
and the District Judge Thalassery are based on sufficient materials .<\/p>\n
The Municipality also has no case that the entire property      wherein the<\/p>\n
bunk is situated belongs to it. They have also admitted that a portion of<\/p>\n
the Bunk     which is    encroached into the      railway property    is an<\/p>\n
unauthorised and illegal Act. The occupants of the Bunk are continuing<\/p>\n
their business even now long after the expiry of the license issued to them.<\/p>\n
Having invited a decision against them in the Civil suit filed by them they<\/p>\n
have no locus standi before this Court. They are not entitled to continue<\/p>\n
in the premises in spite of the fact recorded by the railway authorities that<\/p>\n
a    portion of the property is unauthorisedly         encroached    by the<\/p>\n
Municipality. The revision petitioners have produced true copies several<\/p>\n
documents with a petition for receiving the additional documents ( I.A.<\/p>\n
No. 1182 of 2008). The documents relates to the period from the year<\/p>\n
1989 to 1993 and 1996 etc. I find no reason to receive those documents<\/p>\n
in evidence at this distance of time. The revision petitioners have every<\/p>\n
opportunity to produce whatever documents before the Estate Officer or<\/p>\n
before the appellate Court or before this Court. There is no bonafides in<\/p>\n
submitting these records during the course of final hearing. Therefore this<\/p>\n
C.R.P No. 1246 of 2004                -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
petition to receive the additional documents is dismissed. I find no<\/p>\n
grounds to interfere with the orders under challenge. This Civil Revision<\/p>\n
petition is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no<\/p>\n
order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Considering the fact that revision petitioners are in occupation of the<\/p>\n
licensed bunk     right from  1970 onwards, I direct      the Municipality to<\/p>\n
consider the case of the revision petitioners sympathetically and take a<\/p>\n
lenient decision regarding   shifting of the Bunk to any other convenient<\/p>\n
place and also to renew the expired licence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 1246 of 2004(B) 1. SMT.T. NAFEESA, D\/O.LATE KUNHIMOIDEEN, … Petitioner 2. SMT.T. ASMABI, D\/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN, 3. SRI. T. ABDUL RASHEED, S\/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN 4. SMT.T. NASEEMA, D\/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN, 5. SMT.T. RASHEEDA, D\/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN, Vs […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-220066","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 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\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-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=\"2008-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-09T08:28:15+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\\\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T08:28:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1286,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T08:28:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 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":"Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 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\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-09T08:28:15+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\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T08:28:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008"},"wordCount":1286,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008","name":"Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T08:28:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-nafeesa-vs-the-estate-officer-on-4-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.T. Nafeesa vs The Estate Officer on 4 June, 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\/220066","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=220066"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220066\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220066"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220066"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220066"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}