{"id":226303,"date":"2006-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006"},"modified":"2018-10-08T19:23:12","modified_gmt":"2018-10-08T13:53:12","slug":"the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 11\/12\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nA.S.No.945 of 1993\n\n\nThe District Collector,\nThanjavur\t\t\t... \tAppellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1.Nagarajan\n\n2.Jayaraman\t\t\t... \tRespondents\n\n\n\tAppeal against the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge,\nThanjavur in O.S.No.215 of 1987, dated 29.07.1991.\n\n\n!For Appellant \t \t...\tMr.K.M.Vijayakumar\n\t\t\t\tAddl. Government Pleader\n\t\t\n^For Respondent\t \t...\tNo Appearance\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis appeal is directed as against the Judgment and decree dated
\n29.07.1991, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, in O.S.No.215 of
\n1987, which was filed by the plaintiff as against the defendant for recovery of
\namount along with interest.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Niggard and bereft of details the case of the plaintiff could be
\nnarrated thus;\n<\/p>\n
\tThe defendants, being hulling agents of the plaintiff’s Government, were
\nentrusted with huge quantity of paddy under various terms and conditions agreed
\nto between the parties.  The quantum of paddy entrusted to the defendants and
\nquantity of rice delivered by the defendants to the Government would run thus;\n<\/p>\n
Description
\nUnder 25%  Levy Scheme. (Q.Kgs)
\nUnder Open Market Scheme (Q. Kgs)
\nPaddy deposited from April 1972 to July 1972.\n<\/p>\n
4939-05
\n425.22
\nPaddy transferred to other Hulling Agents
\n1169.00
\n342.00
\n                      Balance
\n3770.05
\n83.22
\nRice due at 68% as per agreement from 29.04.1972 to 18.09.1972
\n2563.64
\n56.59
\nRice actually delivered
\n1664.64\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n
Balance to be delivered (Rice)
\n899.00
\n56.59
\n          Total Demand
\n955.59
\n(899+56.59)<\/p>\n
\t3. Despite incessant demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant
\ndelivered, out of the said balance, only 155.44 quintals of paddy under the 25%
\nLevy Scheme and 64.41 quintals towards Open Market Scheme.  Even then the
\ndefendants are still in arrears.<\/p>\n
\n\t\n\tThe Amount due\t\t\t= Rs.1,01,250.08\n\n\tSecurity Deposit\n\tadjusted Chalan\t\t\t    Rs.5,000,00\n\tNo.7\/30\/12\/72.\n\n\tSale of Ch.53\/27-12-72 (Straw)\t\t 10,00\n\n\tSale proceeds of paddy detrained\t\n\tfrom the land-Nagarajan (Paddy)\n\t(Ch.No.61\/3-4-73)\t       \t\t    Rs.1,815.90\n\n\tSale proceeds of (Straw) Ch.\n\t181\/9.5.73\t\t\t    Rs.  115.75\n\n\n\tSale proceeds of (Straw) Ch.\n\t45\/9-5-73\t\t\t\t   Rs.    4.50\n\n\tSale proceeds of (Paddy) Ch.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t    Rs.1,075.59\n     No.44\/9-5-73\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\tCash remittance in Ch.51\/11-4-74\t   Rs.10,000.00\n\n\tCash remittance in\n\tCh.190\/30-10-74\t\t\t   Rs.10,000.00\n\n\tAmount collect by adjustment of\n     Security Deposits available in\n     the shape of 7 years National\n\tSavings Certificate on 01.03.1976\t   Rs. 5,700.00\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   ------------\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   Rs.33,768.74\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   ------------\t\t\t\t\t\n<\/pre>\n
Balance amount due (1,01,250.08) – 33,768.74 = 67.481.34<\/p>\n
(Rupees sixty seven thousand four hundred and eighty one and paise thirty four
\nonly)<\/p>\n
\t4. Since the defendants committed default, the plaintiff was constrained
\nto file the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Per contra, the defendants filed the written statement with the
\naverments inter alia which run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  The defendants are not aware of the terms and conditions of the alleged
\nagreement referred to in the plaint and such an agreement cannot be a valid one
\nas it is only an unilateral one to safeguard the interest of the Government and
\nits Officers.  The defendants signed only in unfilled printed forms without
\nknowing the contents and if the records in earlier proceedings in O.S.No.260 of
\n1976 were perused, the truth will come out that there was no shortage at all on
\nthe part of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The godown concerned was operated under double lock system, so to say
\none key with the plaintiff’s Official namely, the Taluk Supply Officer and other
\nkey with the defendants.  Whatever paddy was released for hulling by the
\nofficial of the plaintiff, the defendants hulled properly those quantities and
\nrice was delivered properly to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. On 04.08.1972, the District Supply Officer checked the actual stock
\nlying in the godown and as per the register, there was shortage of 80 bags.  The
\nshortage of 80 bags was due to non making of entry of release of 80 bags of
\npaddy for hulling and actually, there was no shortage after 04.08.1972.  As per
\nthe direction of the Collector, the paddy stored in the godown was transferred
\nto other mills unilaterally by the plaintiff’s official without the knowledge of
\nthe defendants.  The defendants never gave any statement voluntarily.  Only the
\nsignatures of the defendants were obtained by the plaintiff’s official under
\nthreat. The defendants are not liable for any shortage after  04.08.1972.  The
\nsuit was barred by limitation.  Accordingly the defendants prayed for the
\ndismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The trial Court framed as many as eight issues.  On the side of the
\nplaintiff, the plaintiff’s official was examined as P.W1 and Exs.A1 to 25 were
\nmarked.  On the side of the defendants, D2 was examined himself as DW1 and P.W1
\nwas marked.  The trial Court ultimately decreed the suit only for Rs.2193.63\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the
\nplaintiff has preferred this appeal on the following grounds among others;\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) The trial Court wrongly arrived at the conclusion that only 493.03
\nquintals of rice was issued.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The rate of Rs.99.48 per quintal was only relating to paddy and not
\nfor rice.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii). The trial Court failed to appreciate properly the stock account as
\nin Ex.A9.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) The balance found in Ex.A3 should have been taken together with
\nEx.A9.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v). The trial Court has not properly considered Ex.A3.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for decreeing the original suit in
\ntoto by modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The Points for consideration are :\n<\/p>\n
\t1. Whether the defendant committed default in supply of rice in
\ncommensurate with the paddy supplied by the Government to the defendants? and if
\nso, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.67,481.37 ?\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Whether there is any infirmity in the Judgment and decree of the trial
\nCourt?\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The analysis of the evidence on record with reference to the Judgment
\nand decree of the trial Court, would make it crystal clear that the trial Court
\nmisunderstood the entries found in Ex.A.9. The trial Court in paragraph No.6 of
\nits Judgment gave a finding as though as per Ex.A.9, register, there was no
\nshortage of paddy at all and that the defendants were liable to give to the
\nGovernment only rice to the tune of 436.93 quintals.  Accordingly, the trial
\nCourt proceeded further in understanding that out of that 436.93 quintals of
\nrice, whatever quantities, referred to in paragraph No.4 of the plaint, should
\nbe deducted and accordingly, arrived at a wrong conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. A perusal of Ex.A.9 would clearly show that there was deficit paddy to
\nthe tune of 679.51 quintals and apart from that the rice to be supplied was to
\nthe tune of 436.93 quintals and at the end of the entries in Ex.A.9, abstract is
\nfound written, which was wrongly understood by the trial Court as there was a
\nshortage in supply of rice only and there was no shortage of paddy.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The entire perusal of Ex.A.9 would clearly show that even after
\n04.08.1972, there were lot of entries showing the details including the details
\nof transfer to other mills and accordingly on 12.09.1972, the balance was struck
\nto the effect that there were shortage of paddy to the tune of 1197 bags of
\npaddy weighing 679.15 quintals in addition to shortage of rice to the tune of
\n436.93 quintals and the trial Court failed to note this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In Ex.A.9 itself, there is an abstract for shortage of paddy and
\naccordingly, the officials concerned clearly specified the shortage of paddy was
\n679.15 quintals, which tallies with the entries in Ex.A.9.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Over and above that the rice account is found as specified at the last
\nof the entries and as per which 436.93 quintals of rice was yet to be delivered
\nby the defendants to the plaintiff based on the paddy supplied to the defendant
\nfor hulling.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The trial Court cannot approbate and reprobate.  Believing the entries
\nin Ex.A.9, the trial Court arrived at the figure of 436.93 quintals of rice as
\ndue to the plaintiff.  But, it gave a finding quite as against the entries found
\nin Ex.A.9 as though there was no evidence that after 04.08.1972, the paddy was
\nsupplied to the defendants for hulling.  Relating to the paddy supplied for
\nhulling to the defendants by the plaintiff, the quantity of rice after hulling
\nto be given to the defendants is 436.93 quintals; the shortage in paddy is in
\naddition to it.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that as revealed by the
\nentries in the register that there was a shortage of paddy to the tune of 679.51
\nquintals.  Without any basis, the trial Court took it as gospel truth the
\nversion of the defendants that the government officials simply without their
\nknowledge take away the paddy.  If that be so, it is for the defendants to prove
\nthat what made them not to complain then and there about it to higher officials.
\nWhy they have not prevented such removal.  Absolutely there are no explanation
\nfrom the defendants.  They would in another breath contend that accounts if
\nproduced would show no shortage.  Accounts produced as discussed supra reveals
\nthe correct and clear picture.  The allegations made by the defendants remain
\nunproved.  To say the least, the trial court fixed Rs.99.48 as the value of rice
\nper quintal, but it was the value of paddy per quintal.  The trial Court jumped
\nto the conclusion that there was no possibility of shortage of paddy and it is
\nnot known as to how quite as against the same from Ex.A.9 which the trial Court
\nrelied on could arrive at such a conclusion.  Ex.A.15, notice dated 10.10.1972
\nissued by the District Revenue Officer to the defendants contain the clear
\ndetails relating to the claim of the plaintiff as against the defendants and it
\nis extracted hereunder for ready reference:\n<\/p>\n
\t\"Levy Scheme:\t\t\t\tQ.Kg\n\t\tPaddy\t\t\t\t\t679.51\t\n   \t\tRice\t\t\t\t\t\t436.93\n\n\tOpen Market Purchase Scheme:\n\t\tPaddy\t\t\t\t\t 83.22\t\n\n<\/pre>\n
The value for the shortages of paddy and rice including 25% penalty works out to
\nRs.1,18,732.06 as detailed below:\n<\/p>\n
Levy Scheme\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tQ. Kg\nRice due at 68%\t\t\t\t462.07\nfor 679.51 Q.Kg of Paddy\n\nClosing stock of rice which\t\t436.93\nis found short   \t\t\t------\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t899.00\t\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t------\nOpen Market Purchase Scheme:\t\tQ. Kg\n\nRice due at 68%\nfor 83.22 Q.Kg of Paddy\t\t\t56.59\n\nTotal rice due\t   \t\t       955.59\n\t\nValue at Rs.99.40\nper quintal of rice for\n955.59 quintal of rice\t\t   Rs.94,985.65\n\n25% penalty\t\t\t   Rs.23,746.41\t\t\t\t\t   \t   -----\n-------\n\t\t\t\t\tRs. 1,18,732.06\t\t\t\t\t\t\n------------\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t18. This calculation is borne by entries in Ex.A.9 and that tallies with
\nthe claim in the plaint.  During arguments on the defendants’ side, nothing has
\nbeen elicited out so as to discredit the entries found in the plaint as well as
\nthe calculation found in Ex.A.15 coupled with Ex.A.9.  Relating to other aspects
\ninvolved in this matter, the facts are admitted.  The Government correctly made
\ncalculations and also given due deductions to amounts so far recovered in
\nparagraph No.7 and arrived at the net claim amount of Rs.67,481.34.
\nAccordingly, the point No.(i) is answered to the effect that the suit has to be
\ndecreed as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. It is just and necessary to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum
\nfrom the date of suit till the date of recovery of the said amount of
\nRs.67,481.34<\/p>\n
\t20. In the result, in view of the aforesaid points, the appeal is allowed
\nby setting aside the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and by decreeing the
\noriginal suit, directing the defendants to pay jointly and severally a sum of
\nRs.67,481.34 with 6% interest from the date of plaint till the date of
\nrealisation.  The defendants also shall pay the costs throughout to the
\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
To
\nThe Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11\/12\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.945 of 1993 The District Collector, Thanjavur … Appellant Vs. 1.Nagarajan 2.Jayaraman … Respondents Appeal against the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur in […]<\/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-226303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006 - 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\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-08T13:53:12+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-08T13:53:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1648,\"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\\\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006\",\"name\":\"The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-08T13:53:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006 - 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\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-08T13:53:12+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-08T13:53:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006"},"wordCount":1648,"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\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006","name":"The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-08T13:53:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-vs-nagarajan-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The District Collector vs Nagarajan on 11 December, 2006"}]},{"@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\/226303","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=226303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}