{"id":234988,"date":"2011-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011"},"modified":"2014-12-31T18:57:08","modified_gmt":"2014-12-31T13:27:08","slug":"ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATE: 25\/08\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.11881 of 2008\nW.P.(MD)No.11880 of 2008\nand\nW.P.(MD)No.2416 of 2009\n\nIbrahimkhan\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t    (In W.P.No.11881\/2008)\n\nK.M.Sulthan Ibrahim\t\t\t...Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t   (In W.P.No.11880\/2008)\n\n1.K.S.Mohamed Fathima\n2.Faritha Fathima\n3.Syeetha Fathima\n4.Chinnakattu Meerkuttiammal\t\t...Petitioners\n\t\t\t\t\t   (In W.P.No.2416\/2009)\nVs.\n\n1. The Assistant Commissioner,\nLand Reforms, Madurai.\n\n2. The Land Commissioner,\nChepauk, Chennai.\n\n3. K.S.Mohamed Fathima\n\n4.Faritha Fathima\n\n5.Syeetha Fathima\n\n6.Chinnakattu Meerkuttiammal\t\t..Respondents<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t  (In W.P.No.11881\/2008,<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t   11880 of 2008)<br \/>\n(No relief claimed against respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and may be given up)<\/p>\n<p>1. The Assistant Commissioner,<br \/>\nLand Reforms, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Land Commissioner,<br \/>\nChepauk, Chennai.\t\t\t&#8230;Respondents<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t   (In WP.No.2416 of 2009)<\/p>\n<p>Prayer<\/p>\n<p>Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\nto issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus or any other writ or order or<br \/>\ndirection in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the<br \/>\nrecords of the second respondent in D1\/R.P.No. 26\/2007 (Land Reforms) dated<br \/>\n11.8.2008 quash the same as illegal aribitrary, and unenforceable consequently<br \/>\ndirect the first respondent to conduct de-nova enquiry after giving opportunity<br \/>\nto the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>!For Petitioners&#8230; Mr. V.K.Vijayaragavan<br \/>\n^For R1 and R2\t&#8230; D.Muruganantham<br \/>\n\t\t    Additional Government Pleader<br \/>\nFor R3 to R6\t&#8230; Given up\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>:COMMON ORDER<br \/>\n\t\t  This order shall dispose of W.P.(MD)Nos.11880, 11881 of 2008 and<br \/>\n2416 of 2009, as common questions of law, and facts arise for consideration.<br \/>\nFor the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.(MD)No.11881 of<br \/>\n2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The facts leading to filing of all three writ petitions are, that<br \/>\nlate Thiru.K.E.Kader Meeran was the owner of the land, situated at Uthamapalayam<br \/>\nVillage and neighbouring villages. Late Thiru.K.E.Kader Meeran had three sons<br \/>\ni.e., Late Thiru. K. Syed Mohammed Ibrahim, Late Thiru K. Abdul Rahim and Late<br \/>\nK.Mohammed Bashir.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. The Assistant Commissioner, passed an order in exercise of powers<br \/>\nunder Section 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (FCL) Act, 1961<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221;), dated 05.11.2002, declaring the land<br \/>\nstanding in the name of Late Thiru. K. Syed Mohammed Ibrahim, to be surplus.  In<br \/>\npursuance to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, a Gazette<br \/>\nNotification was issued by the State Government in the Government Gazette on<br \/>\n31.01.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. Some of the legal heirs of Late Thiru. K. Syed Mohammed Ibrahim<br \/>\nchallenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 9(2)(b)<br \/>\nof the Act, by filing Revision under Section 82 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. The land Commissioner, accepted the Revision partly, and remanded<br \/>\nthe case back to the Assistant Commissioner, to permit the land owner, to select<br \/>\nthe land, by following the observation made in the Revisional order. The<br \/>\nAssistant Commissioner was further directed, to incorporate necessary amendment<br \/>\nin the final selection, in pursuance to the selection to be carried out, by the<br \/>\nland owners, and thereafter, issue a Notification under Section 18(1) of the<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. The petitioners were not party to the proceedings. Therefore, are<br \/>\nprima facie, not bound by the decision of the Authorities, and should have<br \/>\navailed their remedy, under ordinary law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. However, keeping in view the fact, that the order of the<br \/>\nAssistant Commissioner passed under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act, stands set<br \/>\naside, and the matter remitted back, to the Assistant Commissioner, to determine<br \/>\nthe selection of the land, these writ petitions are being taken up to be<br \/>\ndisposed of on merit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. The pleaded case of the petitioners, in all these writ petitions,<br \/>\nis that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 9(2)(b) of<br \/>\nthe Act, and that of the Revisional Authority, are without jurisdiction, and<br \/>\nsuffers from error apparent on the face of record, in as much as the Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner, while determining the surplus land of late Thiru. K. Syed Mohammed<br \/>\nIbrahim, has proceeded on the presumption that the total land holding of late<br \/>\nThiru. K. Syed Mohammed Ibrahim, was inherited by Late Thiru. K.E.Kadar Meeran,<br \/>\nas sole heir under a Settlement, which is factually not correct.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. The stand of the petitioners in all the three writ petitions, is<br \/>\nthat Late. Thiru. K.E. Kader Meeran had by way of three registered settlement,<br \/>\nhad transferred the land in favour of his three sons in the year 1970, i.e.,<br \/>\nbefore his death. In pursuance to the settlement, each of his son became owner<br \/>\nof the land, under the settlement in his own right, and therefore, the land<br \/>\nfalling to their share could not be  included in the land of Late Thiru. K. Syed<br \/>\nMohammed Ibrahim, or in any predecessor of the petitioner, being the owner of<br \/>\nthe land.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. The petitioners were entitled, to notice of surplus proceedings.<br \/>\nThe impugned orders, therefore, are challenged, being in violation of the<br \/>\nprinciple of natural justice, as the persons interested \/ owners of the land,<br \/>\nhave not been given an opportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. This contention deserves to be accepted, it is well settled law<br \/>\nthat in determining the surplus land, all the persons interested, are to be<br \/>\nheard before an order is passed. The petitioner, being absolute owner of the<br \/>\nland by inheritance from their predecessors, were to be heard, before any<br \/>\nadverse order was passed against them, in declaring their land as surplus by<br \/>\ntaking it to be that of Late Thiru. K. Syed Mohammed Ibrahim.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner, that the Assistant Commissioner, while passing the impugned order<br \/>\nunder Section 9(2)(b) of the Act, did not record a finding, that the total land<br \/>\nwas inherited by late Thiru.  K. Syed Mohammed Ibrahim in exclusion to his<br \/>\nbrothers.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13. In absence of the finding, the order passed by the Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner, cannot be sustained, as it suffers from error apparent on the face<br \/>\nof record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14. As already noticed above, there is no necessity to go into the<br \/>\nmerits of the contentions raised.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15. For the reason, that the petitioners were not parties to the<br \/>\nproceedings either before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Commissioner,<br \/>\nbut, keeping in view of the fact, that the case has been remanded back to the<br \/>\nAssistant Commissioner for re-determination of the area to be land owners area,<br \/>\nthese writ petitions are disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitioners to<br \/>\napproach the Assistant Commissioner, to file their claim as owner of the land,<br \/>\nfor being taken out of the surplus area.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t16. In that event, the Assistant Commissioner is directed to<br \/>\nconsider  the claim of the petitioners, while determining the surplus area of<br \/>\nLate Thiru.  K. Syed Mohammed Ibrahim, and record a finding, as to whether the<br \/>\nland was inherited by the petitioners, and is not be considered to be that of<br \/>\nshare of Late Thiru.  K. Syed Mohammed Ibrahim, for being declared surplus.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t17. The petitioners shall be at liberty, to put forth all grounds<br \/>\navailable under the Act, before the Assistant Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t18. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before<br \/>\nthe Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms on 29.09.2011 at 10.30 a.m., to file<br \/>\ntheir respective claim statements for adjudication.<br \/>\n\t\tNo costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>ses \/ Dpn \/ &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>To,\n<\/p>\n<p>1. The Assistant Commissiioner,Land Reforms, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Land Commissioner,Chepauk, Chennai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 25\/08\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.11881 of 2008 W.P.(MD)No.11880 of 2008 and W.P.(MD)No.2416 of 2009 Ibrahimkhan &#8230; Petitioner (In W.P.No.11881\/2008) K.M.Sulthan Ibrahim &#8230;Petitioner (In W.P.No.11880\/2008) 1.K.S.Mohamed Fathima 2.Faritha Fathima 3.Syeetha Fathima [&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-234988","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>Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011 - 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\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-31T13:27:08+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-31T13:27:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1120,\"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\\\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-31T13:27:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011 - 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\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-31T13:27:08+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-31T13:27:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011"},"wordCount":1120,"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\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011","name":"Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-31T13:27:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahimkhan-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ibrahimkhan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/234988","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=234988"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234988\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234988"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234988"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}