{"id":23844,"date":"2004-12-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004"},"modified":"2018-10-20T14:47:29","modified_gmt":"2018-10-20T09:17:29","slug":"k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF 1JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 28\/12\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN             \n\nW.P. No. 38599 of 2004 \nand \nW.P.M.P. No. 46134 of 2004  \n\nK. Gopal                               .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The District Collector\n   Dharmapuri District\n   Dharmapuri\n\n2. The Assistant Director of\n    Rural Development (Audit)\n   Dharmapuri\n\n3. The Tahsildar\n   Pappireddypatti Taluk\n   Dharmapuri District\n\n4. The Deputy Block Development  \n    Officer\n   Pappireddypatti Panchayat Union\n   Dharmapuri District                          .. Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  praying\nfor a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner         :       Mr.  K.  Sakthivel\n\nFor Respondents        :       Mr.  P.S.  Jayakumar, Government\n                        Advocate\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        Mr.  P.S.    Jayakumar,  learned  Government  Advocate takes notice on<br \/>\nbehalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for a<br \/>\nWrit of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of  the<br \/>\nfirst respondent in No.Na.Ka.3795\/2004\/A1 dated 09-12-2004 and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The  facts  leading to the filing of the writ petition is that<br \/>\nthe petitioner is an elected President of Pappireddypatti  Village  Panchayat;<br \/>\nthat  a  special  audit  of  the  said  Panchayat  was conducted by the second<br \/>\nrespondent for the year 2003-2004 and based on the  audit  report,  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent issued a notice under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,<br \/>\n1994 (hereinafter called as the Act) calling upon the petitioner to submit his<br \/>\nexplanation  by  notice  dated 01-09-200 4 and copies of the audit report also<br \/>\nserved on the petitioner; that the petitioner has sent his  explanation  dated<br \/>\n14-09-2004 to  the  first respondent.  Not satisfied with the explanation, the<br \/>\nfirst respondent issued the impugned communication dated 09-12-2004 under Sec.<br \/>\n205 (3)  of  the  Act  directing  the  Tahsildar  to  convene  a  meeting  for<br \/>\nconsideration  of  the notice and explanation, if any and the proposal for the<br \/>\nremoval of the petitioner, at the office of the Village Panchayat  at  a  time<br \/>\nappointed by the Tahsildar.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      The  learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that<br \/>\nthe audit was conducted invoking  Rule  2  of  The  Tamil  Nadu  Panchayats  (<br \/>\nSurcharge,  Disallowance  and  Charge) Rules, 2000 which contemplates that the<br \/>\nauditor, who is empowered to issue surcharge  certificate  after  giving  show<br \/>\ncause  notice  to  the person concerned and then the Collector takes execution<br \/>\nproceedings on behalf of a village panchayat and recover, but it was not done.<br \/>\nThe other argument of  the  learned  counsel  is  if  any  loss  or  waste  or<br \/>\nmisapplication by the president, a suit can be filed against him under Section<br \/>\n234 of  the  Act.    Without  proceeding  with  the  above  said  two specific<br \/>\nprovisions of Law, the first respondent has initiated action under Section 205<br \/>\nof the Act, which according to the counsel is invalid.    In  support  of  his<br \/>\ncontention, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment reported in Maharashtra<br \/>\nState  Board  of  Secondary  and  Higher  Secondary  Education and another Vs.<br \/>\nParitosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others  (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases 2 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      No argument was  advanced  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner  with  respect  to non-compliance or violation of the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 205 of the Act by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      Rule 2 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats  (Surcharge,  Disallowance<br \/>\nand Charge) Rules, 2000 runs as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        Surcharge  and  disallowance    (1)  Any  auditor,  empowered  by the<br \/>\nGovernment, shall carefully and personally examine every case of loss or waste<br \/>\nof misapplication of money or property of the Village Panchayat  or  Panchayat<br \/>\nUnion  or  district  Panchayat and may disallow every item contrary to law and<br \/>\nsurcharge the same on the person making or authorising the making  of  illegal<br \/>\npayments  and may charge against any person reasonable therefor, the amount of<br \/>\nany deficiency, loss or unprofitable outlay  incurred  by  the  negligence  or<br \/>\nmisconduct of that person or of any sum, which ought to have been, but is not,<br \/>\nbrought  to account by that person and shall, in every such cases, certify the<br \/>\namount due from such person.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      Rule 2 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats  (Surcharge,  Disallowance<br \/>\nand  Charge)  Rules,  2000  contemplates  that  any  auditor, empowered by the<br \/>\nGovernment, shall carefully and personally examine every case of loss or waste<br \/>\nof misapplication of money or property of the Village Panchayat  or  Panchayat<br \/>\nUnion  or  district  Panchayat and may disallow every item contrary to law and<br \/>\nsurcharge the same on the person making or authorising the making  of  illegal<br \/>\npayments  and may charge against any person reasonable therefor, the amount of<br \/>\nany deficiency, loss or unprofitable outlay  incurred  by  the  negligence  or<br \/>\nmisconduct of that person or of any sum, which ought to have been, but is not,<br \/>\nbrought  to account by that person and shall, in every such cases, certify the<br \/>\namount due from such person  <\/p>\n<p>        8.      Rule 4 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats  (Surcharge,  Disallowance<br \/>\nand Charge) Rules, 2000 runs as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      Issue  of  surcharge  certificate  :-  (1) The auditor, who is<br \/>\nempowered to  issue  a  surcharge  certificate,  before  issuing  a  surcharge<br \/>\ncertificate,  shall  give a show cause notice to the person concerned, calling<br \/>\nupon him to state his defence about the proposed notice in  writing  within  a<br \/>\nspecified time  which  shall  not  be  less than fifteen days.  If such person<br \/>\ndesires to be heard in person, the opportunity of personal  hearing  shall  be<br \/>\ngiven by  the auditor.  In such personal hearing, the auditor shall record the<br \/>\nproceedings of such hearing.  The auditor shall  issue  surcharge  certificate<br \/>\nafter  taking  into  consideration  the  representation,  if any, given by the<br \/>\nperson concerned and the proceedings by the person hearing.   The  show  cause<br \/>\nnotice and the surcharge certificate shall be in Tamil version.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)     Wherever  the  Collector,  the  Inspector  or  other competent<br \/>\nauthority takes execution  proceedings  on  behalf  of  a  village  panchayat,<br \/>\npanchayat  union council or district panchayat in respect of which a surcharge<br \/>\ncertificate has been issued by an auditor, the expenditure  for  such  purpose<br \/>\nshall be met from the Government initially and recovered from the funds of the<br \/>\nrespective village panchayat, panchayat union or district panchayat.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      The  auditor,  who is empowered to issue surcharge certificate<br \/>\nand follow up execution proceedings is contemplated under Rule 4 of The  Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Panchayats (Surcharge, Disallowance and Charge) Rules, 2000 .\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     Section 234 of the Act contemplates thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;234.   Liability  of the President, Executive authority and members.,<br \/>\netc., for loss, waste or misapplication of property.- (1)       The president,<br \/>\nexecutive authority and every member of a village panchayat and the  chairman,<br \/>\ncommissioner  and  every  member of a panchayat union council and the chairman<br \/>\n(secretary) and every member of a district panchayat shall be liable  for  the<br \/>\nloss,  waste  or  misapplication  of  any  money or other property owned by or<br \/>\nvested in the village panchayat or panchayat union  council  or  the  district<br \/>\npanchayat if such loss, waste or misapplication is a direct consequence of his<br \/>\nneglect  or  misconduct; and a suit for compensation may be instituted against<br \/>\nhim in any court of competent jurisdiction by the panchayat or panchayat union<br \/>\ncouncil or the district panchayat with the previous sanction of the Inspector<\/p>\n<p>        (2)     Every such suit shall be commenced within  three  years  after<br \/>\nthe date on which the cause of action arose.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.     Section  234  of  the Act fixes up the liability of President,<br \/>\nExecutive  authority,  every  member  of  the  Village  Panchayat,   Chairman,<br \/>\nCommissioner  etc.,  and they are liable for the loss, waste or misapplication<br \/>\nof any money or other property owned by or vested in the village panchayat  or<br \/>\npanchayat union or district panchayat if such loss, waste or misapplication is<br \/>\na direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct; and a suit for compensation<br \/>\nbe instituted against him with the previous sanction of the inspector within a<br \/>\nperiod of three years after the date on which the cause of action arose.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.     A  reading  of  Section  234  of  the  Act  and  the  relevant<br \/>\nprovisions relating to The Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Surcharge, Disallowance  and<br \/>\nCharge)  Rules,  2000  make it clear that the compensation can be recovered by<br \/>\ninstituting a suit and surcharge proceedings to  be  instituted  respectively.<br \/>\nThe  said  provisions are totally different from the provisions of sub-section<br \/>\n(1) of Section 205 of the Act.  This provision empowers the  inspector  namely<br \/>\nthe  District  Collector  either  on  his own motion or on a representation in<br \/>\nwriting signed by not less than two-thirds of the sanctioned strength  of  the<br \/>\nvillage  panchayat containing a statement of charges against the president and<br \/>\npresented in person to the Inspector by any two of the members of the  Village<br \/>\nPanchayat  and if the Inspector is satisfied that the President wilfully omits<br \/>\nor refuses to carry out or disobeys any provision of this Act,  or  any  rule,<br \/>\nby-law, regulation or lawful order made or issued under this Act or abuses any<br \/>\npower  vested  in  him, the Inspector shall, by notice in writing, require the<br \/>\npresident to offer within a specified date, his explanation, with  respect  to<br \/>\nhis acts  of  omission or commission mentioned in the notice.  Sub-section (2)<br \/>\nof Section 205 of the Act empowers the  inspector  to  drop  charges,  if  the<br \/>\nexplanation  is satisfactory otherwise he shall forward it to the Tahsildar of<br \/>\nthe Taluk copy of the notice referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 205  of<br \/>\nthe  Act  and the explanation of the President, within a specified date with a<br \/>\nproposal for the removal of the President for ascertaining the  views  of  the<br \/>\nvillage Panchayat.    Sub-section  (3)  of Section 205 of the Act contemplates<br \/>\nthat the Tahsildar shall convene a meeting for the consideration of notice and<br \/>\nexplanation for the removal of the president.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.     Section 205 of the Act is an  independent  provision  empowers<br \/>\nthe  inspector  to  initiate  action  for  removal  of  the village President.<br \/>\nAdmittedly, the petitioner has not canvassed non-compliance  or  violation  of<br \/>\nSection 205  of  the  Act  by  the  first respondent.  As mentioned above, the<br \/>\nlearned counsel advanced argument that the Collector chosen to initiate action<br \/>\nunder Sec.  205 of the Act, instead of Section 234 of the Act or Section 4  of<br \/>\nThe  Tamil  Nadu  Panchayats (Surcharge, Disallowance and Charge) Rules, 2000,<br \/>\nsuch action is not valid.  The said argument is  apparently  unsustainable  in<br \/>\nlaw when  three  modes of action is contemplated.  Two modes are pertaining to<br \/>\nsurcharge and filing of suit and the remaining one is under Section 205 of the<br \/>\nAct for removal of the President for wilful omission or commission or abuse of<br \/>\npowers.  The said provision  is  incorporated  by  the  legislature  with  the<br \/>\nintention  to  prevent  further  such illegal action by the Village President.<br \/>\nThe rights and privileges of the President flows from the statutory  provision<br \/>\nand  he  cannot  claim  any  right  which  was  not  secured  by him under the<br \/>\nenactment.  In this case, the inspector\/Collector has  rightly  exercised  his<br \/>\npower under Section 205 of the Act.  The Judgment relied on by the counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner mentioned supra is not applicable to the facts and circumstance<br \/>\nof the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.     In the result, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed.  No costs.  Connected WPMP is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsh<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The District Collector<br \/>\nDharmapuri District<br \/>\nDharmapuri <\/p>\n<p>2.  The Assistant Director of<br \/>\nRural Development (Audit)<br \/>\nDharmapuri <\/p>\n<p>3.  The Tahsildar<br \/>\nPappireddypatti Taluk<br \/>\nDharmapuri District<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Deputy Block Development<br \/>\nOfficer<br \/>\nPappireddypatti Panchayat Union<br \/>\nDharmapuri <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF 1JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28\/12\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN W.P. No. 38599 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. No. 46134 of 2004 K. Gopal .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 2. The [&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-23844","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>K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004 - 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\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-20T09:17:29+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\\\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-20T09:17:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1726,\"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\\\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004\",\"name\":\"K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-20T09:17:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004 - 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\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-20T09:17:29+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\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-20T09:17:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004"},"wordCount":1726,"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\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004","name":"K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-20T09:17:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Gopal vs The District Collector on 28 December, 2004"}]},{"@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\/23844","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=23844"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23844\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}