{"id":24414,"date":"2004-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004"},"modified":"2015-01-15T11:37:34","modified_gmt":"2015-01-15T06:07:34","slug":"a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 19\/11\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA          \nAND  \nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN             \n\nW.P.No.41400 of 2002  \n\n\nA.S.Santhalatha                                        ..      Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The District Collector\n   Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur\n\n2. The Chief Educational Officer\n   Tiruvarur District\n\n3. The Director of Elementary Education\n   College Road, Chennai-6\n\n4. The Registrar\n   Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal\n   Chennai-104                                          ..      Respondents\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The  Constitution  of  India,\npraying  for  the  issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the\nrecords  of  the  1st  respondent  issued  in  Na.Ka.No.5625\/2000  \/Aa3  dated\n28.4.2001 cancelling the Residence Certificiate and the consequential order of\nthe  fourth  respondent  passed  in  O.A.No.4046  of  2  001  dated  30.4.2002\nconfirming the order of the 1st respondent, quash the  same  and  consequently\ndirect  the  respondents  2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner as Secondary Grade\nTeacher based  on  her  employment  Registration  Seniority  pursuant  to  the\ncounselling  conducted  on  29.11.20  00 with all service and monetary benefit\nfrom November, 2000. \n\n!For Petitioner         ::      Mr.N.Paulvasanthakumar\n\n^For Respondents        ::      Ms.G.Kavitha\n                        Govt.Advocate forR1 to R3\n                        R4 - Tribunal\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN, J.)  <\/p>\n
        For the disposal of this writ petition, the following factual  aspects
\nare necessarily  to  be  stated.    The  petitioner is a native of Kanyakumari
\nDistrict.  After  completing  Plus  Two  and  Teacher  Training  courses,  she
\nregistered her  name  in  the  employment  exchange in that District.  She got
\nmarried to Mr.Albert Daniel on 26.5.97.  Her husband secured employment in the
\nGovernment High School, Tiruvarur District on 1.12.97.  There  is  no  dispute
\nthat  the husband of the petitioner is working in the said District even as on
\ntoday.  On 3.2.99, the petitioner  sought  for  appointment  to  the  post  of
\nTeacher  in  Christ  the  King  English Medium School, Inangudi Post, Nannilam
\nTaluk.  In fact she was appointed as a School Assistant during  October,  1999
\nin the  said  school.   Her child, aged about 4 years, is also studying U.K.G.
\nin Vallalar Gurukulam Matriculation School, Nannilam.    For  the  purpose  of
\ntransfer  of  registration  from  Kanyakumari  District employment exchange to
\nTiruvarur District  employment  exchange,  the  petitioner  should  produce  a
\nResidence  Certificate  from  the Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the place
\nwhere the petitioner resides.  Such a certificate  is  a  pre-requirement  for
\ntransfer   of  the  registration  from  one  employment  exchange  to  another
\nemployment exchange as per the guidelines framed in Circular  No.22  of  1997.
\nPursuant  to  the  re  quest,  the  petitioner  was  issued  with  a Residence
\nCertificate  by  the  Tahsildar,  Nannilam  on  14.6.99  certifying  that  the
\npetitioner  has been residing for the last one year at Door No.13, Pidari Koil
\nStreet, Sannanallur, Nannilam Taluk, Tiruvarur District.  On the  strength  of
\nthe  said  certificate,  her  registration  in  the  employment  exchange  was
\ntransferred from  Kanyakumari  District  to  Tiruvarur  District  on  27.7.99.
\nPursuant  to the said transfer of registration, the petitioner was issued with
\nan interview card for the post  of  Secondary  Grade  Teacher  on  29.11.2000.
\nBefore  the  petitioner  could  be considered for appointment, the certificate
\nissued by the Tahsildar, Nannilam dated 14.6.99 was cancelled by the  District
\nCollector on  22.12.2000.    Questioning  the  said  order, the petitioner had
\nearlier filed W.P.No.183 of 2001, which was ordered on 14.3.2001 by  directing
\nthe  District  Collector  to consider the matter afresh for grant of Residence
\nCertificate, more particularly, with reference to the Circular No.22 of  1997.
\nAfter  hearing the petitioner, the first respondent District Collector, by the
\nimpugned order dated 28.4.2001,  again  cancelled  the  Residence  Certificate
\nissued by  the Tahsildar on 14.6.99.  The petitioner thereafter questioned the
\nsaid  order  before  the  Tamil  Nadu   Administrative   Tribunal,   but   was
\nunsuccessful.  Hence, the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   We  have  heard  Mr.N.Paulvasanthakumar,  learned counsel for the
\npetitioner and Ms.G.Kavitha, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  According to the learned counsel for petitioner, inasmuch  as  the
\npetitioner had produced documents to sustain her proof of residence within the
\njurisdiction  of  Tahsildar,  Nannilam  Taluk,  her  right  to  the  Residence
\nCertificate cannot be deprived by the District Collector.    For  the  reasons
\nnamely,  that  the  petitioner  did not take steps to cancel her name from the
\nration card at Kanyakumari District and that having married in the  year  1997
\nand  her  husband  has been in employment in Tiruvarur District from December,
\n1997, the petitioner did not take any steps to get the  Residence  Certificate
\nin  Nannilam  Taluk,  she  was  denied  registration  of her name in Tiruvarur
\nDistrict.  The reasons adduced are extraneous to the issue,  as  the  relevant
\nconsideration  should  be  only  in  respect  of  the  fact  as to whether the
\npetitioner is a resident of the place  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Nannilam
\nTaluk  and whether the petitioner would be entitled to register herself in the
\nemployment exchange  on  the  strength  of  the  Residence  Certificate,  more
\nparticularly, in the face of the Circular No.22 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   It  is  the  stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not
\nsatisfy as to her residence for a period of ten years at Nannilam  Taluk,  and
\ntherefore she is not entitled to the Residence Certificate.  In the Government
\nletter  dated  16.6.84, the Government had directed that whenever the Nativity
\nCertificates are issued, it should be ensured the applicant’s continuous  stay
\nin the  State supported by documents.  The Residence Certificate issued to the
\npetitioner has been cancelled by the District Collector only on the  basis  of
\nthe  said  letter  of  the  Government, as the petitioner did not reside for a
\nperiod of ten years and did not produce  any  document  to  sustain  the  said
\nclaim.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   We have given our anxious consideration to the above submissions.
\nAt the outset we would like to consider the Government letter dated 16.6.84 as
\nwell the Circular No.22 of 1997.   Insofar  as  the  Government  letter  dated
\n16.6.84,  it  was  issued  only  to  prevent the people of adjoining States of
\nKarnataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh from getting admissions for  their  wards
\nin  the  adjoining districts of Dharmapuri, Coimbatore, Salem and Kanyakumari.
\nIn such circumstances, the Government thought it fit to have a check  on  such
\nmigration  carried  on  only  for  the  purpose  of  securing admission to the
\neducational institutions.  The very Government letter itself is reproduced  as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
Copy  of  Government Letter No.46738\/W1\/8-1 dated 16.6.84 for the Commissioner
\nand Secretary to Government addressed to the District  Collectors,  Additional
\nCollectors, District Revenue Divisional Officers.<\/p>\n
        Sub:  District Revenue Administration – Issue of
\n                Nativity Certificates – Strict scrutiny         and     prompt
\nissue – instructions issued.\n<\/p>\n
        Ref:  1.  G.O.Ms.No.2906 Revenue dated 04.12.91.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  G.O.Ms.No.9 Social Welfare dated 3.1.83\n<\/p>\n
                3.  G.O.Ms.No.1888 Revenue dated 10.11.83.\n<\/p>\n
                                                —\n<\/p>\n
        It has been brought to the notice of the  Government  that  there  are
\ninstances  of  the  people  of  the  adjoining States of Karnataka, Kerala and
\nAndhra Pradesh managing to get admission for their sons and daughters  at  the
\nschool final stage in the schools of the adjoining districts viz., Dharmapuri,
\nCoimbatore, Salem and Kanyakumari of this state and then on the basis of their
\nstudy  in  these  schools obtain Nativity certificates on the presumption that
\nsuch a candidate is  a  native  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  on  the  basis  of  such
\ndocumentary  evidences  get  admission  for  their  sons  and daughters in the
\nprofessional colleges  such  as  Engineering,  Medical,  Dental,  Agricultural
\nVeterinary etc.,   in  this  stage.    This  sort  of  attitude  deprives  the
\nconcessions available to the student of this stage.  The Government  therefore
\nconsider that this situation should be prevented in future.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The following points are also specifically brought to your notice.\n<\/p>\n
a.  Only those students who belong to this state are eligible for admission in
\nthe professional colleges.\n<\/p>\n
b.   There are already provisions for reservation of seats in the professional
\ncolleges and for students belonging to other states in a regional basis.\n<\/p>\n
c.  Complaints have been received that students who  do  not  belong  to  this
\nstate  but  belonging  to  other states have obtained Nativity Certificates in
\nthis state.  Concerned officials  must  exercise  utmost  caution  and  strict
\nscrutiny  while  issuing  Nativity Certificates so as not to give room for the
\ncomplaints.\n<\/p>\n
d.  Whenever Nativity Certificates are issued it should be  ensured  that  the
\napplicant’s continuous stay in the state for ten years should be authorised by
\ndocumentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n
e.   Permanent  residential addresses, occupations etc., of the parents of the
\napplicant students should be verified.\n<\/p>\n
f.  If parents are Government servants, their place of employment,  number  of
\nyears they have been employed etc., should be verified and<\/p>\n
g.   Careful verification is required that wrong addresses have not been given
\nfor the purpose of obtaining Nativity Certificates.  It must be verified  that
\nthe student applicants have had their education continuously for not less than
\nten years in this state.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  I am to request you kindly to bear in mind the points mentioned in
\nthe  preceding paragraph and to issue strict suitable circular instructions to
\nall concerned to exercise utmost caution while issuing nativity certificates.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        Sd\/-<\/p>\n
\n                                        For Commissioner and\nSecretary       to Government\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
A careful reading of the said Government letter reveals that it  relates  only
\nto the issue of Nativity Certificate.  Nativity Certificate is in respect of a
\npermanent  residence  in a particular place and in that context the Government
\nhad prescribed a minimum period of ten years of residing\/stay in a  particular
\ndistrict for  issuance of Nativity Certificate.  Moreover, the said Government
\nletter was issued only in order to prevent the people of the adjoining  States
\nto  move  into  the border districts of this State and admit their children in
\nthe schools for the purpose of securing admission to professional courses.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  On the other hand, the Circular  No.22  of  1997  relates  to  the
\nissuance of  Residence  Certificate.  The said circular does not stipulate any
\ncondition as to the period of residence in a particular place for a person  to
\nobtain such certificate.  Moreover, the said circular refers to the right of a
\nperson moving from one district to another district for justifiable reasons to
\nobtain  such  a  certificate,  more particularly, for the purpose of effecting
\nchange of registration in the employment exchange.   In  fact  this  guideline
\ncame  up  for  consideration  before  this Court in W.P.No.183 of 2001 and the
\ntranslated portion of the circular reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Those persons who seek change  of  their  Employment  Registration  from  one
\nDistrict  to  another  must  make  their  application  along  with the copy of
\ncertificate of residence issued by an officer not below the rank of  Tahsildar
\nof the  district  to  which  the  change  of registration is sought for.  Such
\nchange of registration shall not be done in the event of non-production of the
\ncertificate of residence issued  by  the  said  authority.    The  above  said
\ncertificate  from  the applicant, one to be retained in the office file of the
\nEmployment Exchange effecting transfer and the other to be  forwarded  to  the
\nEmployment Exchange  to  which  transfer  is sought for.  The copy of the said
\ncertificate of residence received by the Employment Exchange where the  change
\nof  registration  is  sought for should be perused and should be placed in the
\nconcerned file.  A detailed note in this regard should be mentioned in  F.O.U.
\ncolumn.”\n<\/p>\n
After  observing  the  purport  of  the  circular, this Court had directed the
\nDistrict Collector to consider the case of  the  petitioner  for  issuance  of
\nResidence Certificate.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  From the above, it is seen that a Certificate of Residence is with
\nreference  to the place where a person resides for justifiable reason and does
\nnot stipulate any condition for a minimum  period  of  stay  in  a  particular
\nplace.   On  the  other  hand, the Nativity Certificate refers to the person’s
\nbirth or his residing in a particular place.  In  this  context,  the  Concise
\nOxford Dictionary  Tenth  Edition  defines  ”  residence”  as  1.  the fact of
\nresiding somewhere.  2.  the place where a person resides;  a  person’s  home.\n<\/p>\n
3.  the official house of a government minister or other official figure.  The
\nsaid dictionary  defines  ” nativity” as 1.  the occasion of a person’s birth.\n<\/p>\n
2.  the birth of Jesus Christ.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  From the above discussions, the following two further issues arise
\nfor consideration.  By the impugned order, the  first  respondent  has  relied
\nupon the  Government  letter which relates to the Nativity Certificate.  This,
\nin our view, cannot be accepted, as the petitioner  has  applied  only  for  a
\nResidence Certificate and not for a Nativity Certificate.  Secondly, when this
\nCourt  had  already directed the District Collector to consider the request of
\nthe petitioner for issuance of Residence Certificate  with  reference  to  the
\nCircular  No.22  of  1997,  placing  reliance  on  the Government letter dated
\n16.6.84 by completely ignoring the Circular  No.22  of  1997  cannot  also  be
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   On  the above findings, the validity of the impugned order should
\nbe considered on merits.  There is no dispute that the petitioner had  married
\none  Mr.Albert  Daniel  on  26.5.97,  who admittedly secured employment in the
\nGovernment High School in Nannilam Taluk, Tiruvarur District with effect  from
\n1.12.97 and  is continuing in the said post even now.  The petitioner has also
\nproduced the material to show that she is also working as teacher in a private
\nschool in Nannilam Taluk with effect from 3.2.99.  The District Collector  has
\nnot  discarded  the  above  facts  which  were sought to be established by the
\npetitioner by producing the relevant certificates, as could be seen  from  the
\nvery impugned  order  itself.   The District Collector, though has referred to
\nthe above certificates in the impugned order, has not taken into consideration
\nof the same only for the reason that on  the  date  when  the  petitioner  was
\nissued with the Residence Certificate dated 14.6.99, she has not cancelled the
\nemployment registration  card  in  the  Kanyakumari  District.  This reason is
\nobviously a total misconception.  For effecting transfer of  the  registration
\nin the  employment exchange, Residence Certificate is a pre-requirement.  Till
\nsuch time such a certificate is obtained, a candidate is not entitled to  seek
\nfor transfer  of the registration.  Such a Residence Certificate was issued to
\nthe petitioner only on 14.6.99 and till that date the petitioner cannot cancel
\nthe employment registration in the Kanyakumari District and seek for  transfer
\nof the  same  to  Tiruvarur  District.   In fact the Residence Certificate was
\nissued on 14.6.99 and without any further  delay  the  petitioner  immediately
\napproached  the  officer  concerned  in  the employment exchange for effecting
\ntransfer, which was ordered on 27.7.99.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In view of the above facts, we are unable to accept  the  reasons
\nadduced by the District Collector for cancelling the certificate on the ground
\nthat   on  the  date  when  the  petitioner  was  issued  with  the  Residence
\nCertificate, she did not take steps to cancel the employment  registration  in
\nKanyakumari District.    The  other  reason given by the District Collector is
\nthat in spite of the fact that the petitioner had married one Mr.Albert Daniel
\non 26.5.97 and that her husband secured employment during  December,  1997  in
\nTiruvarur  District,  she  could  have  taken  steps  to  obtain the Residence
\nCertificate in Tiruvarur District immediately thereafter.  This reason is also
\nunacceptable, as the petitioner secured employment as  a  teacher  in  private
\nschool only  during  the year 1999.  Immediately after her securing employment
\nduring December, 1999, she has made a request to the Tahsildar, Nannilam Taluk
\nfor issuance of Residence Certificate.  In  the  matter  of  consideration  of
\nissuance  of  Residence Certificate, the officer empowered should consider the
\nfact as to whether actually the applicant has been residing in that place  for
\nwhich the applicant seeks for Residence Certificate.  There is no dispute that
\nthe  Tahsildar,  Nannilam is the competent officer to consider such a request.
\nOn satisfying the fact that the petitioner has been factually residing in  the
\nSannanallur  Village  within his jurisdiction in Nannilam Taluk, he has issued
\nsuch a certificate.  In the order of the District Collector, we  do  not  find
\nany reason to discard the satisfaction of the Tahsildar as to the residence of
\nthe petitioner, which was arrived on the basis of the actual fact.  Except the
\nabove  two  reasons,  which we have not agreed, the District Collector has not
\ngiven any reason for disbelieving the documents and the materials produced  by
\nthe petitioner to satisfy the Tahsildar for issuance of Residence Certificate.
\nThe Tribunal has also rejected the challenge of the petitioner to the order of
\ncancellation  of  Residence  Certificate only on the same grounds contained in
\nthe order of the District Collector.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  For all the above reasons we find, on the  facts  of  this  case,
\nthat  the  petitioner  has  satisfied  the  competent  authority  namely,  the
\nTahsildar, Nannilam Taluk by sufficient materials for issuance of a  Residence
\nCertificate.   Such  a  certificate issued by the competent authority has been
\ncancelled for unacceptable reasons.  In the circumstances, we are inclined  to
\ninterfere  with the order of the Tribunal dated 30.4.2002 as well the order of
\nthe  District  Collector  dated  28.4.20  01  in  cancelling   the   Residence
\nCertificate issued  by  the  Tahsildar, Nannilam on 14.6.99.  Accordingly, the
\nwrit petition is allowed  and  the  order  of  the  District  Collector  dated
\n28.4.2001  as  well  the  order of the Tribunal dated 30.4.2002 are set aside.
\nThe petitioner is entitled not only to effect transfer of her registration  in
\nthe employment exchange, but also to the benefits accrued on such registration
\non  the  basis  of  the  Residence Certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 1
\n4.6.99.  It is submitted that the  petitioner  was  called  for  interview  on
\n29.11.2000  based upon the transfer effected in the employment exchange on the
\nbasis of the Residence Certificate, which we have upheld.    But,  before  the
\npetitioner was considered for appointment, the Residence Certificate issued by
\nthe Tahsildar has been cancelled.  In view of our order, the second respondent
\nnamely,  the  Chief  Educational  Officer,  Tiruvarur  District is directed to
\nconsider the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade  Teacher  taking
\ninto  consideration  of  the certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 14.6.99
\nand the change effected in the employment exchange  registration  card.    The
\nabove  exercise shall be completed by the second respondent within a period of
\ntwo months from the date of receipt of copy of  this  order  either  from  the
\nRegistry or from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  With  the  above  direction,  the  writ  petition is allowed.  No
\ncosts.  Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.61267 of 2002 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  yes
\nInternet:  yes<\/p>\n
ss<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The District Collector
\nTiruvarur District, Tiruvarur<\/p>\n
2.  The Chief Educational Officer
\nTiruvarur District<\/p>\n
3.  The Director of Elementary Education
\nCollege Road
\nChennai 600 006 <\/p>\n
4.  The Registrar
\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
\nChennai 600 104 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19\/11\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN W.P.No.41400 of 2002 A.S.Santhalatha .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The District Collector Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur 2. The Chief Educational Officer Tiruvarur District 3. The […]<\/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-24414","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004 - 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\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-15T06:07:34+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-15T06:07:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2832,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004\",\"name\":\"A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-15T06:07:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004 - 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\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-15T06:07:34+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-15T06:07:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004"},"wordCount":2832,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004","name":"A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-15T06:07:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-santhalatha-vs-the-district-collector-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.S.Santhalatha vs The District Collector on 19 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/24414","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=24414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24414\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}