{"id":244245,"date":"2009-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-30T23:37:51","modified_gmt":"2016-03-30T18:07:51","slug":"s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu … on 7 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu … on 7 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n
                       S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM & ORS.\n                            v.\nDISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU & ORS.\n             (Civil Appeal No. 5743 of 2009)\n                          AUGUST 7, 2009\n        [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]\n\n                         [2009] 12 SCR 1215\n\n\n    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by\n\n    R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard the learned\ncounsel.\n\n    2. Certain lands in Pazhavoor village were acquired under the\nTamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act.\nNotice regarding acquisition was served on respondents 3 to 6<\/pre>\n
who were shown as the owners of the land in the revenue records.
\nRespondents 3 to 6 informed the Collector (first respondent) that
\nthey were only life estate holders and that the vested
\nremaindermen should be served with notice. But notice was not
\nissued to them. On the other hand, second respondent passed an
\naward on 3.6.1997. Thereafter, possession of the acquired lands
\nwas taken and made into plots and distributed to intended
\nbeneficiaries.\n<\/p>\n
    3. Appellants 1 to 4 filed a writ petition alleging that the
\nacquired lands originally belonged to one S. Kanthimathinatha
\nPillai; that under a registered will, he bequeathed the said lands to
\nhis grandchildren (appellants and respondents 7 to 18) subject to a
\nlife interest in favour of his sons (respondents 3 to 6); and that thus
\nthe appellants and respondents 7 to 18, who were the children of
\nrespondents 3 to 6, were the vested remaindermen in regard to the
\nsaid lands. They contended that the acquisition proceedings were
\nillegal and liable to be quashed for want of notice of acquisition to
\nthe vested remaindermen who were persons interested. The said
\ncontention raised in the writ petition was purely a legal contention.
\nA learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court accepted the
\nsaid legal contention and held that the acquisition without issue of
\nnotice to them was illegal. He therefore allowed the writ petition by
\norder dated 13.11.2001 and set aside the acquisition, reserving
\nliberty to respondents 1 and 2 to initiate fresh acquisition
\nproceedings after appropriate notice to the writ petitioners. The
\norder of the learned Single Judge was challenged by respondents
\n1 and 2 in a writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    4. A division bench of the High Court, by the impugned order
\ndated 17.3.2008, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the
\nlearned Single Judge, and dismissed the writ petition. The division
\nbench held that the Collector was not obliged to serve the notice of
\nacquisition on anyone other than the persons whose names were
\nentered in the revenue records as owners; and that as the vested
\nremaindermen, had not got their names entered as holders\/owners
\nin the revenue records, they were not entitled to any separate
\nnotice. The division bench also issued a direction to respondents 1
\nand 2 herein to initiate criminal action against the appellants and
\nprivate respondents 7 to 18 herein “for playing fraud on the
\nGovernment and the Court, for making wrongful gains by filing a
\nwrit petition which was not maintainable.” The appellants have
\nchallenged the said judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    5. The first question is whether the vested remaindermen of
\nacquired lands were entitled to notice of acquisition, even if their
\nnames were not entered in the revenue records. The Collector (or
\nothers exercising the functions of Collector) is required to issue, in
\naddition to the public notice to all persons interested, individual
\nnotices to persons known or believed to be interested in the
\nacquired land. There is a significant difference between `persons
\nknown or believed to be interested’ and `persons interested’. A
\n`person interested’ no doubt would include all persons claiming an
\ninterest in the compensation on account of the acquisition of land,
\nincluding the vested remaindermen.\n<\/p>\n
    6. On the other hand, `a person known to be interested’ refers
\nto persons whose names are recorded in the revenue records, as
\npersons having an interest in the acquired lands, as the owner,
\nsharer, occupier or holder of any interest. They are entitled to
\nnotice. There is no obligation on the part of the Collector to hold an
\nenquiry to find out whether there are any other persons interested
\nin the land or whether there are any vested remaindermen, in
\naddition   to   those    whose      names      are   entered   as      the
\nowners\/holders\/occupiers of the acquired land. Nor does the
\nCollector have any obligation to issue notices to persons whose
\nnames are not entered in the revenue records. This does not mean
\nthat the persons whose names are not entered in the revenue
\nrecords do not have any right in the acquired land or that they lose
\ntheir claim to compensation. Their interests and rights in regard to
\ncompensation     are    protected   by   the    provision   relating    to
\napportionment of compensation and provision for referring the
\ndisputes to a civil court for apportionment of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
    7. Persons are “believed ” to be interested in the acquired land,
\nif their names are disclosed to the Collector as persons having an
\ninterest in the acquired land (though their names are not entered in
\nthe revenue records) either in correspondence or otherwise and
\nwhom the Collector believes as having an interest in the acquired
\nlands. The question whether a person is believed to be interested
\nin the acquired land, would depend upon the subjective
\nsatisfaction of the Collector. The Collector is not expected to hold
\nmini enquiries to find out whether the persons whose names are
\ndisclosed, (other than those whose names are entered in the
\nrevenue records) are persons interested in the acquired land or
\nnot. Therefore no person has any right to assert that the Collector
\nshould recognise him to be a person interested in the acquired
\nland, and issue notice to him, merely because someone informs
\nthe Collector that such person is also having an interest, if his
\nname is not entered in the revenue records. Of course, if the
\nCollector is prima facie satisfied from his records that someone
\nother than those whose names are entered in the revenue records,
\nare also interested in the land, he may at his discretion, issue
\nnotice to them. If he is not satisfied, he need not issue notice to
\nthem. Who is to be `believed to have an interest’ is purely
\nsubjective administrative decision. Such persons have no right to
\nclaim that notice of acquisition should be issued to them.\n<\/p>\n
   7. Therefore we agree with the division bench that notice of
\nacquisition has to be issued only to those whose names are
\nentered or recorded as owners\/ holders\/occupiers in the revenue
\nrecords and not to others.\n<\/p>\n
   8. The next question is whether the High Court could have
\ndirected   prosecution   of   writ   petitioners   and   the   private
\nrespondents. Let us recall the facts relevant once again in this
\ncontext. Respondents 3 to 6 are the life interest holders whose
\nnames are entered in the revenue records. Appellants and
\nrespondents 7 to 18 are their children, who are the vested
\nremaindermen in regard to the acquired lands. Notices were
\nserved in the acquisition proceeding on respondents 3 to 6. They
\nstated that they were only life-interest holders and notice should be
\nserved on the vested remaindermen also. But that was not
\naccepted and the acquisition was completed. A writ petition was
\nfiled by the appellants challenging the acquisition on the ground
\nthat the vested remaindermen in regard to the acquired lands were
\nnot issued notice of acquisition. It is relevant to note that they did
\nnot allege or contend that they did not have knowledge of the
\nacquisition. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention and
\nset aside the acquisition proceedings. In the writ appeal,
\nrespondents 1 and 2 contended that the persons other than those
\nwhose names were entered in the revenue records were not
\nentitled to notice and therefore the learned Single Judge had erred
\nin quashing the acquisition, that too after possession of the
\nacquired lands was taken and they were distributed as plots to
\nlandless weaker sections. It was not the case of respondents 1
\nand 2 that the persons claiming to be vested remaindermen were
\nserved any notice. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal filed
\nby respondents 1 and 2 herein.\n<\/p>\n
    9. The Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned
\nSingle Judge purely on a legal ground, that the persons whose
\nnames are entered in the revenue records as owners, are alone
\nentitled to notice, and others though may have an interest, will not
\nbe entitled to notice of acquisition. It did not record any finding that
\nthe claim of the writ petitioners (appellants herein) that they and
\nrespondents 7 to 18 were the vested remaindermen, was false.
\nThe division bench however drew an inference that the persons
\nclaiming to be the vested remaindermen, being close relatives of
\nthe persons who were served notices, should be imputed with the
\nknowledge of the acquisition proceedings and therefore their writ
\npetition contending that they did not have notice of the acquisition,
\nwas misconceived. But what was missed was the fact that the
\nspecific contention of appellants was that they were entitled to
\nnotice of acquisition from the Collector and that such notice was
\nnot given, and that they did not contend that they did not have
\nknowledge of acquisition. There was also no material to show that
\nthe writ petitioners and the private respondents, who are ordered
\nto be prosecuted, had furnished any false information or made any
\nfalse claim. There was no evidence of any fraud. When a writ
\npetition is filed seeking to enforce or protect the interests or rights
\nof the writ petitioners, purely based on legal contentions, it cannot
\nbe termed that filing of the writ petition was “playing of a fraud by
\nthe writ petitioners against the Government or court.”\n<\/p>\n
    10.   Courts   should    avoid   the   temptation    to   become
\nauthoritarian. We have been coming across several instances,
\nwhere in their anxiety to do justice, courts have gone overboard,
\nwhich results in injustice, rather than justice. It is said that all
\npower is trust and with greater power comes greater responsibility.
\nThe power to order a prosecution has to be used sparingly and in
\nexceptional circumstances, either to maintain the majesty of law or
\nto ensure that clearly established offences relating to fraud\/forgery
\nwith reference to court proceedings do not go unprosecuted or
\nunpunished. Ordering prosecutions in a casual manner while
\nreversing the decision of a learned Single Judge in a writ petition,
\nwithout any investigation or enquiry either by itself or by any
\nindependent investigation agency, is to be deprecated. Criminal
\nlaw cannot be set into motion against a litigant, as a matter of
\ncourse.\n<\/p>\n
   11. On several occasions, this Court has deprecated certain
\nauthoritarian practices which result in hardship and prejudice to
\nlitigants and even non-parties. The well-known instances are : (1)
\npassing adverse remarks against government officers or others
\nwho are not parties to the lis, without giving an opportunity to them
\nto show-cause or justify their action; (2) directing the state to
\nrecover any losses or damages or costs from a particular officer
\n(who is not a party) by holding him personally liable for some
\nalleged act or omission, without giving him any opportunity to
\nexplain his position, conduct or action; (3) directing prosecution of
\nparties and\/or non-parties, in cases which merely warrant levy of
\ncosts or admonition.\n<\/p>\n
   12. Under the Indian Penal Code, offences relating to false
\nevidence and offences against public justice are contained in
\nChapter XI. In relation to proceeding in any court, the offences
\nenumerated are : giving false evidence or fabricating false
\nevidence (Sec. 191 to 193); giving or fabricating false evidence
\nwith intent to procure conviction (Sec. 194 and 195); threatening
\nany person to give false evidence (Sec. 195A); using evidence
\nknown to be false (Sec. 196); using as true a certificate known to
\nbe false (Sec. 198); making a false statement in a declaration
\nwhich is by law receivable as evidence (Sec. 199); using as true
\nany declaration receivable as evidence, knowing it to be false (sec.\n<\/p>\n
200) causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false
\ninformation to screen offender (Sec. 201); intentional omission to
\ngive information of offence by person bound to inform (Sec. 202);
\ngiving false information in respect of an offence (Sec. 203);
\ndestruction of document or electronic record to prevent its
\nproduction as evidence (Sec 204); false personation (sec. 205);
\nfraudulent removal\/concealment of property (sec. 206); fraudulent
\nclaim to property (sec. 207); fraudulently suffering or obtaining
\ndecree for sum not due (sec. 208 and 210); dishonestly making a
\nfalse claim in Court (Section 209); and intentional insult or
\ninterruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceedings (sec\n<\/p>\n
228). Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no
\ncourt shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under
\nsections 172 to 188 (dealing with the contempt of the lawful
\nauthority of public servants) or sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205
\nto 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been
\ncommitted in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, except
\non the complaint in writing of that court by such officer of the court
\nas that court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some
\nother court to which that court is sub-ordinate.\n<\/p>\n
    13. The Division Bench has directed that the respondents in
\nthe writ appeal before it (appellants and respondents 3 to 18
\nherein) should be prosecuted “under the relevant provisions of law,
\nincluding IPC, for playing a fraud on the Court with wrong
\nparticulars”. The Division Bench has not specified the provision
\nunder which they should be prosecuted nor the offence of which
\nthey are accused. The only provision of relevance is section 209 of
\nthe Penal Code, which provides that whoever, fraudulently or
\ndishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any persons, makes in
\na court any claim which he knows to be false, is liable to
\npunishment as provided under law. But four things stand out in this
\ncase. The first is that raising a purely legal contention in a writ
\npetition cannot give rise to an inference that the writ petitioners
\nhad fraudulently or dishonestly or with intent to injure or annoy
\nanyone, made any claim knowing it to be false. The second is that
\nthere was also no material before the division bench to show that
\nany person having an interest in the acquired lands had played
\nfraud upon the government or the court. The third is that
\nrespondents 7 to 18 who had neither initiated any legal
\nproceedings, nor took any action in the matter, could not have
\nbeen ordered to be prosecuted, thereby showing non-application
\nof mind in issuing the direction for prosecution. The fourth is that if
\na fraud had been played on the court, the High Court ought to
\nhave made a complaint in writing through an authorised officer of
\nthe court, instead of directing respondents 1 and 2 to prosecute
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
14. On the facts and circumstances, the direction to initiate criminal
\nprosecution against the appellants and the respondents 3 to 18 was wholly
\nunwarranted. We therefore allow this appeal in part and set aside the
\ndirection to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellants and
\nrespondents 3 to 18.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu … on 7 August, 2009 Bench: R.V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM & ORS. v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5743 of 2009) AUGUST 7, 2009 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] [2009] 12 SCR 1215 The Judgment of […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-244245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu ... on 7 August, 2009 - 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\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-30T18:07:51+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu … on 7 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-30T18:07:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2389,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009\",\"name\":\"S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-30T18:07:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu … on 7 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu ... on 7 August, 2009 - 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\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-30T18:07:51+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu … on 7 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-30T18:07:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009"},"wordCount":2389,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009","name":"S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-30T18:07:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palani-velayutham-ors-vs-dist-collectortirunvelvelit-nadu-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Palani Velayutham & Ors vs Dist.Collector,Tirunvelveli,T.Nadu … on 7 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/244245","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=244245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}