{"id":245560,"date":"2002-11-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002"},"modified":"2014-07-30T08:35:31","modified_gmt":"2014-07-30T03:05:31","slug":"s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 01\/11\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n\nW.P.No.31589 of 2002\nand W.P.Nos. 31590, 13664, 13665, 19380 to 19383,\n19495 to 19504, 19485 to 19494, 30453, 30460, 30328,\n13998 to 14000, 14083, 14084, 14188 to 14191, 18839 to\n18842, 18849 to 18852, 19855 to 19864, 21187 to 21191,\n21231 to 21239, 21240 to 21248, 21683, 21680, 21851 to\n21853, 14748, 14078 to 14081 & 15180 to 15183 of 2002\nand\nWPMP Nos.46042, 46043, 18437, 18438, 26718 to 26721,\n26907 to 26916, 26896 to 26905, 44610, 44619, 44242,\n18997, 18998, 19133 to 19136, 25925 to 25928, 25935\nto 25938, 27409 to 27415, 29285 to 28289, 29347 to\n29355, 29356 to 29364, 30007, 30002, 30213 to 30215,\n19809, 18992 to 18995 & 202388 to 20391 of 2002.\n\n\nW.P.No.31589 of 2002\n\nS. Jayalakshmi                                         ..      Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Government of Tamilnadu\n   rep. by Special Secretary to\n   Government Commercial Taxes\n   (J1 Department)\n   Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.\n\n2. Inspector General of Registration\n   Chennai 600 028.\n\n3. The District Registrar\n   Tiruchy District\n   Tiruchirappalli 620 001.                     ..      Respondents\n\n        Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for  a\nwrit of Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioners                :       Mr.R.  Krishnaswami, S.C.\n                                        For Mr.C.  Ramesh\n\nFor Respondents                :       Mr.D.  Krishna Kumar, Spl.G.P.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        Heard.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Aggrieved  by the demand of additional stamp duty on the document
\nof sale  executed  by  the  Tamil  Nadu  Police  Housing  Corporation  Limited
\n(hereinafter  referred  to  as  the “Corporation”), a Government of Tamil Nadu
\nundertaking, in favour of the petitioners herein and the consequential refusal
\nto release the respective sale deeds of  the  petitioners  already  registered
\nbefore  the  concerned  Sub  Registrar of Registration, for non payment of the
\nadditional stamp duty, the petitioners, individually, seek a writ of  Mandamus
\nto  forbear  the third respondent from demanding the additional stamp duty for
\nthe respective sale deeds of the petitioners and to direct the respondents  to
\ndeliver them the said sale deeds registered before the third respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Since the grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions and
\nthe  relief  sought  for  are  common in nature, all these writ petitions were
\nheard jointly with the consent of both parties.\n<\/p>\n
        4.1.  Concedingly, the petitioners were allotted respective  flats  by
\nthe  Corporation, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, in the year 1985, on
\nlease cum sale agreement basis and the petitioners have paid their  respective
\nentire  sale  consideration  in  instalments and also got their sale deed duly
\nexecuted by the Corporation before the concerned Sub Registrar Office as early
\nas 1999, 2000 and 2001.  But, instead of returning the respective  sale  deeds
\nto   the  petitioners,  the  respondents  served  notice  on  them,  demanding
\nadditional stamp duty on the basis of the market value of the property at  the
\ntime  of registration, initiating action against them under Section 47-A(1) of
\nthe Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).\n<\/p>\n
        4.2.  The petitioners and the similarly  placed  allottees  formed  an
\nassociation   as   Tiruchy  Navalpattu  Police  Colony  Owners  and  Occupants
\nAssociation and registered the same under  the  provisions  of  the  Societies
\nRegistration Act.    Placing  reliance  on  the  decision  of this Court dated
\n19.3.1998 made in W.P.Nos.15873  and  16833  of  1995,  the  said  association
\nrepresented  to  the third respondent on 29.8.2002 that the levy of additional
\nstamp duty on the basis of market  value  of  the  property  at  the  time  of
\nregistration  is incorrect, illegal, improper, and contrary to the decision in
\nPadmavathi, S.P.  v.  State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> reported in 1997 (2) CTC 617 =  1997
\n(2) LW  579.  However, the respondents, by letter dated 9.11.2001 informed the
\nAssociation that the request made on  behalf  of  the  petitioners  cannot  be
\ncomplied with.  Hence the above writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Mr.R.    Krishnaswami,  learned  senior  counsel appearing for the
\npetitioners contends that\n<\/p>\n
(a) the impugned demand of additional stamp duty on the respective sale  deeds
\nis contrary to various decisions of this Court, viz.\n<\/p>\n
(i) the order dated 19.3.1998 made in W.P.Nos.15873 and 16833 of 1995;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) District  Collector,  Erode  District  Erode, v.  M.Ponnusamy reported in
\n2001 (2) CTC 449 confirming the order dated 6.11.1997 made in W.P.Nos.11952 of
\n1997 batch, reported in 1999 (2) LW 231; and\n<\/p>\n
(iii)Sukumaran, R.  v.  State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> reported in 2002 (2) CTC 3 29.\n<\/p>\n
(b) the respondents have no jurisdiction to invoke Section 47-A(1) of the Act,
\nunless they have reason to believe that the  market  value  of  the  property,
\nwhich  is  a  subject  matter of conveyance has not been duly set forth in the
\ndocument, with a view to fraudulently evade the payment of proper stamp  duty;
\nand<\/p>\n
(c)  since  the  impugned  sale  deeds  were  executed  by  the Corporation, a
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu undertaking, there  cannot  be  any  room  for  under
\nvaluation  of  the  property  conveyed  by  the Corporation nor any fraudulent
\nevasion or mala fide attached to such transaction.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf
\nof the respondents contends that\n<\/p>\n
(a) the price fixed by the Corporation at the time  of  allotment  is  only  a
\ntentative  cost  and  the  same  is  not final, and therefore, the registering
\nauthority is entitled to charge stamp duty based on the market  value  of  the
\nproperty  at the time of registration, but not based on the price fixed by the
\nCorporation in the sale deeds;\n<\/p>\n
(b) if the petitioner relies  upon  the  cost  price  fixed  at  the  time  of
\nallotment  and  as a result, the market value of the property conveyed has not
\nbeen  truly  set  forth  in  the  document,  the  Registering  Officer,  after
\nconsideration  of  the  document,  shall  refer  the same to the Collector for
\ndetermination of the market value of the property conveyed and the stamp  duty
\npayable  thereon, exercising the powers conferred under Section 47-A(1) of the
\nAct; and\n<\/p>\n
(c) once the Registering Officer is empowered to initiate action under Section
\n47-A(1) of the Act as above, it is further contended that as per Sub rule 3 of
\nRule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of  Instruments)
\nRules, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), the Registering Officer
\nmay,  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  whether  the  market value has been
\ncorrectly furnished in the instrument, make such enquiries as deemed  fit  and
\nhe  may  elicit  from  the  parties  concerned  any information bearing on the
\nsubject and call for and examine any records kept with the public  officer  or
\nthe  authority;  and Sub rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, further empowers the
\nRegistering Officer to look into the Guidelines Register containing the  value
\nof  the  properties  supplied  to them for the purpose of verifying the market
\nvalue, and therefore, the respondents are within the jurisdiction to  initiate
\naction  against the petitioners under Section 47-A of the Act and consequently
\nto demand additional stamp duty  from  the  petitioners  for  releasing  their
\nrespective documents.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   I  have  given  careful  consideration to the submissions of both
\nsides.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The vital point that arises for my consideration in this batch  of
\nwrit  petitions  is  whether  the  demand  of  additional  stamp duty from the
\npetitioners on  the  deed  of  sale,  which  is  admittedly  executed  by  the
\nCorporation, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, by the respondents, based
\non the alleged market value, is valid and justified in law or not?\n<\/p>\n
        9.1.   It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  petitioners  were allotted
\nrespective flats by the Corporation, a Government of Tamil  Nadu  undertaking.
\nThe  allotment  of  the plots were made as early as 1985, when the cost of the
\nrespective plots were arrived at, determined and settled conclusively  between
\nthe parties  to the sale.  Therefore, there is no material on record either to
\nsuspect or to hold that the impugned conveyance is either attracted by alleged
\nunder valuation or fraudulent evasion of stamp duty.  On the other hand, since
\nthe sale has been executed by a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking in favour
\nof the petitioners, it is presumed to be a bona fide transaction.\n<\/p>\n
        9.2.  No doubt, the market value of any property in the  matter  is  a
\nchanging  factor  and  the  same  will  depend  upon various circumstances and
\nmatters relevant for consideration, viz.  requirement of the property  by  the
\npurchaser, urgent requirement of funds by the vendor etc.  Unless there is any
\nsubstantial and material evidence and reasons to believe that the market value
\nof  the property conveyed has not been truly set forth in the instrument, with
\nan object to commit a fraudulent evasion of the stamp duty to  cause  loss  to
\nthe  revenue,  it  cannot  be presumed that the powers conferred under Section
\n47-A(1) of the Act is a routine procedure to be followed, in respect  of  each
\nand every transaction and respective document presented for registration.\n<\/p>\n
        9.3.   The  powers  conferred  under Section 47-A(1) of the Act is not
\nmeant to work as an  engine  of  oppression,  but  is  a  machinery  to  check
\nfraudulent  evasion  of  the  stamp  duty  payable  on  the  instrument, while
\nregistering any  instrument  of  conveyance,  etc.    Therefore,  the   powers
\nconferred  under  Section  47-A(1)  of  the Act should be exercised with great
\ncaution and care should be taken to ensure that it does not work as an  engine
\nof oppression nor as a matter of routine mechanically, without any application
\nof  mind  as  to  the  existence  of  any  material  or  reason to believe the
\nfraudulent evasion of stamp duty.  The above view is supported  by  the  ratio
\nlaid down by  a Division Bench of this Court in Padmavathi, S.P.  v.  State of
\nTamil Nadu<\/a> reported in 1997 (2) CTC 617 = 1997 (2)  LW  579,  which  reads  as
\nunder.\n<\/p>\n
”       …   Power  under  Sec.47-A of the Act can only be exercised when the
\nRegistering Officer has reason  to  believe  that  the  market  value  of  the
\nproperty,  which  is  the subject of conveyance, has not been truly set forth,
\nwith a view to fraudulently evade payment of stamp duty.  Mere lapse  of  time
\nbetween  the  date  of  agreement  and  the  execution of the document and the
\nexecution of the document will not be the determining factor that the document
\nis undervalued and such circumstance by itself is not sufficient to invoke the
\npower under Sec.47-A of the Act,  unless  there  is  lack  of  bona  fies  and
\nfraudulent  attempt  on  the part of the parties to the document to undervalue
\nthe subject of transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty …”\n<\/p>\n
        10.1.  Even  though  the  learned  Special  Government  Pleader  would
\ncontend  that  Sub  rule  (3)  and  (4)  of  Rule  3 of the Rules, empower the
\nrespondents to demand additional stamp duty based on the guidelines prescribed
\nin the Guidelines Register maintained  by  the  revenue  authorities  in  this
\nregard,  if  the  market value of the property conveyed has not been truly set
\nforth in the instrument, in my considered opinion, Sub rules (3)  and  (4)  of
\nRule 3 of the Rules themselves are not applicable to the instant case, in view
\nof  my earlier finding that Section 47-A(1) of the Act itself is not attracted
\nto the case of the petitioners, for want of sufficient materials or reasons to
\nbelieve that the petitioners have fraudulently evaded  the  stamp  duty  while
\nregistering their respective sale deeds.\n<\/p>\n
        10.2.  This Court  in  The  Collector  of  Nilgiris  v.  M\/s.  Mahavir
\nPlantations Pvt.  Ltd.<\/a>  reported in AIR 1982 Mad.  138 =  (1981)  94  LW  685,
\nheld as under.\n<\/p>\n
”       The  valuation  guidelines  prepared  by  the Revenue Officials at the
\ninstance of the Board of Revenue were avowedly intended merely to  assist  the
\nSub-Registrars  to  find out, prima facie, whether the market value set out in
\nthe instruments had been  set  forth  correctly.    The  guidelines  were  not
\nintended  as  a substitute for market value or to foreclose the inquiry by the
\nCollector which he is under a duty to make  under  Sec.47-A.    The  valuation
\nguidelines  were  not prepared on the basis of any open hearing of the parties
\nconcerned or of any documents.  They were based on data gathered broadly  with
\nreference to  classification  of  lands, grouping of lands and the like.  This
\nbeing so, the Collector acting under  Sec.47-A  cannot  regard  the  valuation
\nguidelines as the last word on the subject of market value.  To do so would be
\nto  surrender  his statutory obligation to determine market value on the basis
\nof evidence, which is a judicial or a quasi judicial function which he has  to
\nperform.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.3.  Similarly, it  is held in Sagar Cements Ltd.  v.  State of A.P.
\nreported in 1989 (3) Andhra Law Times 677 that the Government has unilaterally
\nfixed the value of the lands in the Basic Valuation Register and the same  had
\nno statutory foundation and therefore it does not bind the parties.\n<\/p>\n
        10.4.   The  view with regard to the statutory force of basic value in
\nthe Basic Valuation Register has no statutory  foundation  and  therefore,  it
\ndoes  not  bind  the parties of the conveyance, has been confirmed by the Apex
\nCourt in Jawajee Nagnatham v.  Revenue Divisional Officer<\/a> reported in 1994 (4)
\nSCC 595.\n<\/p>\n
        10.5.  Following the above  basic  principles  laid  down  in  various
\ndecisions  of  this  Court  as  well  as the Apex Court, K.Govindarajan, J, in
\nW.P.No.15873 and  16833  of  1995,  by  order  dated  19.3.1998,  quashed  the
\nproceedings  of  the  Registering  Officer  demanding additional stamp duty by
\nexercising the powers conferred under Section 47-A of the Act and directed  to
\nrefund the stamp duty paid by the petitioner under protest.\n<\/p>\n
        10.6.   In  identical  circumstances,  where  the Registering Officer,
\nafter duly registering the deed of conveyance,  referred  the  matter  to  the
\nCollector  under  Section 47-A of the Act holding that the market value of the
\nproperty conveyed are not truly set  forth  in  the  deed  of  conveyance  and
\nconsequently   refused  to  release  the  original  documents  of  conveyance,
\nE.Padmanabhan, J, by order dated 6.11.1997 made in W.P.Nos.11952 of 1997 batch
\ncase, (Ponnusamy, M.  & Others v.  The District  Collector,  Erode  &  others)
\nreported  in  1999  (2) LW 231, following the ratio laid down in the decisions
\nreferred to above, held as follows.\n<\/p>\n
” ..  The language of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is very clear.  The
\ncondition precedent for making a reference is, there must be  reason  for  the
\nRegistering Authority to believe that the market value of the property has not
\nbeen truly  set  forth  in the document presented for registration.  Hence, it
\nfollows that the reasons must be recorded, however short it may be.  It is the
\nduty of the Registering Authority to record reasons for his belief  that  true
\nmarket  value  has not been set out in the document, complete registration and
\nthereafter refer the matter to the Collector for determination of  the  market
\nvalue of the property and the proper duty payable thereon.      …    It   is
\nessential to point out that before registration, the Registering Authority has
\nto record that he has reasons to believe that the value of  the  property  has
\nnot been  duly set forth in the instrument.  Only after recording such reasons
\nthe Registering Authority has to complete registration of  the  instrument  in
\nquestion  and thereafter alone, he could refer the same to the Collector under
\nSub-Section (1) of Section 4 7-A of the Indian Stamp Act.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.7.  The above decision in Ponnusamy, M.  & Others v.  The  District
\nCollector,  Erode & others reported in 1999 (2) LW 231 has also been confirmed
\nby a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30.4.2001 made in  W.A.Nos.26
\nto  32  and  110 to 143 of 1998, reported in 2001 (2) CTC 449, reiterating the
\nratio laid down in the  earlier  decisions  of  this  Court  that  unless  the
\nRegistering  Officer  has reason to believe that the documents have been under
\nvalued based on sufficient materials in that regard, he has no jurisdiction to
\ninitiate any action under Section 47-A of the Act to refer the document to the
\nCollector for adjudication and in any event, the Registering  Officer  himself
\ncannot  hold  an  enquiry  regarding  under  valuation,  once  the document is
\nregistered and such enquiry should precede the registration.\n<\/p>\n
        10.8.  In one another identical case, where a  document  was  executed
\nand  registered  by  the  Tamil  Nadu Housing Board in favour of the allottee,
\nbased on a lease cum sale agreement, E.Padmanabhan, J, by order dated 5.4.2002
\nin W.P.Nos.23097 of 2001 batch (Sukumaran, R.    v.    State  of  Tamil  Nadu)<\/a>
\nreported  in  2002  (2) CTC 329, held that the sale deed executed by the Tamil
\nNadu Housing Board and presented for registration is held to be bona fide  and
\ntherefore,  the  Registrar  cannot  have  any  ground  or  reason  or basis to
\nentertain doubt about sale consideration or the market value of  the  property
\nconveyed  nor  can  claim  any  additional  stamp  duty  from the allottee and
\nconsequently directed the Registrar of registration to release  the  documents
\nwithout insisting any further payment of stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   In  the  instant  case,  as  the respondents failed to place any
\nmaterial before this Court to distrust that the market value of  the  property
\nconveyed under the respective sale deeds of the petitioners has not been truly
\nset  forth  in the respective sale deeds, nor given any reason to believe that
\nthe petitioners have fraudulently evaded the stamp duty, I am obliged to  hold
\nthat the market value of the flats set forth in the sale deeds executed by the
\nCorporation in favour of the respective petitioners are truly set forth and as
\na  result,  respondents  have  no  jurisdiction  to  initiate any action under
\nSection 47-A(1) of the Act, either to refer the matter  to  the  Collector  to
\nhold an enquiry in this regard or to withhold the respective sale deeds of the
\npetitioners any further.\n<\/p>\n
        The writ   petitions   are  allowed  as  prayed  for.    Consequently,
\nrespondents  are  directed  to  release  the  respective  sale  deeds  of  the
\npetitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
\nwithout demanding any  additional  stamp duty.  No costs.  Connected WPMPs are
\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Special Secretary to
\nGovernment Commercial Taxes
\n(J1 Department)
\nSecretariat, Chennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Inspector General of Registration
\nChennai 600 028.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The District Registrar
\nTiruchy District
\nTiruchirappalli 620 001.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01\/11\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN W.P.No.31589 of 2002 and W.P.Nos. 31590, 13664, 13665, 19380 to 19383, 19495 to 19504, 19485 to 19494, 30453, 30460, 30328, 13998 to 14000, 14083, 14084, 14188 […]<\/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-245560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002 - 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-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-30T03:05:31+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=\"14 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-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-30T03:05:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2722,\"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\\\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002\",\"name\":\"S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-30T03:05:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@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. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002 - 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-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-30T03:05:31+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-30T03:05:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002"},"wordCount":2722,"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\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002","name":"S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-30T03:05:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jayalakshmi-vs-the-government-of-tamilnadu-on-1-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Jayalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 1 November, 2002"}]},{"@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\/245560","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=245560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}