{"id":248688,"date":"2010-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-21T16:35:59","modified_gmt":"2017-03-21T11:05:59","slug":"the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 18\/03\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN\n\nAppeal Suit No.919 OF 1996\nAppeal Suit No.920 OF 1996\nAppeal Suit No.921 OF 1996\n\nThe Special Tahsildar,\nAdi Dravidar Welfare,\nVirudhunagar.\t\t\t... Appellant in All Appeals\n\nVs\n\t\n1.Thangamariammal\t\t... Respondent in A.S.No.919\/1996\n2.K.Chandrasekaran\t\t... Respondent in A.S.No.920\/1996\n3.Ramasamy\t\t\t... Respondent in A.S.No.921\/1996\n\n\n\n:COMMON PRAYER\n\nAppeals are filed under Section 54<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act\nagainst the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur\nin L.A.O.P.Nos.21 to 23 of 1990, dated 31.12.1995.\n\n!For Appellant\t   ... Mr.M.Rajarajan\n\t\t       Government Advocate\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.A.Sivaji\n\t\t\n\t\t******\t\t\t\t\t\n<\/pre>\n
:COMMON   JUDGMENT
\n********<\/p>\n
\t\tThe appeals relate to the common judgment dated 31.12.1995 passed in
\nL.A.O.P.Nos.21 to 23 of 1990.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The facts of the case are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tThe lands comprised in Survey Nos.170\/5C5B, 170\/5C6, 170\/5C2,
\n170\/6 and 170\/7C1, Vellore Village, Virudhunagar Taluk and District belonging to
\nthe respective respondents\/claimants were acquired for the purpose of providing
\nhouse sites to Adi Dravidars by virtue of Section 4(1)<\/a> notification dated
\n12.08.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the
\nacquired land at Rs.20\/- per cent. On reference to the civil Court, under
\nSection 18<\/a> of the Act, at the instance of the respondents\/claimants, the
\nTribunal enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,200\/- per cent relying on Ex.C.1,
\nsale deed dated 24.08.1987 which conveyed the property situate at Survey
\nNo.181\/1, whereas the Land Acquisition Officer relied upon the sale deed dated
\n05.05.1987 marked as Ex.R.1. The aforesaid Award of the Tribunal dated
\n31.12.1995, determining the compensation at Rs.1,200\/- per cent, is challenged
\nbefore this Court by the Government by way of appeal suits.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate attacked the Award
\ncontending that the Tribunal took into consideration the value of smaller extent
\nof land conveyed under Ex.C.1 to determine larger extent of the acquired area
\nand as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be relied
\nupon. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Award passed
\nby the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t 4. Secondly, he submitted that no deduction was given towards
\ndevelopment charges, especially when the acquisition is for the purpose of
\nproviding house sites. He further submitted that after analyzing a number of
\nsale deeds, the Land Acquisition Officer rightly determined the value at Rs.20\/-
\nper cent relying upon Ex.R.1, sale deed dated 05.05.1987. In fine, the learned
\nGovernment Advocate pleads for reduction in the compensation and enhancement of
\ndeduction towards development charges.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel for the respondents\/claimants
\nsubmitted that the Tribunal rightly relied upon Ex.C.1, sale deed dated
\n24.08.1987.  Ex.C.1, sale deed is in respect of housing sites and the purpose of
\nland acquisition is for providing house sites and, therefore, by comparing all
\nthe documents, the Tribunal rightly relied upon Ex.C.1, sale deed and determined
\nthe value. Even though Ex.C.1 speaks about the value at Rs.2,400\/- per cent, the
\nTribunal only fixed Rs.1,200\/- per cent, viz., 50% of the sale value per cent.
\nTherefore, the learned counsel submitted that no interference is called for in
\nthe Award of the Tribunal.  He further submitted that as per the Constitution
\nBench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India<\/a>
\nreported in 2001(7) SCC 221 = 2002(2) LW 39, the claimants are entitled to
\ninterest on the solatium on par with interest on compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned
\ncounsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. A perusal of the pleadings, evidence on record and the Award of
\nthe Tribunal would show that the purpose of acquisition was to provide house
\nsites to Adi Dravidars and Section 4(1)<\/a> notification was effected on 12.08.1988.
\nIn paragraph-8 of the Award, the Tribunal took into consideration the oral
\nevidence of claimant, viz., C.W.1 and the location of the land covered by Ex.C.1
\nand found that the value of Ex.C.1 is relatable to the land acquired.  It is
\nseen that Ex.C.1 property is just 150 feet away from the acquired land and it is
\ncomprised in Survey No.181\/1 of the same village. The 4(1) notification was
\nissued on 12.08.1988, whereas the sale under Ex.C.1 was effected as early as on
\n24.08.1987, i.e., one year before 4(1) notification and, therefore, no
\nallegation could be made against the said transaction. In any event, there was
\nno allegation in this regard. As far as the availability amenities are
\nconcerned, it was noted by the Tribunal that the acquired lands are surrounded
\nby schools, co-operative banks on the western side of the acquired land and
\nPanchayat Union School, Middle School, Primary Health Centre also and it is
\nabutting Sivakasi Main Road on the southern side and Virudhunagar Main Road on
\nthe northern side. Therefore, the Tribunal, noting that the location of Ex.C.1
\nproperty as Natham house site, determined the value based on that. Considering
\nthe nature of acquisition, viz., for providing house sites, no interference can
\nbe made with regard to reliance on Ex.C.1 for determining the value.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. The Tribunal rightly rejected R.W.1’s evidence as well as Ex.R.1.
\nThough R.W.1 analyzed a number of sale deeds, many sale deeds were discarded
\nquoting one reason or other and items-10,15,22,31 and 61 of Ex.R.3, sale
\nstatistics were discarded on the ground that they were natham poramboke. The
\nLand Acquisition Officer failed to note that the acquisition itself is for
\nhousing and in that event, the Land Acquisition Officer should have considered
\nthose documents also. Even R.W.1 himself admitted that the acquired land is
\nsituate on the main road to Sivakasi and the boundary of the acquired land is
\nVellore Village.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. A conjoint reading of C.W.1 and R.W.1 and the documents would
\nshow that the acquired land is surrounded by Schools, hospital, primary health
\ncentre, match factories. Considering those facts only, the Tribunal fixed the
\nvalue at Rs.1,200\/- per cent, even though Ex.C.1 values the land at Rs.2,400\/-
\nper cent. Though the Tribunal did not make any deduction as per the calculation,
\nthe Tribunal  actually deducted 50% of the sale value per cent and determined
\nthe value at Rs.1,200\/- per cent. Therefore, there is no scope for interference
\nwith regard to the determination of the value. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a
\nnumber of cases held that value of smaller piece of land can be taken into
\nconsideration for determining the value of the larger extent of land after
\nmaking appropriate deductions towards development charges. In Atma Singh (died)
\nthrough L.Rs. & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr<\/a>.  reported in AIR 2008 SC 709,
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held that value of small pieces of land can be taken
\nas guide to determine the market value and appropriate deductions have to be
\nmade towards development charges.  The above dictum was held in the following
\ncases:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) Bhagwathula Samanna and Others v. Spl. Tahsildar and Land Acquisition
\nOfficer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam reported in 1991(4) SCC 506.
\n\t(2)  Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi<\/a> reported
\nin AIR 1988 SC 943.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) H.P.Housing Board v. Bharat S.Negi and Others<\/a> reported in  2004(2) SCC\n<\/p>\n
184.
\n\t(4) Basant Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others<\/a> reported in
\n1996(11) SCC 542.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the development already available surrounding the adjoining land,
\nthe Tribunal rightly deducted 50% viz., Rs.1,200\/- out of Rs.2,400\/-. Therefore,
\nthe Award of the Tribunal regarding value of land is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. As far as the other benefits, like solatium and interest are
\nconcerned, they are confirmed. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Sivaji, as per the
\nConstitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder’s case cited
\nsupra, the solatium would attract the interest as that of the compensation. In
\nview of that, the claimants are entitled to 12% interest on the solatium also.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. The common Award of the Tribunal covers 3 LAOPs., viz.,
\nL.A.O.P.Nos. 21 of 1990, 22 of 1990 and 23 of 1990, against which, Appeal Suit
\nNos.919 of 1996, 920 of 1996 and 921 of 1996 were filed by the Government. Out
\nof three, A.S.No.920 of 1996 was dismissed, as the respondent died and the
\nGovernment did not take steps to bring the Legal Representatives of the
\nrespondent on record and the appeal got abated and was subsequently dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondents\/claimants pointed out that the above appeals arise under the common
\njudgment. The other two appeals (A.S.Nos.919\/1996 and 921\/1996) are liable to be
\ndismissed holding that the respondents\/claimants are entitled to the Award
\namount and interest on the solatium as per the Constitution Bench judgment in
\nSunder’s case cited supra.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. The learned counsel submitted that as per  Section 28(A)<\/a> of the
\nLand Acquisition Act, 1894, the same benefit should be made available to the
\npersons who are covered by the same 4(1) notification. It is useful to extract
\nSection 28(A)<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as follows:-
\n\t“28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the
\naward of the Court.-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant
\nany amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector
\nunder section 11<\/a>, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the
\nsame notification under section 4<\/a>, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by
\nthe award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an
\napplication to the collector under section 18<\/a>, by written application to the
\nCollector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require
\nthat the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the
\nbasis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court.
\n\tProvided that in computing the period of three months within which an
\napplication to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on
\nwhich the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
\nthe award shall be excluded.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section
\n(1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and
\ngiving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award
\ndetermining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.
\n\t(3) Any persons who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may,
\nby written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by
\nthe Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections
\n18<\/a> to 28<\/a> shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a
\nreference under section 18<\/a>.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. Therefore, even though A.S.No.920 of 1996 was dismissed as
\nabated, as the acquired land in the above A.S. is covered by the very same
\nSection 4(1)<\/a> notification dated 12.08.1988, the beneficiaries under the Award,
\nwhich covered A.S.No.920 of 1996, also would be entitled to interest on the
\nsolatium also on par with other A.S.Nos.919 and 921 of 1996 as per judgment of
\nHon’ble Supreme Court in  Sunder vs. Union of India<\/a> reported in 2001(7) SCC 221.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. In the result, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed
\naccordingly. There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
SML<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Subordinate Judge,
\nSrivilliputhur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18\/03\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN Appeal Suit No.919 OF 1996 Appeal Suit No.920 OF 1996 Appeal Suit No.921 OF 1996 The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Virudhunagar. … Appellant in All Appeals Vs […]<\/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-248688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010 - 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\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-21T11:05:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-21T11:05:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1773,\"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\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010\",\"name\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-21T11:05:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010 - 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\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-21T11:05:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-21T11:05:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010"},"wordCount":1773,"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\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010","name":"The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-21T11:05:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-thangamariammal-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Special Tahsildar vs Thangamariammal on 18 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/248688","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=248688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248688\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}