{"id":249985,"date":"2010-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010"},"modified":"2014-08-02T06:57:26","modified_gmt":"2014-08-02T01:27:26","slug":"the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN\n\nA.S.(MD)No.34 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 in A.S.(MD)No.34 of 2010\nand\nCross Appeal (MD) No.26 of 2010\n\nA.S.(MD)No.34 of 2010:\n\nThe Revenue Divisional Officer,\nNagercoil, Nagercoil Village,\nAgasteeswaram Taluk,\nKanyakumari District.\t\t... Appellant\/Referring \t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t   Officer\n\t\t\t\t\nvs\n\n1.N.Sastha\n2.Paramasivam\n3.N.Kumaraswamy\n4.N.Ganesan\n5.Vimala\n6.Kannan\n7.Muthukaruppayee Achi\n8.Asharaf Hameed\n9.Laila Hameed\n10.Rajeswari\n11.Thynesimuthu\n12.E.Rethinammal\n13.Indira\n14.Rajkumar\n15.Sheela\n16.Ramkumar\n17.A.R.Kannammai Achi\n18.K.Saraswathi Kannappan\n19.V.Vasanthal\n20.R.Jayalakshmi\n21.Deivanai\n22.A.Kanna Arumugam\t\t...Respondents\/Claimants\n\nCross Appeal (MD) No.26 of 2010\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n1.Asharaf Hameed\n2.Laila Hameed\t\t\t... Cross Appellants\/ \t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t    Claimants 8 &amp; 9\nVs\n\n1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n  Nagercoil Village,\n  Agasteeswaram Taluk,\n  Kanyakumari District.\t           ... 1st Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t     Referring Officer\n2.N.Sastha\n3.Paramasivam\n4.N.Kumaraswamy\n5.N.Ganesan\n6.Vimala\n7.Kannan\n8.Muthukaruppayee Achi\n9.Rajeswari\n10.Thynesimuthu\n11.E.Rethinammal\n12.Indira\n13.Rajkumar\n14.Sheela\n15.Ramkumar\n16.A.R.Kannammai Achi\n17.K.Saraswathi Kannappan\n18.V.Vasanthal\n19.R.Jayalakshmi\n20.Deivanai\n21.A.Kanna Arumugam\t\t... Respondents\/ \t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t       Claimants 1 to 7 and 10 to 22\n\t\n\nPrayer in A.S.(MD) No.34 of 2010\n\nAppeal filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/151577964\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 54<\/a> of the Land\nAcquisition Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2008, passed\nin L.A.O.P.No.46 of 1984, by the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Sub Court),\nNagercoil.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t... Mr.M.Rajarajan\n\t\t            Government Advocate.\t\n^For 5th Respondent\t... Mr.K.SreeKumaran Nair\nFor Respondents 6, 17,\n19, 20 and 22\t\t... Mr.C.Dhanaseelan\nFor Respondents 8 &amp; 9\t... Mr.R.Nandakumar\n\n\nPrayer in Cross Appeal (MD) No.26 of 2010\n\nAppeal filed under Order XLI, Rule 22\nr\/w <a href=\"\/doc\/7832\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 96(1)<\/a> &amp; (2) of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated\n24.03.2008 passed in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 1984, by the Land Acquisition Tribunal\n(Sub Court), Nagercoil.\n\n!For Cross Appellants\t... Mr.R.Nandakumar\n^For 1st Respondent\t... Mr.M.Rajarajan\n\t\t\t    Government Advocate.\n* * * * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThe appeal suit has been preferred by the Government against the award of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,250\/- to Rs.3,000\/-. Not<br \/>\nsatisfied with the enhancement, the cross appeal has been preferred by the<br \/>\nclaimants 8 and 9.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2.The facts of the case are as follows:  The lands comprised in<br \/>\nT.S.Nos.A1-15\/14 and A1-15\/15 measuring about 01.19.70 Hectare situated in<br \/>\nVadaseri Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District were acquired under<br \/>\nSection 4(1) Notification dated 17.12.1980, for the purpose of expansion of<br \/>\nNagercoil 66\/11 KVSS to 110\/1 KVSS at Parvathipuram.  The land acquisition<br \/>\nofficer relying upon Ex.B.1 sale deed dated 19.04.1980, determined the<br \/>\ncompensation of Rs.1,200\/- per cent, whereas the Tribunal on reference<br \/>\ndetermined the compensation of Rs.3,000\/- relying upon Exs.A.4 dated 21.10.1981,<br \/>\nA.5 dated 22.10.1981 and A.6 dated 20.11.1981.  The said award is being<br \/>\nchallenged before this Court in the above appeal suit and in the cross appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3.Mr.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the documents<br \/>\nrelied upon by the Tribunal are all post notification sale deeds and the same<br \/>\ncannot be relied upon. Secondly, he submitted that no deduction was given<br \/>\ntowards development charges. Therefore, he seeks restoration of the award passed<br \/>\nby Land Acquisition Officer and seeks setting aside of the award passed by the<br \/>\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t4.On the other hand, Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair, who led the argument on behalf<br \/>\nof the respondents\/ claimants and the cross appellants submitted that the<br \/>\nacquired lands are situated within Nagercoil Municipality and therefore no<br \/>\ndeduction is required.  Secondly, he submitted that post notification sale deed<br \/>\ncould be relied  upon, if it is found to be within reasonable time.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t5.It is seen from the records that <a href=\"\/doc\/169774\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section 4(1)<\/a> notification is dated<br \/>\n17.12.1980 and the purpose of acquisition is for expansion of the electricity<br \/>\nsub-station. The Tribunal rejected the value of the Ex.B.1 on the ground that<br \/>\nEx.B.1 has been executed more than 2 years before Section 4(1) Notification and<br \/>\nthe property conveyed under Ex.B.1 is far away from the acquired property as<br \/>\nseen from Ex.B.3 Topo-Plan.  The reason given by the Tribunal for rejecting<br \/>\nEx.B.1 is perfectly valid and the same is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t6.As far as the location of the acquired land is concerned, it is<br \/>\nadmittedly situated within the Municipal limits of Nagercoil as it is proved by<br \/>\nvery nomenclature of the survey number as T.S.Nos.A1\/15-14 and A1\/15-15.  If the<br \/>\nproperty is situated within the municipal limits, town survey numbers would be<br \/>\ngiven.  Ex.B.3 Topo-plan shows the acquired land is situated abutting Nagercoil<br \/>\nNational Highways and the surrounding lands are developed as residential area.<br \/>\nThe Tribunal considered C.W.1&#8217;s evidence that the acquired lands are situated<br \/>\nvery closer to Nagammal Mill, Ganesh Nagendra Mills, Indian Oil Bunk, Pioneer<br \/>\nKumaraswamy College, Akash School, Bank of Baroda and apart from that close to<br \/>\nRailway Station and Bus Stop.  Therefore, it is easy for this Court to conclude<br \/>\nthat the acquired property is situated in the Nagercoil Town and it is in<br \/>\ndeveloped area and it has many locational advantages.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t7.As far as claimant documents are concerned, Ex.A.4 is dated 21.10.1981,<br \/>\nEx.A.5 is dated 22.10.1981 and Ex.A.6 is dated 20.11.1981. The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt has already held in <a href=\"\/doc\/180055\/\" id=\"a_3\">State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and<br \/>\nothers<\/a> reported in (1992) 2 SCC 382 that post notification sale deeds also could<br \/>\nbe looked into for the purpose of determining the value of the property.  <a href=\"\/doc\/593296\/\" id=\"a_4\">In<br \/>\nKaran Singh and others vs. Union of India<\/a> reported in (1997) 8 SCC 186, it has<br \/>\nbeen held that the onus is on the claimant to prove that there was no raise in<br \/>\nprice of land after the issuance of the Section 4(1) Notification. <a href=\"\/doc\/169774\/\" id=\"a_5\">Section 4(1)<\/a><br \/>\nnotification is dated 17.12.1980.  Ex.A.5 is dated 22.10.1981 and the land<br \/>\nconveyed is 8. cents. Ex.A.6 is dated 20.11.1981 and the land conveyed is 2.5<br \/>\ncents. The Tribunal relied upon Exs.A4 to A.6 to determine the market value as<br \/>\nthey are closer to the acquired property and it is found to be similar in<br \/>\ncharacter with all amenities.  As Ex.A.5 conveyed the lands along with building,<br \/>\nthe same is not relied by this Court.  As far as Ex.A.6 is concerned it was<br \/>\nexecuted on 20.11.1981 and the sale value per cent is Rs.3,200\/- and therefore,<br \/>\nthe value of the land is determined as Rs.3,200\/- per cent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t8.Considering the time gap between <a href=\"\/doc\/169774\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 4(1)<\/a> notification dated<br \/>\n17.12.1980 and Ex.A6 dated 20.11.1981, this Court deducts 10% towards<br \/>\ndepreciation. In the interregnum period the value of the land would have<br \/>\nappreciated and the same has to be deducted from the value of Ex.A.6.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\tValue per cent as per Ex.P.6\t= Rs.3,200\/-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t10% deduction towards<br \/>\n\t depreciation\tRs.3,200 &#8211; Rs.320 = Rs.2,880\/-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\tThe said amount is rounded of to= Rs.3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">Therefore, the market value of the acquired land is determined by this Court as<br \/>\nRs.3,000\/- per cent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t9.As far as deduction is concerned, the learned Government Advocate<br \/>\nsubmitted that 60% is required to be deducted towards amenities charges and he<br \/>\nrelied upon the decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1920342\/\" id=\"a_7\">Basavva (Smt) &amp; others<br \/>\nvs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others<\/a> reported in (1996) 9 SCC 640.<br \/>\nHowever, the three Judges Bench of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Urban<br \/>\nWater Supply and Drainage Board etc., vs. K.S.Gangadharappa &amp; Another reported<br \/>\nin 2010 (1) LW 1001 held that there is no straight jacket formula towards<br \/>\ndeductions to be made for development charges.  In view of the said judgment, no<br \/>\ndeduction is required to be made for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">1.The land acquired has been given survey numbers as Town survey Numbers.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">2.It is an admitted position that the acquired land is situated within the<br \/>\nmunicipal limits.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">3.It is situated abutting Nagercoil &#8211; Trivandrum National Highways.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">4.It is surrounded by Educational Institutions, Bank, Petrol Bunk, Church,<br \/>\nTextile Mills, Bus Stop and Railway Station.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">That is to say it has all the amenities of the municipality. Therefore, no<br \/>\ndeduction is required to be made. The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/517360\/\" id=\"a_8\">Tenneti Kamesam<br \/>\nv. Land Acquisition Officer<\/a> reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 371 (SC) held as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;5.In the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that there was no<br \/>\ndispute with regard to the fact that the land in question with regard to the<br \/>\nfact that the land in question was situated in a well-developed town surrounded<br \/>\nby several structures, residential buildings and other commercial<br \/>\nestablishments, apart from being located near a railway station and other<br \/>\nfacilities.  It is, therefore, evident that the land was already situated in a<br \/>\ndeveloped area and the question of deduction of development charges did not,<br \/>\ntherefore, arise.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">In this case also, the development and amenities are similar in nature. Relying<br \/>\nupon the same, no deduction is made by this Court towards development charges.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\t10.As far as compensation given for super structure, coconut trees etc.,<br \/>\nare concerned, they are found to be reasonable and hence, they are confirmed.<br \/>\nHowever, the award of the Tribunal determining the compensation at Rs.3,000\/- is<br \/>\ndetermined but in a different way.  Hence, the award of the Tribunal is<br \/>\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">\t11.Therefore, the appeal suit is dismissed.  Consequently, connected<br \/>\nM.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 is dismissed.  In view of the above judgment passed in the<br \/>\nappeal suit, the Cross Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">sj<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\n  The Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\n  Nagercoil.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN A.S.(MD)No.34 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 in A.S.(MD)No.34 of 2010 and Cross Appeal (MD) No.26 of 2010 A.S.(MD)No.34 of 2010: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-249985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-02T01:27:26+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=\"8 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-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-02T01:27:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1231,\"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-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010\",\"name\":\"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-02T01:27:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 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 Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-02T01:27:26+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-02T01:27:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010"},"wordCount":1231,"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-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010","name":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-02T01:27:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-revenue-divisional-officer-vs-n-sastha-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Sastha on 20 April, 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\/249985","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=249985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}