{"id":253089,"date":"2009-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-03T15:14:28","modified_gmt":"2015-09-03T09:44:28","slug":"dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 30\/04\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nA.S.No.329 of 1998\nand\nA.S.No.686 of 1998\n\nDr.Saritha Muthurajan           ... Appellant\n\nVs.\n\n1.Executive Engineer,\n  Tamil Nadu Housing Board,\n  Tirunelveli.\n\n2.Special Tashildar,\n  (Land Acquisition)\n  Heighbourhood Scheme,\n  Nagercoil,\n  Kanyakumari District.         ... Respondents<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">Prayer in A.S.329 of 1998<\/p>\n<p>This Appeal has been filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/151577964\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 54<\/a> of Land<br \/>\nAcquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1997 made in<br \/>\nL.A.O.P.No.6 of 1995 on the file of Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil.<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">\n\nThe Special Tashildar,\nLand Acquisition,\nNeighbourhood Scheme,\nNagercoil,\nKaniyakumari District.            ... Appellant\n\nVs.\n\n1.Dr.Saritha Muthurajan\n\n2.The Executive Engineer,\n  Tirunelveli Housing Board,\n  Tirunelveli.                   ... Respondents\n\nPrayer in A.S.686 of 1998\n\nThis Appeal has been filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/151577964\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 54<\/a> of Land\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\"><a href=\"\/doc\/7832\/\" id=\"a_2\">Acquisition Act<\/a>, against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1997 made in<br \/>\nL.A.O.P.No.6 of 1995 on the file of Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">!For Appellant  in  A.S.329\/98   &#8230; Mr.K.N.Tahmbi<br \/>\n^For 1st Respondent in A.S.686\/98<br \/>\nFor Appellant in A.S.686\/98      &#8230; Mr.S.C.Herold Singh<br \/>\nFor 2nd Respondent in A.S.329\/98     Addl.Govt. Pleader<\/p>\n<p>:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>\tThe claimant is the appellant in A.S.No.329 of 1998 and the Special<br \/>\nTasildhar, Land Acquisition, Neighbourhood Scheme, Nagercoil, is the appellant<br \/>\nin A.S.No.686 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">A.S.No.686 of 1998:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t2.Lands in T.S. No.L5-1\/4 of an extent of 0.35.265 acres along with larger<br \/>\nextent of lands in Vediveeswaran village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil,<br \/>\nbelonged to the 2nd respondent\/claimant were acquired by the appellant, for the<br \/>\nformation of Neighbourhood Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under 4(1)<br \/>\nnotification dated 27.08.1990. The appellant after complying with the legal<br \/>\nformalities passed an award, by his award proceedings No.8\/93-94 dated<br \/>\n24.08.1993 and fixed the market value at Rs.1,050\/- per Cent and also valued the<br \/>\ntrees.  Not satisfied with the market value fixed by the appellant, sought<br \/>\nreference under <a href=\"\/doc\/1517117\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 18<\/a> of the Act and reference was made in L.A.O.P.No.6 of<br \/>\n1995 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil and the learned Sub<br \/>\nJudge after discussing the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the market<br \/>\nvalue to Rs.3,500\/- per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">A.S.No.329 of 1998:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t3.The claimants, who claimed the market value at Rs.10,000\/- per Cent to<br \/>\nRs.15,000\/- per Cent filed A.S.No.329 of 1998 for enhancement of compensation<br \/>\nfrom Rs.3,500\/- to 9,000\/- per Cent. Both the appeals were heard together by the<br \/>\nconsent of both parties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t4.The point for consideration in these appeals is whether the enhancement<br \/>\nof compensation given by the lower Court is excessive as contended by the<br \/>\nappellant in A.S.No.686 of 1998 or the lower Court ought to have enhanced the<br \/>\ncompensation to Rs.9,000\/- per Cent as contended by the appellant in A.S.No.329<br \/>\nof 1998?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t5.The Land Acquisition Officer has considered nearly 610 sale deeds for<br \/>\nfixing the market value and after discarding 609 sale deeds, selected the land<br \/>\nin T.S.No.L5-4\/3, which was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,050\/- per Cent and<br \/>\nfixed the market value.  The data land is in T.S.No.L5-4\/3 of an extent of 17<br \/>\nCents was sold for Rs.17,850\/- under Ex.B1 on 26.07.1989.  Ex.B2 is a topography<br \/>\nsketch and from the topography sketch, it can be seen that the data land is<br \/>\nsituate nearer to acquired land.  Therefore, the learned Additional Government<br \/>\nPleader, vehemently contended that the lower Court should not have taken into<br \/>\nconsideration the Ex.A1 for fixing the market value and erroneously enhanced the<br \/>\nmarket value from Rs.1,500\/- to Rs.3,000\/- per Cent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t6.On the other-hand, the learned counsel for the claimant\/appellant in<br \/>\nA.S.No.329 of 1998 and second respondent in A.S.No.686 of 1998 contended that<br \/>\nEx.A1 is in respect of house sites situate in T.S.No.L6-15\/4 of an extent of 5<br \/>\nCents and it was sold on 26.09.1986 at the rate of Rs.9,000\/- per Cent and<br \/>\ntherefore, the same must be considered for fixing the market value of the<br \/>\nacquired land.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t7.Though the Land Acquisition Officer considered 610 sale deeds for<br \/>\narriving at the market value at Rs.1,050\/- per Cent, by taking into<br \/>\nconsideration, the land in T.S.No.L5-4\/3, he has not stated the details of the<br \/>\nsales transaction in respect of 609 sale deeds in his award proceedings. In his<br \/>\naward proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer has simply referred to various<br \/>\nitems of sale deeds and gave reasons for rejecting the same.  Therefore, this<br \/>\nCourt is handicapped by the failure on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer<br \/>\nin not giving the details of the sale deeds and sale consideration viz., survey<br \/>\nnumber, extent and the sale consideration passed for ascertaining the correct<br \/>\nmarket value for the acquired land.  However, it is stated by the Acquisition<br \/>\nOfficer that sales in respect of Serial Nos.205, 229, 374, 375 and 421 have been<br \/>\neffected in the lands under acquisition. He further stated that in the document<br \/>\nreferred to under Serial No.205 only a smaller extent of 5\/1-4 Cents has been<br \/>\nsold for higher amount of Rs.24,000\/- and it does not reflect the real market<br \/>\nvalue of the larger extent of the land acquired and therefore, it is discarded<br \/>\nand the lands in Serial Nos.229, 374, 375 and 421 are adjacent to the black<br \/>\ntopped road and having vehicle traffic and the land in black topped road<br \/>\nfrontage cannot be equated with the major portion of the lands under<br \/>\nacquisition, which lie interior and away from the black topped road and that was<br \/>\nalso discarded on the above reasons.  It is seen from the above observation of<br \/>\nthe Land Acquisition Officer that sales were effected in respect of same survey<br \/>\nnumber, in which the land was acquired and therefore, it would definitely have<br \/>\nreflected the correct market value and it would have been used as guidance for<br \/>\nfixing the market value and for reasons best known to him, the details of the<br \/>\ndata lands and the other sale transactions were not disclosed in the award<br \/>\nproceedings.  Therefore, in my opinion, an adverse inference can be drawn from<br \/>\nthe non-disclosure of the sale transactions against the appellant in A.S.No.686<br \/>\nof 1998 and the sale transactions if disclosed would throw light on the correct<br \/>\nmarket value that can be fixed for the acquired land. In my opinion, the land in<br \/>\nSerial No.205 of an extent of 5-1\/4 Cents was sold at the rate of Rs.22,000\/-<br \/>\nand it must either be in respect of the same Survey number or adjacent land to<br \/>\nthat of acquired land. Therefore, in my opinion, the lands in the same survey<br \/>\nnumber might have sold for not less than Rs.4,500\/- per Cent earlier to the<br \/>\nacquisition and that was the reason that the details of those transactions, were<br \/>\nnot disclosed by the appellant\/Land Acquisition Officer in the award<br \/>\nproceedings.  Further the land covered under Ex.A1 is in respect of T.S.Nos.L6-<br \/>\n15-4 &amp; L6\/15-4 and no-doubt, it was sold as a house site for Rs.9,000\/- per<br \/>\nCent.  Admittedly, the land was acquired for Housing Board purpose and<br \/>\ntherefore, it is a potential house site.  The land covered under Ex.A1 is also<br \/>\nsituate adjacent to the acquired land on the northern side and like the acquired<br \/>\nland, the land covered under Ex.A1 is also having road advantage and the data<br \/>\nland, which was selected by the appellant\/Land Acquisition Officer, did not have<br \/>\nroad advantage.  Further, the land under Ex.A1 was sold in the year 1986,<br \/>\nwhereas, the 4(1) notification was dated 27.08.1990 i.e. four years thereafter<br \/>\nand therefore, definitely the market price would have gone up during the 4<br \/>\nyears&#8217; period and by giving 15% increase per year, the market value of the land<br \/>\ncovered under Ex.A1 would be around Rs.12,000\/- per Cent in the year 1990.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t8.It was contended by the learned counsel for the Claimant\/Appellant in<br \/>\nA.S.No.329 of 1998 that the lower Court ought to have fixed the market value at<br \/>\nRs.9,000\/- per Cent. In this case, 35 Cents of land belonging to the claimant<br \/>\nwas acquired along with other lands and it is seen from the award proceedings<br \/>\nthat nearly six acres of lands were acquired by the Government for providing<br \/>\nhouse sites.  It is further admitted by R.W.1 that the land covered under Ex.A1<br \/>\nis lying adjacent to the acquired land.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t9.It is further admitted by R.W.1 that a school is situate within . km.<br \/>\nadjacent to the acquired land and the road living to Sanguthurai beach is also<br \/>\nthere. Therefore, taking into consideration of the value for which the adjacent<br \/>\nland was sold under Ex.A1 and having regard to the undeveloped nature of the<br \/>\nacquired land, in my opinion, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have<br \/>\nenhanced the compensation to Rs.7,000\/- per Cent, which would be the correct<br \/>\nmarket value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition and accordingly, I<br \/>\nenhanced the market value for the acquired land to Rs.7,000\/- per Cent and the<br \/>\nappeal filed by the claimant in A.S.No.329 of 1998 is allowed in part and the<br \/>\ncompensation is enhanced from Rs.3,500\/- to Rs.7,000\/- per Cent and the Appeal<br \/>\nNo.686 of 1998 filed by the State is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t10.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in<br \/>\nA.S.No.329 of 1998 Mr.K.N.Thambi that the lower Court declined to grant interest<br \/>\non the solatium following the judgment reported in 1997 Supreme Court Appeal<br \/>\nReporter, page 227 equivalent to 1997(1) SCC 249 in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/971107\/\" id=\"a_4\">Tehri Hydro<br \/>\nDevelopment Corpn. vs. S.P.Singh and others<\/a>. He further contended, that judgment<br \/>\nwas over-ruled by the larger Bench of our Honourable Supreme Court reported in<br \/>\n2002(2) L.W.39 in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1177203\/\" id=\"a_5\">Sunder vs. Union of India<\/a> and therefore, as per<br \/>\nthe larger Bench of our Honourable Supreme Court interest is also payable on<br \/>\nsolatium.  The submission of Mr.K.N.Thambi, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant in A.S.No.329 of 1998 is correct.  In that judgment reported in<br \/>\n2002(2) L.W.39 a larger Bench of our Honourable Supreme Court consisting of five<br \/>\nHonourable Judges held that interest is payable on solatium.  Therefore, the<br \/>\ndecree of the lower Court is modified that the appellant in A.S.No.329 of 1998<br \/>\nis also entitled to interest including solatium and the finding of the lower<br \/>\nCourt contrary to that is set aside. In other aspects, the order of the lower<br \/>\nCourt is confirmed.  There is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">er<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Additional Sub Judge,<br \/>\nNagercoil.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30\/04\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN A.S.No.329 of 1998 and A.S.No.686 of 1998 Dr.Saritha Muthurajan &#8230; Appellant Vs. 1.Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Tirunelveli. 2.Special Tashildar, (Land Acquisition) Heighbourhood Scheme, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. [&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-253089","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>Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009 - 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\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-03T09:44:28+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\\\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-03T09:44:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1696,\"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\\\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-03T09:44:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009 - 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\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-03T09:44:28+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\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-03T09:44:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009"},"wordCount":1696,"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\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009","name":"Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-03T09:44:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-saritha-muthurajan-vs-executive-engineer-on-30-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.Saritha Muthurajan vs Executive Engineer on 30 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253089","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=253089"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253089\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}