{"id":254106,"date":"2006-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006"},"modified":"2015-09-20T06:19:53","modified_gmt":"2015-09-20T00:49:53","slug":"the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 01\/08\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM         \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN          \n\nWrit Appeal Nos.2064 of 2000 \n and\n Writ Appeal No.845 of 2001\n\nThe Commissioner  \nMadurai Corporation,\nAnna Maligai,\nMadurai 625 002.                ...Appellant in W.A.2064\/2000 and Respondent\n                                No.1 in W.A.No.845\/2001\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.Sri Subramaniaswamy   \nBajanai Madam Trust, \nRep.by its Managing trustee K.T.Ramasamy Pillai, \n27A, Ayyanar Koil Street,\nAnuppanadi,  Madurai-625 009.         ... Respondent No.1 in\n                                             W.A.2064\/2000 and\n                                             Appellant in\n                                             W.A.No.845\/2001\n\n2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by\n  Commissioner and Secretary, \n  Department of Municipal Administration,\n  Fort St.George, Chennai.\n\n3.The District Collector of Madurai,\n  Madurai Collector Office,\n  Madurai-625 020.\n\n4.Revenud Divisional Officer,\n  Revenue Divisional Office,\n  Madurai-625 020.\n\n5.The Tahsildar,\n  Madurai South,\n  South Tahsildar Office,\n  Madurai-625 020.                      ... Respondents 2 to 5\n                                            in both the Appeals\n\n\n                Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of  Letters  Patent  against  the\norder  of  the  learned Single Judge, dated 31.10.2000 and 28.11.2000, made in\nW.P.No.11752\/2000.  \n\n!For Appellant          :Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior\n                        in W.A.2064\/2000 Counsel for\n                        and Respondent No.1 Mr.P.Srinivasan\n\n^For Respondent No.1    :Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan \n                        in W.A.2064\/2000 and\n                        Appellant in\n                        W.A.No.845\/2001\n\n\n\n                For Respondent  ..  Mr.C.Thirumaran\n                Nos.2 to 5      Govt.Advocate.\n                In both the Appeals.\n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
P.SATHASIVAM,J    <\/p>\n
                Writ Appeal No.2064\/2000 has been filed against the  order  of
\nthe  learned  Single Judge, dated 31.10.2000, made in W.P.No.17527\/2000 in and
\nby which the  learned  Judge  allowed  the  writ  petition  and  directed  the
\nCommissioner,  Madurai  Corporation,  to  pay compensation at the market value
\nwith interest at 15% per annum from the date of taking possession  as  claimed
\nby the writ petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                2.The  case  of  the  first respondent herein\/writ petition is
\nbriefly stated here under:  According to  the  writ  petitioner,  which  is  a
\nTrust,  the  property  comprised  in T.S.No.2528, Madurai Anupanadi Village in
\nChinnakanmoi Street, is owned by the Trust.  The total extent of the  land  is
\n22,098 sq.ft.  i.e.    51  cents  and  the  same  is nanja land.  In 1980, the
\nofficials of the Madurai Corporation made an  attempt  to  trespass  into  the
\naforesaid   land   for  the  purpose  of  laying  two  roads,  east  to  west.
\nAnticipating  the  same,  the  petitioner  sent  letters,  telegrams  to   the
\nCorporation.   A  notice dated 01.09.1980 under Section 80 CPC and Section 490
\nof the  Madurai  City  Municipal  Corporation  Act  was  also  sent  to  other
\nrespondents.    In  spite  of  the  protest,  the  officials  of  the  Madurai
\nCorporation trespassed into the land and laid down a  30  feet  road  and  the
\ntotal  area  trespassed  by them for the purpose of laying down the road is an
\nextent of 5.22 cents, i.e.  2,280  sq.    ft.    After  trespass,  though  the
\nCorporation  decided  to  place  a  Resolution  before the Council Meeting for
\nacquisition of land in occupation and allotment of fund for such  acquisition,
\nthe compensation  amount  has  not been paid.  Thereafter, the petitioner sent
\nvarious letters\/ petitions from 1982 to 2000.  The Corporation sent reply  for
\nfew letters\/petitions.    For  the past 20 years, the Corporation did not take
\nany interest for paying the compensation, on the other hand, it requested  the
\npetitioner Trust  to  execute an “Inam Sashanam” (Gift Deed).  Thereafter, the
\nTrust sent a letter,  dated  05.01.1999  requesting  the  Corporation  to  pay
\ncompensation or  to  give  alternate  land by way of exchange.  In view of the
\nattitude of the Corporation in not settling the compensation amount inspite of
\ntwo decades, the petitioner has approached the High Court by sway  of  a  writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
                3.Before  the  learned  Single  Judge,  the  contesting party,
\nnamely Madurai Corporation,  the  third  respondent  therein,  has  not  filed
\ncounter affidavit.  The learned Judge by order dated 31.10.2000, after finding
\nthat  the  Corporation  was  not  justified  in not paying compensation amount
\ninspite of several requests made by way  of  letters\/petitions,  directed  the
\nCorporation  to  verify  the market value of the land from the Sub-Registrar’s
\nOfficer as per the guidelines and determine the compensation  amount  and  pay
\nthe  same  with  interest at 15% per annum from the date of taking possession.
\nThe learned Judge also directed that the same shall be  complied  with  within
\nfour weeks from  the  date  of  the  order, i.e.  31.10.2000.  Hence the above
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
                4.The writ  petitioner  Trust,  questioning  the  order  dated
\n28.11.2000  of the very same learned Judge in the same writ petition has filed
\nWrit Appeal No.845\/2001.  While passing the order on 31.10.2000,  the  learned
\nJudge  directed  the writ petition to be posted after four weeks for reporting
\ncompliance.  The same was listed on 28.11.2000 for reporting compliance.    On
\nthat  date,  before  the  learned  Judge  it  was represented on behalf of the
\nMadurai Corporation that  Writ  Appeal  has  been  filed  in  W.A.No.2064\/2000
\nagainst the order in W.P.No.17527\/2000 and the Division Bench has also granted
\nstay.   In view of the said representation, the learned Judge, after observing
\nthat it would be open to the petitioner to seek  for  the  relief  before  the
\nDivisional  Bench  in  the  writ  appeal itself at the time of final disposal,
\ndismissed the same.  Hence the writ appeal No.845\/2001 by the writ  petitioner
\nTrust.\n<\/p>\n
                5.Since  the  main  Writ  Appeal  No.2064\/2000 is filed by the
\nCommissioner, Madurai Corporation, we will render our  decision  in  the  said
\nappeal  and  depending  on the outcome, the other writ appeal will be disposed
\nof.\n<\/p>\n
                6.Heard  Mr.V.T.Gopalan,  learned  senior  counsel   for   the
\nappellant  Madurai  Corporation and Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan, for the contesting
\nfirst respondent\/ writ petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                7.Mr.V.T.Gopalan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  Madurai
\nCorporation  contended that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in
\ndirecting the Corporation to pay compensation after a period  of  two  decades
\nand  the  writ  petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of laches.
\nIn any event, according to  him,  the  direction  regarding  determination  of
\ncompensation,  that  is on the basis of market value prevailing on the date of
\ntaking possession and the further direction for payment  of  interest  at  the
\nrate of 15# per annum from the date of taking possession cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
                8.On  the  other hand, Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel
\nfor the first respondent\/writ petitioner, by  drawing  our  attention  to  the
\nseveral  letters\/petitions  commencing  from  1982 ending with 2000, submitted
\nthat inasmuch as  the  Corporation  trespassed  into  their  lands  and  taken
\npossession  for  laying a road without payment of compensation, in view of the
\nseveral petitions and representations the learned Single  Judge  is  perfectly
\nright  in  granting direction and the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the
\nground of laches or inaction on their part.  He also contended that in view of
\nthe attitude of the public body-Madurai  Corporation,  the  direction  of  the
\nlearned  Judge  for  determination  of  the  compensation  as  well as payment
\ninterest at the rate of 15% per annum is also fully justified  and  no  ground
\nexists for interference.\n<\/p>\n
                9.We   have  perused  the  relevant  materials  and  carefully
\nconsidered the rival contentions.\n<\/p>\n
                10.It is not in dispute that pucca road was laid down  in  the
\nland  of  the  first  respondent\/writ petitioner- Trust even in the year 1980.
\nThe extent involved is 5.22 cents i.e.  2280 sq.ft.  Mr.V.T.  Gopalan, learned
\nsenior counsel, contended that the Corporation used the said land for a public
\npurpose and inasmuch as the  other  persons  executed  gift  deeds,  the  writ
\npetitioner  is  not  justified  in  asking  compensation,  that  too after two
\ndecades.  In other words, according to him, the learned Single Judge ought  to
\nhave dismissed  the  writ  petition  on  the  ground  of delay and laches.  In
\nsupport of the above contention, the learned senior counsel very  much  relied
\non  the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 4 SCC 683 – (State of
\nMaharashtra vs.  Digambar<\/a>).  The facts in the above decision  of  the  Supreme
\nCourt are:\n<\/p>\n
        During  1971-72  when acute scarcity conditions prevailed in nearly 23
\n,000 villages of the State of Maharashtra, large scale scarcity  relief  works
\nhad  to  be  undertaken by the State Government to provide employment to small
\nagriculturists and agricultural labour of those  villages  for  earning  their
\nlivelihood.  Such  relief  works  included  38,000  km  of  road  works.    No
\ncompensation amount was paid to the lands utilised in road works.    In  fact,
\nCollectors  were  advised  and instructed to impress upon the non-official and
\nother social workers to use their good  offices  in  ensuring  that  the  land
\nrequired for such scarcity relief works were donated to the Government without
\nany claim for compensation.\n<\/p>\n
        In  the  year  1991, an agriculturist of Vepani village of Maharashtra
\nfiled a writ petition W.P.No.3124\/1991 under Article 226<\/a> of  the  Constitution
\nof  India  in  the  Bombay  High  Court, Aurangabad Bench against the State of
\nMaharashtra and the relief sought for in that writ petition  was  to  issue  a
\ndirection  to  the  Government of Maharashtra to grant compensation to him for
\nhis land alleged to have been utilised by the Government without  his  consent
\nfor  Vepana-Gogri  Road–a  road work carried out by the agencies of the State
\nGovernment.  The Government Pleader appeared  for  the  State  of  Maharashtra
\nbefore  the  Division  Bench  urged  for dismissal of the writ petition on the
\nground of laches on the part of the writ petitioner, i.e.  undue delay  of  20
\nyears, which  had  occurred  in  the  filing  of  the  writ petition.  But the
\nDivision Bench refused to entertain the ground of undue delay and allowed  the
\nwrit  petition  on  10.10.1991,  against  which the State of Maharashtra filed
\nSLP(C)No.10723\/1993.\n<\/p>\n
                11.The main contention on behalf  of  the  appellant\/State  of
\nMaharashtra  against  the  sustainability  of  the  judgment of the High Court
\nrelated to exercise of discretionary power conferred on the High  Court  under
\nArticle  226<\/a>  of  the  Constitution of India for grant of relief of payment of
\ncompensation to the writ petitioner for his land alleged to have been utilised
\nby the officers of the State Government in the year 1971-72  for  construction
\nof  a  public road against his wish refusing to consider the plea of laches or
\nundue delay.  It was also projected before the Supreme  Court  that  the  High
\nCourt  had  come  to the conclusion that the delay cannot disentitle a citizen
\nfrom seeking a relief under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution when his claim for
\nrelief is based on deprivation of property  by  the  State  or  its  agencies.
\nRejecting  the said view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded in paragraph
\n14 of the judgment as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “14.How a person who alleges against the State of deprivation  of  his
\nlegal  right,  can  get relief of compensation from the State by invoking writ
\njurisdiction of the High Court under Article  226<\/a>  of  the  Constitution  even
\nthough, he is guilty of laches or undue delay is difficult to comprehend, when
\nit  is  well settled by decisions of this Court that no person be he a citizen
\nor otherwise, is entitled to obtain the equitable relief under Article 226<\/a>  of
\nthe Constitution if his conduct is blameworthy because of laches, undue delay,
\nacquiescence, waiver   and  the  like.    Moreover,  how  a  citizen  claiming
\ndiscretionary relief under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution  against  a  State,
\ncould be relieved of his obligation to establish his unblameworthy conduct for
\ngetting  such  relief,  where  the  State  against which relief is sought is a
\nWelfare State, is also difficult to comprehend.  Where the relief sought under
\nArticle 226<\/a> of the Constitution by a  person  against  the  Welfare  State  is
\nfounded  on  its  alleged  illegal  or  wrongful executive action, the need to
\nexplain laches or undue delay on his part to obtain such  relief,  should,  if
\nanything, be more stringent than in other cases, for the reason that the State
\ndue to laches or undue delay on the part of the person seeking relief, may not
\nbe  able  to show that the executive action complained of was legal or correct
\nfor what of records pertaining to the action or  for  the  officers  who  were
\nresponsible for  such  action  not  being  available later on.  Further, where
\ngranting of relief  is  claimed  against  the  State  on  alleged  unwarranted
\nexecutive  action,  is  bound to result in loss to the public exchequer of the
\nState or in damage to other public interest, the High  Court  before  granting
\nsuch relief is required to satisfy itself that the delay or laches on the part
\nof  a  citizen or any other person in approaching for relief under Article 226<\/a>
\nof the Constitution on the alleged violation of his legal  right,  was  wholly
\njustified  in  the  facts  and  circumstances, instead of ignoring the same or
\nleniently considering it.  Thus, in our view, persons seeking  relief  against
\nthe  State  under  Article  226<\/a>  of  the  Constitution,  be  they  citizens or
\notherwise, cannot get discretionary relief obtainable thereunder  unless  they
\nfully  satisfy  the  High  Court  that the facts and circumstances of the case
\nclearly justified the laches or undue delay on their part in  approaching  the
\nCourt for  grant  of such discretionary relief.  Therefore, where a High Court
\ngrants relief to a citizen or any  other  person  under  Article  226<\/a>  of  the
\nConstitution  against  any  person including the State without considering his
\nblameworthy conduct, such as laches or undue delay,  acquiescence  or  waiver,
\nthe  relief so granted becomes unsustainable even if the relief was granted in
\nrespect of alleged deprivation of his legal right by the State.”\n<\/p>\n
                12.After referring to various decisions of the foreign  courts
\nand  the  earlier  judgments,  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  has  concluded in
\nparagraphs 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the judgment as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “23.Therefore, where a High Court in  exercise  of  its  power  vested
\nunder  Article  226<\/a>  of the Constitution issues a direction, order or writ for
\ngranting relief to a  person  including  a  citizen  without  considering  his
\ndisentitlement  for  such relief due to his blameworthy conduct of undue delay
\nor laches in claiming the same,  such  a  direction,  order  or  writ  becomes
\nunsustainable  as  that not made judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its
\nsound judicial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily.\n<\/p>\n
        24.Since we have held earlier that the person seeking grant of  relief
\nunder  Article  226<\/a>  of  the Constitution, even if it be against the State, is
\nrequired to satisfy the High Court that he was not guilty of laches  or  undue
\ndelay in approaching it for relief, need arises for us to consider whether the
\nrespondent  in  the present appeal (writ petitioner in the High Court) who had
\nsought for relief of compensation on the alleged  infringement  of  his  legal
\nright,  had  satisfied the High Court that he was not guilty of undue delay or
\nlaches in approaching it for relief.  The allegation of the petitioner in  the
\nwrit  petition,  as  becomes  clear  from  the judgment under appeal, was that
\nalthough a certain extent of his land was taken away in the  year  1971-72  by
\nthe  agency  of the State for the scarcity relief road works undertaken by the
\nState Government in the year 1971-72, to find work  for  small  agriculturists
\nand  agricultural  labourers in the then prevailing severe drought conditions,
\nwithout his consent, he was not compensated therefor, despite requests made to
\nthe State Government and various agencies in that regard ever since  till  the
\ndate of filing of the writ petition by him.\n<\/p>\n
        25.In  our  view, the above allegation is in no way sufficient to hold
\nthat  the  writ  petitioner(respondent  here)  has  explained   properly   and
\nsatisfactorily  the  undue  delay  of  20 years which had occurred between the
\nalleged taking of possession of his land  and  the  date  of  filing  of  writ
\npetition in  the  High  Court.  We cannot overlook the fact that it is easy to
\nmake such kind of allegations against anybody that too against  the  State  in
\nrelation  to  an event said to have occurred 20 years earlier, and the State’s
\nnon-compliance with petitioner’s demands, the State may not at  all  be  in  a
\nposition  to  dispute such allegation, having regard to the manner in which it
\nis required to carry on its governmental functions.  Undue delay of  20  years
\non the part of the writ petitioner, in invoking the High Court’s extraordinary
\njurisdiction  under  Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution for grant of compensation
\nto his land alleged to have been taken by  the  governmental  agencies,  would
\nsuggest  that  his land was not taken at all, or if it had been taken it could
\nnot have been taken without his consent or if it was taken against his consent
\nhe had acquiesced in such taking and waived his right to take compensation for
\nit.\n<\/p>\n
        26.Thus, when the writ petitioner  (respondent  here)  was  guilty  of
\nlaches  or  undue delay in approaching the High Court, the principle of laches
\nor undue delay adverted to above, disentitled the writ petition<\/p>\n
(respondent  here)  for  discretionary  relief  under  Article  226<\/a>   of   the
\nConstitution  from  the High Court, particularly when virtually no attempt had
\nbeen made by the writ petitioner to explain his blameworthy conduct  of  undue
\ndelay or  laches.    The  High  Court, therefore, was wholly wrong in granting
\nrelief in relation to inquiring into the allegation and granting  compensation
\nfor  his  land alleged to have been used for scarcity relief road works in the
\nyear 1971-72.  As seen from the judgment of the  High  Court,  the  allegation
\nadverted  to  above,  appears  to  be  the common allegation in other 191 writ
\npetitions where judgments  are  rendered  by  the  High  Court  following  the
\njudgment under appeal and which are subject of SLPs in this Court that are yet
\nto be  registered.  We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the High
\nCourt had gone wholly wrong in granting the relief which it has given  in  the
\njudgment  under  appeal, and judgments rendered following the said judgment in
\nother 191 writ petitions said to be the subject of SLPs or otherwise.  All the
\nsaid judgments of the High Court, having regard to the  fact  that  they  were
\nmade  in  writ petitions with common allegation and seeking common relief, are
\nliable to be interfered with and set aside in the in teress  of  justice  even
\nthough only learned counsel appearing for a few writ petitioners were heard by
\nus.”\n<\/p>\n
                13.The  above  decision  makes  it  clear  that if there is no
\nsufficient  material  or  satisfactory  reason\/reasons  for  delay  which  had
\noccurred  between  the  alleged  taking  of possession of land and the date of
\nfiling of the writ petition in the High Court, the discretionary relief in the
\nwrit petition under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution cannot be  granted.    The
\nHon’ble  Supreme  Court has also noted that though the petitioner therein made
\nseveral   requests    for    compenstion,    after    finding    that    those
\nallegations\/averments  are  no  way sufficient to hold that the petitioner has
\nexplained properly and satisfactorily  the  undue  delay  of  20  years  which
\noccurred  between  the alleged taking possession and the date of filing of the
\nwrit petition and concluded that no  relief  could  be  granted  in  the  writ
\npetition on the ground of laches or undue delay.\n<\/p>\n
                14.Now let us test whether the writ petition filed by the writ
\npetitioner  before us in the year 2000 is liable to be dismissed on the ground
\nof laches as enunciated in the above referred Supreme Court decision.  In  the
\naffidavit  filed  in support of the writ petition, the managing trustee of the
\npetitioner Trust has specifically stated that in the year 1980  the  officials
\nof  the  Madurai  Corporation made an attempt to trespass into their lands for
\nthe purpose of laying two roads east to west.  It is also stated,  before  the
\nabove  said  attempt,  letters  dated  15.11.1978 and 02.08.1979 and telegrams
\ndated 05.01.1980 were sent to the Madurai Corporation anticipating the attempt
\nof trespass.  It is also specifically stated that on 01.09.1980 notices  under
\nSection  80  CPC and Section 490 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act
\nwere  sent  to  the  District  Collector  and  the  Commissioner  of   Madurai
\nCorporation.   In  paragraph 2 of the affidavit, apart from referring to those
\ndetails, it is also stated that the managing trustee  had  written  number  of
\nletters\/petitions  claiming compensation for the land forcibly occupied by the
\nCorporation to various authorities, including  the  Chief  Minister  of  Tamil
\nNadu.   The  various  letters\/  petitions  are  dated  27.12.1982, 04.01.1988,
\n14.03.1988,  09.05.1988,  19.06.19  89,  15.12.1994,  23.05.1997,  05.08.1997,
\n19.10.1997,  21.12.1997,  06.02  .1998,  16.04.1998,  13.07.1998,  17.08.1998,
\n17.08.1998,  24.08.1998,  10  .11.1998,  16.11.1998,  18.11.1998,  05.01.1999,
\n06.01.1999,   30.01.1999,   23.02.1999,  01.03.1999,  03.03.1999,  11.03.1999,
\n22.03.1999,  13.04.19  99,  05.05.1999,  15.06.1999,  30.06.1999,  15.11.1999,
\n04.12.1999, 10.01 .2000, 30.03.2000, 15.05.2000 and 24.05.2000.  Those details
\nare furnished  in  paragraph  2 of the affidavit.  It is also the claim of the
\nwrit petitioner that in respect of those letters\/petitions, he received  reply
\nfor one  or  two  letters\/petitions.    In paragraph 3 also the petitioner has
\nhighlighted the subsequent letters and petitions praying compensation for  the
\nland utilised for formation of road.\n<\/p>\n
                15.In  the  State of Maharashtra Case cited supra, the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court has concluded that the request made to the State Government  and
\nvarious agencies are not sufficient to wriggle out of the principle of laches.
\nIn  our  case,  the details mentioned in the affidavit and typed set of papers
\namply show that from the date of trespass i.e.  1 980 till the date of  filing
\nof   the   writ   petition,   the   petitioner   sent  several  petitions  and
\nrepresentations, not only to the Madurai Corporation but also  to  the  higher
\nauthority, namely State Government, even upto the level of Chief Minister.  In
\nfact, the petitioner has catalogued all those letters in the form of typed set
\nfiled before us.\n<\/p>\n
                16.It  is  also  relevant to refer the approach of the Madurai
\nCorporation.  As rightly pointed out by the learned  Single  Judge,  when  the
\nwrit  petitioner  made a request either for compensation for the land utilised
\nor provision of alternate land from the hands of  Corporation,  the  same  was
\nrejected with  a request to the petitioner to execute a gift deed.  It is also
\nstated that if the request of the petitioner is accepted, the Corporation  has
\nto pay  similar  claim  to  various other persons.  As rightly observed by the
\nlearned Single Judge, the above said both the reasoning are unacceptable.   If
\nthe  petitioner  Trust  volunteers  and  executes  the  gift deed, there is no
\ndifficulty in accepting the same.  However, from the date  of  utilisation  of
\nthe  land,  all along the petitioner Trust is fighting for compensation or for
\nalternate land.  In such circumstances, in view of the fact that  neither  the
\nCorporation  nor the Government resorted to acquisition proceedings, it is but
\nproper on their part to pay reasonable amount as compensation.\n<\/p>\n
                17.It is also relevant to refer the  latest  decision  of  the
\nSupreme Court  reported  in  2005-3-L.W.160  (State  of  U.P.    &  others vs.
\nManohar<\/a>), wherein, in  an  identical  circumstance,  their  Lordships  of  the
\nSupreme  Court upheld the order of the High Court giving direction for payment
\nof compensation in a writ petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution
\nand dismissed the appeal by the State with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000\/-.  In
\nthat case, the respondent before the  Supreme  Court  filed  a  writ  petition
\nbefore  the  Allahabad  High  Court seeking to issue a writ of mandamus to the
\nappellant\/State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  its  officers   to   determine   the
\ncompensation  in  respect  of  his  land which had been taken forcibly without
\nfollowing any process of law.  It was his case that he had  been  dispossessed
\nfrom  the  land and the land was taken by the appellant without payment of any
\ncompensation and despite repeated appeals made by him nobody was  prepared  to
\npay compensation.   He also enclosed several correspondences.  While affirming
\nthe order of the<\/p>\n
High Court granting compensation exercising jurisdiction under Article 226<\/a>  of
\nthe  Constitution, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in paragraphs
\n6 and 7 of the judgment as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “6.Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to  the
\ncitizens are  declared  by  the  constitution.   Although Article 19(1)<\/a> f) was
\ndeleted by the 44th Amendment to the Constitution,  Article  300<\/a>  A  has  been
\nplaced in the Constitution, which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“300A-Persons not  to  be  deprived  of property save by authority of law.  No
\nperson shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”\n<\/p>\n
        7.This is a case where we find  utter  lack  of  legal  authority  for
\ndeprivation  of  the  respondent’s  property  by  the appellants who are State
\nauthorities.  In our view, this case was an eminently fit one  for  exercising
\nthe writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution.
\nIn  our  view,  the  High Court was somewhat liberal in not imposing exemplary
\ncosts on the appellants.  We would have perhaps followed  suit,  but  for  the
\nintransigence displayed before us.”\n<\/p>\n
After  saying  so,  their  Lordships  dismissed  the  appeal of the State with
\nexemplary costs of Rs.25,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                18.Though Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned senior counsel  pointed  out
\nthat the above referred latest judgment is of two judges Bench and the earlier
\none,  relied  upon  by  him  is three judges Bench, in view of the distinction
\nwhich we have pointed out in the earlier paragraphs, we are of the  considered
\nview  that  the  writ  petitioner  cannot be blamed for inaction or not taking
\nsteps at the appropriate time.  On the other hand, from the date  of  trespass
\ntill  the dat e of filing of the writ petition, we are satisfied that the writ
\npetitioner Trust was fighting from A to Z, not  only  with  the  Commissioner,
\nCorporation  of  Madurai  but  also upto the level of Chief Minister, State of
\nTamil Nadu.  In such circumstances, we find that the authority for deprivation
\nof the petitioner’s property is the appellant, which is  none  else  than  the
\nCorporation.   In  our  view, in the light of the explanation offered that the
\npetitioner was vigilantly fighting for just compensation  or  alternate  land,
\nthis  case was a suitable one for exercising the writ jurisdiction by the High
\nCourt under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution and the same was rightly exercised
\nby the learned Single Judge.  We are unable  to  agree  with  the  contentions
\nraised  by  the  learned  senior counsel and we are in agreement with the view
\nexpressed by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                19.Coming to the second  contention  regarding  direction  for
\ndetermining   market   value  and  interest,  the  direction  to  the  Madurai
\nCorporation to verify the  market  value  of  the  land  from  the  office  of
\nSubRegistrar’s  Office  as  per  the guidelines and determine the compensation
\ncannot be faulted with.  Undoubtedly the  petitioner  Trust  is  entitled  for
\ncompensation as directed by the learned Single Judge.  In view of the attitude
\nof the Madurai Corporation, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled
\nfor  interest  for  the  compensation  amount  from the date of dispossession.
\nHowever, in view of the fact that the land was sought to  be  utilised  for  a
\npublic  purpose,  namely  formation of road, we intend to reduce the burden on
\nthe Corporation.  Accordingly, ends  of  justice  would  be  met  by  awarding
\ninterest  at  the rate of 8% per annum from the date of taking possession till
\nthe date of payment and set aside the direction for payment of cost.  In  view
\nof  the  above  conclusion, no separate order is required in Writ Appeal No.84
\n5\/2001.\n<\/p>\n
                20.Inasmuch as the Corporation has not paid  the  compensation
\nas  directed  by  the  learned Single Judge in view of the stay granted by the
\nDivision Bench, the appellant Madurai Corporation is granted eight weeks  time
\nto comply with the above order.\n<\/p>\n
                22.With  the above modification, both the appeals are disposed
\nof with no order as to costs.  Connected CMP No.18114\/2000 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
gb\/kh<\/p>\n
1.The Commissioner,
\nMadurai Corporation,
\nAnna Maligai,
\nMadurai-625 002.\n<\/p>\n
2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by
\nCommissioner and Secretary,
\nDepartment of Municipal Administration,
\nFort St.George, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The District Collector of Madurai,
\nMadurai Collector Office,
\nMadurai-625 020.\n<\/p>\n
4.Revenud Divisional Officer,
\nRevenue Divisional Office,
\nMadurai-625 020.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Tahsildar,
\nMadurai South,
\nSouth Tahsildar Office,
\nMadurai-625 020.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01\/08\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM and THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN Writ Appeal Nos.2064 of 2000 and Writ Appeal No.845 of 2001 The Commissioner Madurai Corporation, Anna Maligai, Madurai 625 002. …Appellant in W.A.2064\/2000 […]<\/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-254106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006 - 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-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-20T00:49:53+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=\"23 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-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-20T00:49:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4325,\"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-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-20T00:49:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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 Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006 - 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-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-20T00:49:53+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-20T00:49:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006"},"wordCount":4325,"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-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006","name":"The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-20T00:49:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-subramaniaswamy-on-1-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner vs Sri Subramaniaswamy on 1 August, 2006"}]},{"@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\/254106","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=254106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}