{"id":259382,"date":"2010-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-21T09:57:35","modified_gmt":"2015-06-21T04:27:35","slug":"the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Ramanathan\n\nC.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1050 of 2009\nC.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1051 of 2009\nC.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1052 of 2009\nC.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1053 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,&1 of 2009\n\n\nC.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1050 of 2009\n\nThe Special Tahsildar\n(Land Acquisition)\nDefence Purpose Unit\nNanguneri\nNow through the\nRevenue Divisional Officer\nTirunelveli - 9.\t   \t... Petitioner\/ 1st Respondent\/<\/pre>\n
Referring Officer<\/p>\n
Vs<\/p>\n
1. P.Saraswathi\n<\/p>\n
2. P.Ravikumar\n<\/p>\n
3. P.Shanthi\n<\/p>\n
4. P.Jayaraj Kumar\t\t.. Respondents 1 to 4\/ Petitioners\/ Claimants<\/p>\n
5. The Union of India
\n    rep. By its Defence Estate Officer
\n    Madras Circle
\n    Chennai – 35.\t        … 5th Respondent\/ 2nd Respondent\/
\nBeneficiary<\/p>\n
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1051 of 2009<\/p>\n
The Special Tahsildar
\n(Land Acquisition)
\nDefence Purpose Unit
\nNanguneri
\nNow through the
\nRevenue Divisional Officer
\nTirunelveli – 9.                      … Petitioner\/ 1st Respondent\/
\nReferring Officer<\/p>\n
Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. Iyammal\n<\/p>\n
2. Manjula\n<\/p>\n
3. Ananthi\n<\/p>\n
4. Muthulakshmi                         …1st  Respondent\/Petitioner\/ Claimant<\/p>\n
5. The Union of India
\n    rep. By its Defence Estate Officer
\n    Madras Circle
\n    Chennai – 35.\t\t\t…2nd  Respondent\/  Respondent\/
\nBeneficiary<\/p>\n
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1052 of 2009<\/p>\n
The Special Tahsildar
\n(Land Acquisition)
\nDefence Purpose Unit
\nNanguneri
\nNow through the
\nRevenue Divisional Officer
\nTirunelveli – 9.\t   \t  … Petitioner\/ 1st Respondent\/Referring Officer<\/p>\n
Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. M.Sankaranarayanan\t   …1st  Respondent\/Petitioner\/ Claimant<\/p>\n
2. The Union of India
\n    rep. By its Defence Estate Officer
\n    Madras Circle
\n    Chennai – 35.\n<\/p>\n
\t…2nd  Respondent\/ Beneficiary\/
\n 2nd Respondent<\/p>\n
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1053 of 2009<\/p>\n
The Special Tahsildar
\n(Land Acquisition)
\nDefence Purpose Unit
\nNanguneri
\nNow through the
\nRevenue Divisional Officer
\nTirunelveli – 9.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t                 … Petitioner\/ 1st Respondent
\nVs.\n<\/p>\n
1. A.Subbarayalu\t\t\t    .. 1st Respondent\/ Petitioner\/ Claimant<\/p>\n
2.  The Union of India
\n    rep. By its Defence Estate Officer
\n    Madras Circle
\n    Chennai – 35.\t\t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent\/ Beneficiary\/
\n 2nd Respondent<\/p>\n
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1050 of 2009<\/p>\n
\tCivil Revision petition filed under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of
\nIndia against the order and decreetal order dated 22.04.2009 made in E.P.No.262
\nof 2006 in LAOP.No.93 of 1985 on the file of the Learned Principal Subordinate
\nJudge, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1051 of 2009<\/p>\n
\tCivil Revision petition filed under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of
\nIndia against the order and decreetal order dated 22.04.2009 made in E.P.No.370
\nof 2006 in LAOP.No.97 of 1985 on the file of the Learned Principal Subordinate
\nJudge, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1052 of 2009<\/p>\n
\tCivil Revision petition filed under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of
\nIndia against the order and decreetal order dated 22.04.2009 made in E.P.No.266
\nof 2006 in LAOP.No.96 of 1985 on the file of the Learned Principal Subordinate
\nJudge, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1053 of 2009<\/p>\n
\tCivil Revision petition filed under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of
\nIndia against the order and decreetal order dated 22.04.2009 made in E.P.No.263
\nof 2006 in LAOP.No.95 of 1985 on the file of the Learned Principal Subordinate
\nJudge, Tirunelveli.<\/p>\n
\n\n\t\t\n!For Petitioners\nin all CRPs.         ... Mr. K.Nalla Thambi\n\t\t\n^For Respondents    ... Mr. K.Srinivasan for Caveator\n\t\t\tin R1 to R4 in C.R.P.No.1050 to\n\t\t\t1051  of 2009 & for Caveator\n\t\t\tR1 in C.R.P.No.1053 of 2009\n\t\t    ... Mr. R.Arumugam for Caveator\n\t\t\tin C.R.P.No. 1052 of 2009\n\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tIn all these revisions the Special Tahsildar, Tirunelveli, namely the Land
\nAcquisition Officer, who is now the Revenue Divisional Officer, is the revision
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The revision petitioner acquired the lands belonged to the respondents
\nin these revisions for the Defence purpose and passed an order in Award No.1  of
\n1983 dated 22.04.1983. The possession was taken on 01.01.1981 and the revision
\npetitioner passed an award of Rs.100\/- per cent for the lands acquired. The
\nowners applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference was
\nordered in LAOP Nos.93,94,95,96 and 97 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Sub-
\nCourt, Tirunelveli and the learned Sub-Judge enhanced the compensation from
\nRs.100 to Rs.150\/- per cent.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner filed an appeal before
\nthis Court and this Court has further enhanced the compensation to Rs.200\/- per
\ncent and that has become final. Thereafter, the claimants filed
\nE.P.Nos.262,263,266 and 370 of 2006 for executing the award passed in
\nLAOP.Nos.93, 94, 95, 96 and 97 of 1985, by calculating the compensation as per
\nthe provisions of Sections 23 (1) 23(1-A) 23(2) and Section 28<\/a> of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, and after giving credit to the various payments of Revenue
\nOfficer, claimed a sum of Rs.11,14,713.36, Rs.3,70,762.06, Rs.4,64,885\/- and
\nRs.6,07,403.92.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The revision petitioner filed a counter stating that the calculation
\nmemo filed by the claimants are not in accordance with the law and they are not
\nentitled to claim interest on solatium as the award was passed on 22.04.1983,
\nbefore coming into force of Act 68 of 1984 and also submitted their own
\ncalculation and contended that the amount claimed by the claimants cannot be
\nordered and as per their calculation, only a very meagre amount is to be paid to
\nthe claimants. The learned sub-judge relied upon the judgment in (Sundar Vs.
\nUnion of India ) reported in (2001) 7 S.C.C. 211 negatived the contention of the
\nrevision petitioner and held that as per the said judgment, the claimants are
\nentitled to claim interest on solatium also and the calculation given by the
\nclaimants as stated in E.P. is proper and allowed the petition. Aggrieved over
\nthe same, these revisions  are filed.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Mr.Nallathambi, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted
\nthat as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Sundar Vs. Union of
\nIndia ) reported in 2001 (7)  S.C.C. 211, the claimants are not entitled to any
\ninterest as the award was passed earlier to  1984 and therefore, the calculation
\nof the claimants are not correct and the claimants are not entitled to amount
\nclaimed by them.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. On the other hand, Mr.K.Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the
\nclaimants in C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1050, 1051 and 1053 of 2009 and Mr.R.Arumugam, the
\nlearned counsel for the claimants in C.R.P(NPD)No.1052 of 2009, submitted that
\nthe calculation  made by the claimants in the execution proceedings are in
\naccordance with the provisions of Sections 23(1)<\/a>, 23<\/a>(1-A), 23(2) and Section 28<\/a>
\nof the Land Acquisition Act, and these matters have been dealt with  by the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court in (Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India ) reported in (2007)
\n3 C.T.C. 170, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all
\nthese aspects and held that  the claimants are entitled to claim interest on
\nsolatium and therefore, the order of the Lower Court need not be interfered
\nwith.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. To appreciate the contention of the parties, certain dates are
\nrelevant. It is held by the learned Sub-Judge in the above LAOPs that
\npossession was taken on 01.01.1981, though 4(1) notification was published on
\n07.07.1982, and award was passed on 22.04.1983, Act 68 of 1984 came into force
\non 24.09.1984. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sub-Judge enhanced the
\ncompensation from Rs.100\/- per cent to Rs.150\/- per cent with 30% solatium and
\nwith interest at 12% per annum from the date of taking possession viz.,
\n01.01.1981, till the date of award dated 20.04.1983 and thereafter, at 9% per
\nannum. In the first appeal filed against the award in A.S.Nos.1198 to 1200 of
\n1989, 957, 963, 965, 966, 1269 of 1990 and 432 of 1994 dated 25.04.2009,  this
\nCourt had held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t” 10. With regard to statutory amounts payable to the claimants, it is
\nmade clear that the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium only for the market
\nvalue of the lands acquired. In addition to this, the claimants are entitled to
\nadditional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1)
\nnotification, till the date of passing the award or delivery of possession,
\nwhichever is earlier. It is also made clear  that the claimants are entitled to
\ninterest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession for a period of
\none year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit.
\nIt is further made clear that the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium
\nand additional amount. Further, the issue regarding grant of interest on
\nsolatium is pending before the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
\ndepending on the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court, the claimants are
\nentitled to file an appropriate petition before the Sub-Court”.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. It is made clear in the order passed by this Court that the  issue
\nregarding the grant of interest on solatium is pending before the Larger Bench
\nof the Hon’ble Supreme Court and depending on the outcome of the case before the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court, the claimants are entitled to file an appropriate
\npetition before the Sub-Court. Further, this Court has also upheld the finding
\nof the learned Sub-Judge that the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium only
\nfor the market value of the land acquired and also entitled to additional amount
\nat the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) notification, till the date
\nof passing of the award or delivery of possession, whichever is earlier and the
\nclaimants are also entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
\ndate of possession for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15%
\nper annum till the date of deposit. The order of this Court was as per Section
\n23(1)<\/a>, Section 23<\/a>(1-A), Section 23(2)<\/a> and Section 28<\/a> of the Land Acquisition
\nAct. The pendency of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to by
\nthis Court was the case reported in (Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India )
\nreported in (2007) 3 C.T.C. 170,  wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court upheld the judgment rendered in (Sundar Vs. Union of India )
\nreported in 2001 (7)  S.C.C. 211, insofar as the calculation of the compensation
\nas per Section 23<\/a> (1-A) and Section 23(2)<\/a> of the Act, and also upheld the
\nappropriation of the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer towards the
\ncompensation as per the law laid down in (Prem Nath Kapur & Another Vs. National
\nFertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., and others) reported in 1995 Supp (5) SCR\n<\/p>\n
790.<\/p>\n
\t9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also raised the question whether in the light
\nof the decision in (Sundar Vs. Union of India ) reported in 2001 (7)  S.C.C.
\n211, awardee\/ decree holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in
\nexecution though it is not specifically granted in the decree and  held as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t” It is well settled that an Execution Court cannot go behind the decree.
\nIf therefore, the claim for interest on solatium  had been made and the same has
\nbeen negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or
\ndecree of the Reference Court or of the Appellate Court, the Execution  Court
\nwill have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on
\nSunder (supra)  on the ground that the Execution Court cannot go behind the
\ndecree. But if the award of the Reference Court or that of the Appellate Court
\ndoes not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases
\nwhere claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the
\nReference Court or the Appellate Court, and mearly interest on compensation is
\nawarded, then it would be open to the Execution Court to apply the ratio of
\nSunder (supra) and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in
\nsuch an event, interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in
\nexecution. Otherwise, not, we also clarify that such interest on solatium can be
\nclaimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the
\nExecution Court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the
\njudgment in Sunder (September 19, 2001) and not for any prior period”\n<\/p>\n
\t10. Therefore, it has been made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
\nabove judgment that when the reference Court or Appellate Court does not
\nspecifically refer to interest on solatium or in case where claim had not been
\nmade and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the
\nAppellate Court and it would be open to the Execution Court to apply the ratio
\nof Sunder and  say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such
\nan event, interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited to the
\nExecution Court. It is further made clear that the Execution Court will be
\nentitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in (Sundar Vs.
\nUnion of India ) rendered on 19.09.2001 and as per the judgment of our High
\nCourt in the appeals filed against the LAOPs referred to above, it has been made
\nclear that the issue regarding grant of interest on solatium is depending on the
\noutcome by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment answered the question
\nthat the awardee\/decree holder would be entitled to interest on solatium, when
\nit is not specifically rejected in the decree. But, in this case it is seen from
\nthe decree that 30% solatium and 12% interest as per Section 23<\/a>(1-A) was granted
\nand as per Section 28<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants are entitled to
\nclaim interest on the excessive amount of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. As stated supra, in all these cases, interest was claimed under
\nSection 28<\/a> of the Act, from the date of taking possession which is against the
\njudgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment and the
\nclaimants are entitled to claim interest as per Section 28<\/a> only from 19.09.2001
\n(i.e) the  date of judgment in Sunder case and they are not entitled to claim
\ninterest prior to that period. As the claimants have calculated the interest on
\nsolatium from the date of taking possession, the same is contrary to the law
\nlaid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Lower Court without appreciating
\nthe judgment rendered in  (Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India ) reported in 2007
\n(3)  C.T.C. 170, allowed the Execution Court, as if the calculation given by the
\nclaimants is right and hence, the order of the Lower Court is set aside and the
\nmatter is remanded to the Lower Court and the claimants are directed to file a
\nfresh calculations as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  in
\n(Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India ) reported in 2007 (3) C.T.C. 170, as
\nindicated above by calculating interest on solatium from 19.09.2001. Hence, the
\norder of the Lower Court is set aside and the revisions are allowed and the
\nrevisions are remanded to the Lower Court. The claimants are entitled to file
\nfresh calculations as per the judgment rendered in 2007 (3) C.T.C. 170 and the
\nExecuting Court is also directed to verify the same and pass appropriate orders.
\nConsidering the fact that the land was acquired in the year 1981, the Lower
\nCourt is directed to pass orders within a period of three months from the date
\nof receipt of this order in the execution application filed by the respondents.
\nConsequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
gsr\/sd<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
\nTirunelveli.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/10\/2010 CORAM The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S.Ramanathan C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1050 of 2009 C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1051 of 2009 C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1052 of 2009 C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1053 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,&1 of 2009 C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1050 of 2009 The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) […]<\/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-259382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-21T04:27:35+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-21T04:27:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2353,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010\",\"name\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-21T04:27:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-21T04:27:35+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-21T04:27:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010"},"wordCount":2353,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010","name":"The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-21T04:27:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-tahsildar-vs-p-saraswathi-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Special Tahsildar vs P.Saraswathi on 20 October, 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\/259382","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=259382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}