{"id":26150,"date":"2005-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005"},"modified":"2014-02-28T05:56:48","modified_gmt":"2014-02-28T00:26:48","slug":"s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 9\/12\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN         \n\nW.P. No. 24903 of 2004 \nand \nW.P.M.P. No. 30266\/2004   \nW.V.M.P. No. 959\/2005  \n\nS. Veerasamy                        ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The State of\nTamil nadu rep.\nby its Commissioner of\nLand Administration,\nChepauk, Chennai  5. \n\n2.The District Collector,\nKancheepuram District, \nKancheepuram.  \n\n3.The Tahsildar,\nKancheepuram.                   ..Respondents      \n\nL.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....J\nPrayer:Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying  for  a\nWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner  :Mr.Venkatachalapathy, \n        senior counsel for Mr.M.  Sriram\n\nFor Respondents: Mr.S.  Venkatesh, Spl.G.P.  \n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>        By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The  petitioner  has  filed  this  writ  petition seeking for the<br \/>\nissuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the  entire  records<br \/>\nof  the  3rd  respondent  in  his  letter  dated 29.7.2004, quash the same and<br \/>\nconsequently direct the respondents to grant patta to the petitioner  for  the<br \/>\nlands in S.  Nos.674\/B, 720, 721\/2, 735, 736, 737 and 73 8 to the total extent<br \/>\nof   3.23   acres   situated  at  Vengatavaram  Village,  Sevelimedu  Mathura,<br \/>\nKancheepuram District.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  In the affidavit filed in support of  the  writ  petition,  it  is<br \/>\nstated that the petitioner is an agriculturist by profession and that he is in<br \/>\npossession of 3.23 acres in S.  Nos.674\/B, 720, 721\/2, 735, 736 , 737 and 738.<br \/>\nIn  the year 1978, the petitioner sought for assignment of the lands under his<br \/>\ncultivation from the second respondent.  In regard thereto, the petitioner was<br \/>\nasked to contact the  office  of  the  3  rd  respondent  and  though  several<br \/>\nrepresentations  were  made  by  him,  he  was  not favoured with any order of<br \/>\nassignment.  According to the petitioner, right from the  year  1968,  he  has<br \/>\nbeen paying  B.Memo charges as demanded by the authorities.  In the year 1986,<br \/>\nthe petitioner was served with a letter from the office of the 3rd  respondent<br \/>\ninforming  him  about  the  enquiry  to be conducted by the Revenue Divisional<br \/>\nOfficer, Kancheepuram at 10a.m.  on 20.12.1986 and the petitioner was directed<br \/>\nto be present at the time of  enquiry.    According  to  the  petitioner,  the<br \/>\nrespondents  conducted  enquiries  regarding  the feasibility of assigning the<br \/>\nlands in question to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The petitioner  has  further  stated  that  the  respondents  were<br \/>\nhesitant  to  grant  assignment in his favour as some portions of the lands in<br \/>\nquestion were abutting the Sevelimedu lake.  Though the report called for from<br \/>\nthe Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kancheepuram Division in  the<br \/>\nyear  1984  also  stated  that  there  was no impediment for assignment of the<br \/>\nlands, so far, the petitioner had not been granted any  order  of  assignment.<br \/>\nAccording  to  the  petitioner, he is entitled to assignment since, right from<br \/>\nthe year 1968, he is in occupation of the lands.  The petitioner, once  again,<br \/>\npursued  his  claim  for  assignment  in the year 1993 and after conducting an<br \/>\nenquiry, the 3 rd  respondent  submitted  a  report  that  the  claim  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner can  be  considered  favourably.    It  is  further stated that the<br \/>\nGovernment assigned an extent of 3 acres in S.No.729\/2 and lands measuring  39<br \/>\ncents in S.No.    721\/3.   While so, the petitioner was served with the notice<br \/>\ndated  29.7.2004  stating  that  the  petitioner   should   remove   all   the<br \/>\nencroachments within a period of 15 days.  Hence, the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  The main contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the petitioner is that the third respondent has issued the impugned notice<br \/>\nunder  Section 6 of Land Encroachments Act, 1905, ( hereinafter be referred to<br \/>\nas &#8216;the Act&#8217; for short), without issuing a notice under Section 7 of the  Act,<br \/>\nwhich  is a condition precedent for issuing notice under section 6 of the Act,<br \/>\nthereby committed violation of the procedure contemplated under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  Concededly, the issue is directly covered by the decision of  this<br \/>\nCourt  reported  in  1997  (III)  CTC  106  (GOODA  SRINIVASALU NAIDU -VS- THE<br \/>\nCOLLECTOR OF CHENGLEPUT, wherein it is held in paras 9, 10 and 11 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;9.  It is well settled law that  when  a  power  is  vested  with  an<br \/>\nauthority  under  the  statute,  that  power  must  be  exercised  strictly in<br \/>\naccordance with the procedure prescribed.  Therefor, any  departure  therefrom<br \/>\ncannot be  easily tolerated.  In the instant case, the very statute prescribes<br \/>\nthe manner in which power should be exercised by the authorities and there  is<br \/>\nno provision  in  the  statute  to dispense with such a procedure at all.  The<br \/>\nstatutory prescriptions must have their due  significance  by  observance  and<br \/>\nthey  cannot  be  allowed  to  be breached and amelioration therefor cannot be<br \/>\nthought about by saying that the persons affected could participate in  the  e<br \/>\nnquiry.   Merely  because  such  notices  under  section 7 of the Act had been<br \/>\nperiodically served on the petitioner on the earlier occasion itself does  not<br \/>\ngive  a  cause  of  action for the present impugned eviction proceedings dated<br \/>\n18.10.19 86 of the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  It is needless to mention that time and again there are  judicial<br \/>\npronouncements  of  this  Court as well as other High Courts on the point that<br \/>\nunambiguous  language  of  the   statute   contemplating   certain   statutory<br \/>\nrequirements  prescribed  in  the statute itself cannot be reduced to an empty<br \/>\nformality.  Of course, a decision of the division bench of this court reported<br \/>\nin Hamsavalli and etc., v.  The Tahsildar, Vridhachalam, South Arcot District,<br \/>\nAIR 1990 Mad  350  and  other  decision  of  this  Court  namely  reported  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1643935\/\">P.Rameswamy v.    The Assistant Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department,<br \/>\nNagapattinam,<\/a> 1977 (I) MLJ 162 :  AIR 1978 NOC 223 and a decision reported  in<br \/>\nAbbayya v.    State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1960 AP 135, are to the same effect<br \/>\nthat summary eviction proceedings proposed under  section  6  is  held  to  be<br \/>\ninvalid  for  non-issue  of a prior notice contemplated under section 7 of the<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed.   No  costs.<br \/>\nHowever,  I  make  it  clear  that  this  shall not debar the respondents from<br \/>\ninitiating proceedings strictly in accordance with the provisions of  the  Act<br \/>\nif so required and equally it is open to the petitioner to counteract the same<br \/>\nas per the rights and stand available to him in law&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   Hence,  following the said decision, the impugned notice, dated 2<br \/>\n9.7.2004 is set aside, of course giving liberty to the respondents to initiate<br \/>\nfresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law, if they are so advised.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.   Consequently,  the<br \/>\nconnected miscellaneous petitions are closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>js<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.      The Commissioner,<br \/>\n        Land Administration,<br \/>\n        Chepauk, Chennai 5.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      The District Collector,<br \/>\n        Kancheepuram District,<br \/>\n        Kancheepuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      The Tahsildar,<br \/>\n        Kancheepuram.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 9\/12\/2005 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN W.P. No. 24903 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. No. 30266\/2004 W.V.M.P. No. 959\/2005 S. Veerasamy ..Petitioner -Vs- 1.The State of Tamil nadu rep. by its Commissioner of Land [&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-26150","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005 - 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\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-28T00:26:48+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-28T00:26:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":966,\"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\\\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005\",\"name\":\"S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-28T00:26:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005 - 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\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-28T00:26:48+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-28T00:26:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005"},"wordCount":966,"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\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005","name":"S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-28T00:26:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerasamy-vs-the-state-of-on-9-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Veerasamy vs The State Of on 9 December, 2005"}]},{"@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\/26150","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=26150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26150\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}