{"id":26775,"date":"2002-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002"},"modified":"2017-07-09T18:53:35","modified_gmt":"2017-07-09T13:23:35","slug":"padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji, R.C. Lahoti, N. Santosh Hegde, Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2226  of  1997\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nPADMAUSUNDARA RAO (DEAD) &ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF T.N. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/03\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nCJI, R.C. Lahoti, N. Santosh Hegde, Ruma Pal & Arijit Pasayat\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
WITH
\n\tCIVIL APPEAL  No. 2058\/2002
\n\t(Arising out of S.L.P. No.12806 of 2000]<\/p>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT,\t J.\n<\/p>\n
\tNoticing cleavage in views expressed in several decisions rendered by
\nBenches of three learned Judges, two learned Judges referred the matter to a
\nBench of three Judges, and by order dated 30.10.2001 the  matter was
\ndirected to be placed before a Constitution Bench,  and that is how the
\nmatter is before us in C.A. No. 2226\/1997. Special Leave petition  No.
\n12806\/2000 was directed to be heard along with Civil Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted in SLP No. 12806\/2000.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe controversy involved lies within a very narrow compass, that is
\nwhether after quashing of Notification under Section 6 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) fresh period of
\none year is available to the State Government to issue another Notification
\nunder Section 6.  In the case at hand such a Notification issued under Section
\n6 was questioned before the Madras High Court which relied on the decision
\nof a three-Judge Bench in N. Narasimhaiah and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
\nand Ors etc. (1996 (3) SCC 88) and held that the same  was validly issued.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on an un-reported
\ndecision of this Court in A.S. Naidu and Ors. etc. vs. State of Tamil Nadu
\nand Ors. etc. ( SLP (C) Nos. 11353-11355\/1988), wherein a Bench of three
\nJudges held that once a declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been
\nquashed, fresh declaration  under Section 6 cannot be issued beyond the
\nprescribed period of the Notification under Sub-section (1) of Section\t4 of
\nthe Act.  It has to be noted that there is another judgment of two learned
\nJudges\tin Oxford English School vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.<\/a>
\n(1995 (5) SCC 206)  which takes a view similar to that\texpressed in A.S.
\nNaidu’s case (supra). However, in State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. D.C.
\nNanjudaiah and Ors. (1996 (10) SCC 619), view in Narasimhaiah’s case
\n(supra) was followed and it was held that the limitation of 3 years for
\npublication of declaration would start running from the date of receipt of the
\norder of the High Court and not from the date on which the original
\npublication under Section 4(1) came to be made.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that a bare reading of
\nSection 6 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984, leaves no manner of
\ndoubt that the declaration under Section 6 has to be issued within the
\nspecified time and merely because the Court has quashed the concerned
\ndeclaration an extended time period is not to be provided. Explanation 1
\n(appended to the Section) specifically deals with exclusion of periods in
\ncertain specified cases.  If the view expressed in Narasimhaiah’s case (supra)
\nis accepted, it would mean reading something into the statute which is not
\nthere, and in effect would mean legislation by the Court whereas it is within
\nthe absolute domain of the legislature. Per contra, learned counsel appearing
\nfor the State of Tamil Nadu submitted that the logic indicated in
\nNarasimhaiah’s case (supra) is in line with the statutory intent. Placing
\nreliance on the decision in Director of Inspection of Income Tax
\n(Investigation) New Delhi and Anr. Vs. Pooran Mal and Sons and Anr.
\n(1975 (2) SCR 104), it was submitted that extension of the time limit is
\npermissible. Apart from\t Pooranmal’s case (supra), reliance was\t placed on
\ntwo decisions rendered in relation to proceedings under the Income Tax Act,
\n1961 (in short the ‘IT Act’),  to contend that there is scope for extension of
\ntime though there was fixed statutory time prescription. The decisions relied
\non are Commissioner of Income Tax, Central  Calcutta vs. National Taj
\nTraders<\/a> ( 1980 (1) SCC 370) and\t Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Income Tax
\nOfficer, Calcutta and Ors.<\/a> (1980(2) SCC 191).  It  was, however, frankly
\nconceded  that in Grindlays’s  case (supra),  question of limitation was not
\nnecessary to be gone into as the impugned action was taken within the
\nprescribed time limit. It was contended that at the most, this can be
\nconsidered to be a case of casus omissus, and the deficiency, if any, can be
\nfilled up by purposive interpretation, by reading the statute as a whole, and
\nfinding out the true legislative intent.  Strong reliance was placed on a Full
\nBench decision of Madras High Court in K. Chinnathambi Gounder and
\nAnr. vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (AIR 1980 Madras 251) to
\ncontend that the view in the said case has held the field since long and the
\nprinciples of stare decisis are applicable. Residually, it was submitted that
\nmany acquisitions have become final and if  the matters are directed to be re-
\nopened, in case a different view is taken, it would cause hardship.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 6(1) of the Act so far as relevant reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Declaration that land is required for a public
\npurpose:- Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this
\nAct, when the Appropriate Government is satisfied after
\nconsidering the report, if any, made under Section 5A,
\nsub-section (2), that any particular land is needed  for a
\npublic purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be
\nmade to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to
\nsuch Government or of some officer duly authorized to
\ncertify its orders and different declarations may be made
\nfrom time to time in respect of different parcels of any
\nland covered by the same notification under section 4,
\nsub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or
\ndifferent reports has or have been made (wherever
\nrequired) under section 5-A, sub-section (2):\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular
\nland covered by a notification under section 4, sub-
\nsection (1)-\n<\/p>\n
(i)    published after the commencement of the Land
\nAcquisition (Amendment and Validation)
\nOrdinance, 1967, but before the commencement of
\nthe Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984
\nshall be made after the expiry of three years  from
\nthe date of the publication of the notification; or<\/p>\n
(ii)\tpublished after the commencement  of the Land
\nAcquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall  be
\nmade after the expiry of one year from the date of
\nthe publication of the notification:\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that no such declaration shall be made
\nunless the compensation to be awarded for such property
\nis to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of
\npublic revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a
\nlocal authority.\n<\/p>\n
[Explanation 1.- In computing any of the periods referred
\nto in the first proviso, the period during which any action
\nor proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification
\nissued under Section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an
\norder of a Court shall be excluded.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAs the factual scenario shows, in the case at hand the Notification
\nunder Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and the declaration was made prior
\nto the substitution of the existing proviso to Section 6(1) by Act 68 of 1984
\nwith effect from 24.8.1984. In other words, the Notification under Section
\n4(1) was issued before the commencement of Land Acquisition
\n(Amendment) Act 1984, but after the commencement of the Land
\nAcquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (replaced by
\nLand Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act 1967 (Act 13 of 1967).
\nBut the substituted proviso was in operation on the date of the impugned
\njudgment. In terms of the proviso, the declaration cannot be made under
\nSection 6 in respect of any land covered by the Notification under Section
\n4(1) of the Act after the expiry of three years or one year from the date of its
\npublication, as the case may be. The proviso deals with two types of
\nsituations. It provides for different periods of limitation depending upon the
\nquestion whether (i) the notification under Section 4(1) was published prior
\nto commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation)
\nOrdinance, 1967, but before commencement of Land Acquisition
\n(Amendment) Act, 1984, or (ii) such notification was issued after Land
\nAcquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. In the former case, the period is three
\nyears whereas in the latter case it is one year. Undoubtedly, the Notification
\nunder Section 6(1) was made and published in the official gazette within the
\nperiod of three years prescribed under the proviso thereto, and undisputedly,
\nthe same had been quashed by the High Court in an earlier proceeding. It has
\nto be noted that Explanation 1 appended to Section 6(1) provides that in
\ncomputing the period of three years, the period during which any action or
\nproceeding to be taken in pursuance of the Notification under Section 4(1),
\nis stayed by an order of the Court, shall be excluded.\tUnder Tamil Nadu Act
\n41 of 1980, w.e.f. 20.1.1967, the expression used is “action or
\nproceeding..is held up on account of stay or injunction”, which is
\ncontextually similar.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the respondents referred to some observations in
\nPooranmal’s case (supra), which form the foundation for decisions relied
\nupon by him.  It has to be noted that Pooranmal’s case (supra) was decided
\non entirely different factual and legal background. The Court noticed that
\nassessee who wanted the Court to strike down the action of the Revenue
\nAuthorities on the ground of limitation had himself conceded to the passing
\nof an order by the authorities. The Court, therefore, held that the assessee
\ncannot take  undue advantage of his own action.\t Additionally, it was noticed
\nthat the time limit was to be reckoned with reference to the period prescribed
\nin respect of Section 132(5) of the IT Act. It was noticed that once the order
\nhas been made under Section 132(5) within ninety days, the aggrieved
\nperson has got the right to approach the notified authority under Section
\n132(11) within thirty days and that authority can direct the Income-Tax
\nOfficer to pass a fresh order. That is the distinctive feature vis–vis\t Section
\n6 of the Act. The Court applied the principle of waiver and inter alia held
\nthat the period of limitation prescribed therein was one intended for the
\nbenefit of the person whose property has been seized and it was open to that
\nperson to waive that benefit. It was further observed that if the specified
\nperiod is held to be mandatory, it would cause more injury to the citizens
\nthan to the Revenue. A distinction was made with statutes providing periods
\nof limitation for assessment. It was noticed that Section 132 does not deal
\nwith taxation of income. Considered in that background, ratio of the decision
\nin Pooranmal’s case (supra) has no application to the case at hand.\n<\/p>\n
Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to
\nhow the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on
\nwhich reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a
\nspeech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and
\nit is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the
\nfacts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington Vs. British
\nRailways Board (1972) 2 WLR 537.Circumstantial flexibility, one additional
\nor different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two
\ncases.\n<\/p>\n
What appears to have weighed with the three-Judge Bench in
\nNarasimhaiah’s case (supra) is set out in paragraph 12 of the judgment,
\nwhich reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Having considered the respective contentions, we
\nare of the considered view that if the construction as put
\nup by the learned counsel for the appellants is given
\nacceptance i.e., it should be within one year from the last
\nof the dates of publication under Section 4(1), the public
\npurpose would always be frustrated.  It may be illustrated
\nthus: In a given case where the notification under Section
\n4(1) was published, dispensing with the enquiry under
\nSection 5-A and declaration was published within one
\nmonth and as the urgency in the opinion of the
\nGovernment was such that it did not brook the delay of
\n30 days and immediate possession was necessary, but
\npossession was not taken due to dilatory tactics of the
\ninterested person and the court ultimately finds after two
\nyears that the exercise of urgency power was not
\nwarranted and so it was neither valid nor proper and
\ndirected the Government to give an opportunity to the
\ninterested person and the State to conduct an enquiry
\nunder Section 5-A, then the exercise of the power
\npursuant to the direction of the court will be fruitless as it
\nwould take time to conduct the enquiry.\t If the enquiry is
\ndragged for obvious reasons, declaration under Section
\n6(1) cannot be published within the limitation from the
\noriginal date of the publication of the notification under
\nSection 4(1).  A valid notification under Section 4(1)
\nbecome invalid.\t On the other hand, after conducting
\nenquiry as per court order and, if the declaration under
\nSection 6 is published within one year from the date of
\nthe receipt of the order passed by the High Court, the
\nnotification under Section 4(1) becomes valid since the
\naction was done pursuant to the orders of the court and
\ncompliance with the limitation prescribed in clauses (i)
\nand (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of the Act
\nwould be made.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may be pointed out that the stipulation regarding the urgency in
\nterms of Section 5-A of the Act has no role to play when the period of
\nlimitation under Section 6 is reckoned. The purpose for providing the period
\nof limitation seems to be avoidance of inconvenience to a person whose land
\nis sought to be acquired. Compensation gets pegged from the date of
\nNotification under Section 4(1). Section 11 provides that the valuation of the
\nland has to be done on the date of publication of Notification under Section
\n4(1). Section 23 deals with matters to be considered in determining the
\ncompensation. It provides that the market value of the land is to be fixed
\nwith reference to the date of publication of the Notification under Section
\n4(1) of the Act. The prescription of time limit in that background is,
\ntherefore, peremptory in nature. In Ram Chand and Ors. Vs. Union of India
\nand Ors. (1994 (1) SCC 44), it was held by this Court that though no period
\nwas prescribed, action within a reasonable time was warranted. The said
\ncase related to a dispute which arose before prescription of specific periods.
\nAfter the quashing of declaration, the same became non-est and was effaced.
\nIt is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no
\nbar on issuing a fresh declaration after following the due procedure. It is,
\nhowever, contended that in case a fresh notification is to be issued, the
\nmarket value has to be determined on the basis of the fresh Notification
\nunder Section 4(1) of the Act and it may be a costly affair for the State. Even
\nif it is so, the interest of the person whose land is sought to be acquired,
\ncannot be lost sight of. He is to be compensated for acquisition of his land. If
\nthe acquisition sought to be made is done in an illogical, illegal or irregular
\nmanner, he cannot be made to suffer on that count.\n<\/p>\n
The rival pleas regarding re-writing of statute and casus omissus need
\ncareful consideration.\t It is well settled principle in law that the Court
\ncannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and
\nunambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language
\nemployed in a statute is the determinative  factor of legislative intent. The
\nfirst and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislation
\nmust be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. The question is not
\nwhat may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said.
\n“Statutes should be construed not as theorems of Euclid”. Judge Learned
\nHand said,  “but words must be construed with some imagination of the
\npurposes which lie behind them”. (See Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v.
\nYensavage 218 FR 547). The view was re-iterated in Union of India and
\nOrs. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (AIR<\/a> 1990 SC 981).\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Dr. R Venkatchalam  and Ors. etc. vs. Dy. Transport Commissioner
\nand Ors. etc. (AIR 1977 SC 842) it was observed that Courts must avoid\tthe
\ndanger of apriori determination of the meaning of a provision based on their
\nown pre-conceived notions of ideological structure or scheme into which the
\nprovision to be interpreted is somewhat fitted.\t They are not entitled to usurp
\nlegislative function under the disguise of interpretation.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhile interpreting a provision the Court only interprets the law and
\ncannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the
\nabuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it,
\nif deemed necessary.  [See Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. vs. P.N.B. Capital
\nServices Ltd.<\/a>  (2000 (5) SCC 515)].  `The legislative casus omissus cannot
\nbe supplied by judicial interpretative process. Language of Section 6(1) is
\nplain and unambiguous. There is no scope for reading something into it, as
\nwas done in Narasimhaiah’s case (supra). In Nanjudaiah’s case (supra), the
\nperiod was further stretched to have the time period run from date of service
\nof High Court’s order.\tSuch a view cannot be reconciled with the language
\nof Section 6(1). If the view is accepted it would mean that a case can be
\ncovered by not only clauses (i) and\/or (ii) of the proviso to Section 6(1), but
\nalso by a non-prescribed period. Same can never be the legislative intent.\n<\/p>\n
Two principles of construction\tone relating to casus omissus and the
\nother in regard to reading the statute as a whole  appear to be well settled.
\nUnder the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court
\nexcept in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the
\nfour corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should
\nnot be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or
\nsection must be construed together and every clause of a section should be
\nconstrued with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the
\nconstruction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment
\nof the whole statute.  This would be more so if literal construction of a
\nparticular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which
\ncould not have been intended by the Legislature. “An intention to produce an
\nunreasonable result”, said Danckwerts, L.J., in Artemiou v. Procopiou (1966
\n1 QB 878), “is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other
\nconstruction available”.  Where to apply words literally would “defeat the
\nobvious intention of the legislation and produce a wholly unreasonable
\nresult” we must “do some violence to the words” and so achieve that
\nobvious intention and produce a rational construction.\t[Per Lord Reid in
\nLuke v. I.R.C. (1966 AC 557) where at p. 577 he also observed: “this is not
\na new problem, though our standard of drafting is such that it rarely
\nemerges”.]<\/p>\n
\tThe plea relating to applicability of the stare decisis principles is
\nclearly unacceptable. The decision in K Chinnathambi Gounder (supra) was
\nrendered on 22.6.1979 i.e. much prior to the amendment by the 1984 Act.\t If
\nthe Legislature intended to give a new lease of life in those cases where the
\ndeclaration under Section 6 is quashed, there is no reason why it could not
\nhave done so by specifically providing for it. The fact that legislature
\nspecifically provided for periods covered by orders of stay or injunction
\nclearly shows that no other period was intended to be excluded and that there
\nis no scope for providing any other period of limitation.  The maxim ‘actus
\ncuria neminem gravibit’ highlghted by the Full Bench of the Madras High
\nCourt has no application to the fact situation of this case.\n<\/p>\n
The view expressed in Narasimhaiah’s case (supra) and Nanjudaiah’s
\ncase (supra), is not correct and is over-ruled while that expressed in A.S.
\nNaidu’s case (supra) and Oxford’s case (supra) is affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is, however, substance in the plea that those matters which have
\nobtained finality should not be re-opened. The present judgment shall
\noperate prospectively to the extent that cases where awards have been made
\nand the compensations have been paid, shall not be reopened, by applying
\nthe ratio of the present judgment. The appeals are accordingly disposed of
\nand the subsequent Notifications containing declaration under Section 6 of
\nthe Act are quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t. CJI.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t….J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(R.C. LAHOTI)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t….J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(N. SANTOSH HEGDE)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t….J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(RUMA PAL)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(ARIJIT PASAYAT)
\nMarch 13, 2002<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Cji, R.C. Lahoti, N. Santosh Hegde, Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2226 of 1997 PETITIONER: PADMAUSUNDARA RAO (DEAD) &ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF T.N. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/03\/2002 […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26775","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPadmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002 - 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\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-09T13:23:35+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-09T13:23:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3415,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-09T13:23:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002 - 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\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-09T13:23:35+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-09T13:23:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002"},"wordCount":3415,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002","name":"Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-09T13:23:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmausundara-rao-dead-ors-vs-state-of-t-n-ors-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/26775","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=26775"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26775\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26775"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26775"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26775"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}