{"id":26894,"date":"2011-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011"},"modified":"2015-07-27T20:51:50","modified_gmt":"2015-07-27T15:21:50","slug":"m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 28\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)NO.1515 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 OF 2010\n\nM.Karuppiah\t\t\t\t..  Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n   Devakottai,\n   Sivagangai District.\n2.The Tahsildar,\n   Thiruppathur (Tk.)\n   Sivagangai District.\n3.A\/m.Kailasanadar Nidya Kalyani Devasthanam,\n   Elayathangudi,\n   Sri Muthumariamman Koil,\n   Keeranipatty,\n   Thiruppathur (Th.)\n   Sivagangai (Dt.)\n4.S.Ramiah Pillai.\t\t\t..  Respondents\n\n\tThis writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus  to forbear\nthe respondents 1 and 2 from any way affecting the customary practice of\nconducting festival by the petitioner and his community men in the third\nrespondent temple or any way compelling the writ petitioner to accept donations\nfrom the fourth respondent for the conduct of Pongal festival in the third\nrespondent temple.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.Veerakathiravan\n^For Respondents... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, GA for RR1 and 2\n\t\t    Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen for R4\n\n- - - -\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner who is a resident of Kiranipatty village, Kurvikondanpatty,
\nPudukkottai District, has filed the writ petition, seeking for a direction to
\nforbear the first and second respondents from in any way affecting the customary
\npractice of conducting festival by the petitioner and his community men in the
\nthird respondent temple and further compelling the petitioner to accept the
\ndonations from the fourth respondents for the conducting of Pongal festival in
\nthe third respondent temple.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The writ petition was admitted on 12.2.2010. Pending the writ petition,
\nan interim injunction was granted for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, on
\n31.3.2010, this court directed that since festival is to schedule on 4.4.2010,
\nthe fourth respondent and his men can very well participate in the Pongal
\nfestival and the petitioner will not prevent the fourth respondent from
\nparticipating in the temple festival. With reference to the contribution, it is
\nopen to the petitioner to make contribution in the Hundial.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.It is the case of the petitioner that in the previous year, the fourth
\nrespondent had filed W.P.(MD)No.2043 of 2009 which was taken by the division
\nbench. In the prayer, he sought for a direction to implement the decision of the
\nPeace Committee meeting held by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivaganga, dated
\n1.12.2008 and for a subsequent direction to the writ petitioner not to lift the
\ndeity or clime in the Chariot in the festival by excommunicating other caste
\npeople in the Arul Migu Muthu Mariamman Thirukoil, Keeranipatti village. That
\nwrit petition was disposed of by a final order dated 13.4.2009 stating that both
\nsides had agreed that all parties are entitled to enter the temple to worship
\nthe deity without any discrimination. They are also entitled to participate in
\nthe Car festival. But with reference to the right of taking the deity to the
\nChariot, it was found that such right could be adjudicated only under Section
\n63(C) of the Tamil Nadu H.R.&C.E. Act. But, however, a petition, dated
\n28.10.2009 was given by the fourth respondent that except for those Karumaravar
\ncommunity, the other community people are being excluded in the Pongal festival.
\nThe R.D.O., Devakottai, the first respondent, by a notice, dated 13.11.2009
\ndirected the parties to appear for an enquiry. It is challenging the said
\nnotice, the petitioner has come forward with the present prayer.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The contention was that  the first respondent was in hand-in-glove with
\nthe fourth respondent. The conduct of the Pongal festival before the temple is
\nthe exclusive right of Kallar community people. It cannot be allowed to share by
\nthe other community people.  This system of worship was followed for several
\nhundred years. Therefore, the question of accepting donations from the fourth
\nrespondent will not arise.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court
\nfor more than one reasons. Every practice cannot become automatically a practice
\nassociated with the religion thereby giving scope for a right to profess or
\npractice any religion covered by Article 25 of the Constitution. Even in such a
\ncase, the issue will have to be decided whether the practice is an essential
\npart of  religion?\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The issue as to what constitute an essential part of religion came to be
\nconsidered by a Division Bench vide its decision in V.S.Srikumar v. State of
\nTamilnadu and others reported in 2008 (3)MLJ 17, wherein in paragraphs 44 and 45
\nit was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t44.The Supreme Court, in N. Adithayan   v.  Travancore Devaswom Board and
\nothers<\/a> [2002 (8) SCC 106], while considering the scope of Travancore – Cochin
\nHindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 as well as Agamas in relation to
\nappointment of temple poojaris selected from communities other than Malayala
\nBrahmin, held that ‘there was no right based upon a custom which existed before
\nthe Constitution  and which involves omission of non-Brahmins from performing
\npoojas in the temple if they are otherwise trained and qualified for doing the
\nsame’.    In this context, it is relevant to refer to  the following passage
\nfound in paragraph 10 and quoted in  approval of the earlier order of the
\nSupreme Court in Bhuri Nath  v.  State of J&K [1997 (2) SCC 745].   The
\nfollowing passage found in paragraph 13 may also be quoted:
\nPara 10:\t“It has also been held that compilation of treatises on construction
\nof temples, installation of idols therein, rituals to be performed and conduct
\nof worship therein, known as “Agamas” came to be made with the establishment of
\ntemples and the institution of Archakas, noticing at the same time the further
\nfact that the authority of such Agamas came to be judicially recognized. It has
\nbeen highlighted that: (SCC p. 9, para 11)
\n\t“Where the temple was constructed as per directions of the Agamas the idol
\nhad to be consecrated in accordance with an elaborate and complicated ritual
\naccompanied by chanting of mantras and devotional songs appropriate to the
\ndeity.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThereafter for continuing the divine spirit, which is considered to have
\ndescended into the idol on consecration, daily and periodical worship has to be
\nmade with twofold object to attract the lay worshippers and also to preserve the
\nimage from pollution, defilement or desecration, which is believed to take place
\nin ever so many ways. Delving further into the importance of rituals and Agamas
\nit has been observed as follows: (SCC pp. 19-21, paras 11-12)<\/p>\n
\t“Worshippers lay great store by the rituals and whatever other people, not
\nof the faith, may think about these rituals and ceremonies, they are a part of
\nthe Hindu religious faith and cannot be dismissed as either irrational or
\nsuperstitious. An illustration of the importance attached to minor details of
\nrituals is found in the case of His Holiness Peria Kovil Kelvi Appan
\nThiruvenkata Ramanuja Pedda Jiyyangarlu Varlu v. Prathivathi Bhayankaram
\nVenkatacharlu<\/a> which went up to the Privy Council. The contest was between two
\ndenominations of Vaishnava worshippers of South India, the Vadagalais and
\nTengalais. The temple was a Vaishnava temple and the controversy between them
\ninvolved the question as to how the invocation was to begin at the time of
\nworship and which should be the concluding benedictory verses. This gives the
\nmeasure of the importance attached by the worshippers to certain modes of
\nworship. The idea most prominent in the mind of the worshipper is that a
\ndeparture from the traditional rules would result in the pollution or defilement
\nof the image which must be avoided at all costs. That is also the rationale for
\npreserving the sanctity of the Garbhagriha or the sanctum sanctorum….”\n<\/p>\n
Para 13:\t“In Bhuri Nath v. State of J&K this Court while dealing with the
\nvalidity of the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, and the abolition
\nof the right of Baridars to receive share  in  the offerings made by pilgrims to
\nShri Mata Vaishno Devi, observed their right to perform pooja as only a
\ncustomary right coming from generations which the State can and has by
\nlegislation abolished and that the rights seemed under Articles 25 and 26 are
\nnot absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or
\nregulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are
\nassociated with the religious belief, faith, practice or custom and that they
\nare also subject to social reform by suitable legislation. It was also
\nreiterated therein that though religious practices and performances of acts in
\npursuance of religious beliefs are, as much a part of religion, as further
\nbelief in a particular doctrine, that by itself is not conclusive or decisive
\nand as to what are essential parts of religion or belief or matters of religion
\nand religious practice is essentially a question of fact to be considered in the
\ncontext in which the question arises on the basis of materials # factual or
\nlegislative or historic if need be giving a go-by to claims based merely on
\nsupernaturalism or superstitious beliefs or actions and those which are not
\nreally, essentially or integrally matters of religion or religious belief or
\nfaith or religious practice.”\n<\/p>\n
\t45.Further, the Court also emphasised in paragraph 16 that what
\nconstitutes essential part of religion or religious practice will have to be
\ndecided by the Courts only and the following passage found in paragraph 16 may
\nbe quoted usefully:\n<\/p>\n
Para 16:\t“The legal position that the protection under Articles 25 and 26
\nextends a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship
\nwhich are integral parts of religion and as to what really constitutes an
\nessential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided by the courts
\nwith reference to the doctrine of a particular religion or practices regarded as
\nparts of religion, came to be equally firmly laid down.”\n<\/p>\n
\t7.A similar controversy came to be considered by a Division Bench of this
\nCourt presided by M.Katju,C.J. (as he then was) in Puthiya Tamilagam rep. By its
\nPresident, Dr.K.Krishnasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2005-
\n3-L.W. 140. In that case, the Division Bench by referring to the earlier case
\nin G.Krishnan & Others v. Union of India and others<\/a> held that in the modern age,
\nno one should be insulted, humiliated or looked down upon, as this is the age of
\nequality. Our constitution also envisages equality, which includes special help
\nand care for the weaker and oppressed sections of the society, who have been
\ndowntrodden for thousands of years.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Thereafter, the Bench observed in paragraph 10, which is as follows:-
\n“10.  ….This Court will no longer tolerate such kinds of treatment of the
\nS.C.\/S.T. Communities as they also are equal citizens of our country and are
\nhence entitled to a life of dignity in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of
\nIndia, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India. In our opinion, to deny
\nthem the right to participate in the pulling of the Temple Car is violation of
\nArticle 21 of the Constitution, apart from being violative of the orders of the
\nCourt dated 6.7.1998 and of the Commissioner dated 26.6.1999, and it will simply
\nnot be tolerated by this Court.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9.After referring to G.Krishnan’s case (Cited supra), the Division bench
\nin paragraphs 13 and 14 held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“13. It is alleged that some representatives of the Nattar community claim that
\nthere is a custom that members belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
\nTribe Communities have no right to pull the temple car.  Although this
\ncontention is denied, yet even assuming that there is such a custom, it will be
\nwholly illegal and unconstitutional, as it is against the right to a life of
\ndignity envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution. After the promulgation of
\nthe Constitution, all customs which are in violation of Articles 14,21 and other
\nconstitutional provisions are null and void, and have to be disregarded, since
\nthe Constitution is the fundamental law of the land.\n<\/p>\n
14. We, therefore, direct the District Collector cum District Magistrate,
\nSivaganga District, to ensure strict compliance of the order of this Court dated
\n6.7.1998 in W.M.P.NO.14132 of 1998 in W.P.No.9235 of 1998 as well as the order
\nof the Commissioner of the H.R. & C.E. Department dated 26.6.1999, both in
\nletter and spirit.  We make it clear that the District Collector cum District
\nMagistrate will be personally held responsible if the order we are passing today
\nis not complied with. The District Collector cum District Magistrate must act
\nfairly to all castes and communities and ensure that everyone is given equal
\nrespect in this Car Festival and even otherwise.  The District Collector cum
\nDistrict Magistrate will submit a report to this Court about the conducting of
\nthe Car Festival and as to whether our orders have been complied with in letter
\nand spirit. This Court will continue monitoring the matter even in future.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Assuming without admitting that the petitioner had an exclusive right
\nof worship or offering of Pongal and on the exercise of such a right if the
\nlocal situation lead to breach of peace or disturbance of law and order, the
\nfirst and second respondents being the Executive Magistrates are entitled to
\nestablish law and order in the village. The fact that there has been dispute is
\nseen from the earlier order, dated 13.4.2009  where this court directed the
\nparties to approach the HR&CE authorities under Section 63 to establish their
\ncustomary practice. The said order will hold good even for the petitioner who
\nclaims to have an unbroken custom over several hundred years. If he is claiming
\na particular community \/ caste right which is disputed by others, then the
\npetitioner will have to go before an appropriate authority and not to rush to
\nthis court. Even  this court, by an interim order found that if there are
\ndisputes  between the parties, they can make some workable arrangements. It is
\nnot clear whether the parties have made use of such interim order. In any event,
\nthe present prayer of the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. They
\ncan establish their customary right before the appropriate authorities under
\nSection 63 of the HR&CE Act.  Hence the writ petition is misconceived.
\nAccordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no
\norder as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.\n<\/p>\n
vvk
\nTo\n<\/p>\n
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
\n   Devakottai,
\n   Sivagangai District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Tahsildar,
\n   Thiruppathur (Tk.)
\n   Sivagangai District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.1515 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 OF 2010 M.Karuppiah .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Tahsildar, Thiruppathur (Tk.) Sivagangai District. 3.A\/m.Kailasanadar Nidya Kalyani […]<\/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-26894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011 - 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\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-27T15:21:50+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\\\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-27T15:21:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2222,\"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\\\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011\",\"name\":\"M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-27T15:21:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011 - 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\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-27T15:21:50+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\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-27T15:21:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011"},"wordCount":2222,"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\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011","name":"M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-27T15:21:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karuppiah-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Karuppiah vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/26894","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=26894"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26894\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}