{"id":31592,"date":"2010-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-02T08:15:26","modified_gmt":"2016-01-02T02:45:26","slug":"r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 16\/09\/2010\n\nCoram\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.RAJA\n\nWrit Petition (MD) No.7022 of 2005\nand\nWPMP (MD) No.7628 of 2005\n\nR.Banuraman \t\t\t\t... petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\nRep. by Secretary to\nGovernment,\nRevenue Department,\nFort St. George,\nChennai 600 009.\n\n2. The Special Commissioner\n& Commissioner of\nLand Administration,\nChepauk, Chennai 600 005.\n\n3. The District Collector,\nPudukkottai District,\nPudukkottai.\n\n4. The District Revenue\nOfficer,\nPudukkottai District,\nPudukkottai. \t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a\nwrit of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in connection with the\nimpugned order passed by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms. No.328 (Revenue\nDepartment), dated 26.05.2005, quash the same and direct the first respondent to\ngrant\/extend lease in respect of an extent of 20.5 cents S. No.40\/2\nRathinakottai Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, by reclassifying\nthe land as per the usage or by relaxing the temporary ban or the general\nprohibition if necessary regarding the assignment or grant of lease.\n\n!For petitioner ... Mr.S.S. Sundar\n^For respondents... Mr.D.Sasikumar,\n\t\t    Govt. Advocate.\n- - - - -\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe present writ petition has been filed challenging the Government Order
\nin G.O. Ms. No.328 (Revenue Department), dated 26.05.2005, in and by which, an
\nextent of 20.5 cents of land in S.F. No.40\/2 of Rethinakottai Village,
\nAranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District, (in the course of this order referred to
\nas ‘the land in question’) granted to the petitioner’s father-in-law on lease
\nbasis, came to be resumed by the respondents\/State by restricting the extension
\nof lease period as the date of issuance of the impugned Government Order and
\nimposing a general ban on the assignment or extension of lease in respect of the
\nsaid land as it is a classified watercourse poramboke.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the land in
\nquestion, with a total extent of 23 cents, belongs to the Government and that
\noriginally, it was leased out to one Navin Raj, who had held the leasehold right
\nover it for about 20 years ie., till 06.04.1988. The lease was not renewed and
\nfurther, there was default in payment of rent to the Government by the said
\nNavin Raj. After his demise, there was no action taken by his legal heirs to get
\nback the leasehold rights, this resulted in the 4th respondent taking over
\npossession of the land.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is further stated that during 1995, the father-in-law of the petitioner
\nlate Manicka Udayar, on coming to know that the land in question was available
\nfor lease, applied to the Revenue Department for grant of lease of land to an
\nextent of 20.5 cents for running a bus service station. The then Revenue
\nDivisional Officer (RDO) was willing to recommend the case of the petitioner’s
\nfather-in-law for grant of fresh lease provided the loss caused to the
\nGovernment due to the default committed by the previous lessee-Navin Raj was
\nmade good and suggested for payment of entire arrears of the lease amount
\ndefaulted, whereupon, a sum of Rs.25,000\/- was remitted by Manicka Udayar on
\n03.11.1995. Subsequently, on the recommendation of the RDO, the District Revenue
\nOfficer (DRO) and the Special Land Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Land
\nAdministration, decided to grant lease in favour of the petitioner’s father-in-
\nlaw in respect of the land in question. Ultimately, a Government Order in G.O.
\nMs. No.287 (Revenue Department), dated 12.03.1997, directing grant of lease in
\nfavour of Manicka Udayar subject to the usual conditions as per Revenue Standing
\nOrder (RSO) No.24-A came to be issued, fixing 14% of the market value as lease
\namount and a formal lease deed was executed, stipulating the lease period
\ninitially for 3 years taking effect from 09.06.1997 with a fixed rent as
\nRs.42,569\/- per annum.\n<\/p>\n
\tSubsequently,the petitioner’s father-in-law created a Public Charitable
\nTrust in the name of ‘Manickam Pichai Ammal Education Rural Health Improvements
\nCharitable Trust’ by a deed of trust, dated 19.07.1997, and as such, a portion
\nof the land to an extent of 7.5 cents was being utilised for setting up of a
\nTraining Centre to give free training to poor students in the field of computer,
\ntailoring etc.
\n\tLearned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that one
\nC.Thirunavukkarasu, claiming to have purchased leasehold rights in respect of
\nthe land in question from the erstwhile lessee-Navin Raj, filed a suit before
\nCivil Court in O.S. No.235 of 1996, which was dismissed on 27.10.1998, and also
\npreferred a writ petition before this court in W.P. No.8241 of 1997 with a
\nprayer not to permit the official respondents to lease out the property in
\nfavour of Manicka Udayar or any other person, and the said petition came to be
\ndismissed by order dated 23.04.2004, observing that a lease granted in favour of
\na lessee cannot be transferred to any other person as it would be opposed to the
\nconditions of lease particularly in a situation where the lessee himself was
\ndead and the rents were not paid and that, in the absence of right to claim any
\ntitle over the land, petitioner-Thirunavukkarasu cannot have any amenities over
\nthe impugned order in granting the lease in favour of Manicka Udayar\/present
\npetitioner’s father-in-law and another.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is further submitted that though the petitioner’s father-in-law was
\npaying the lease amount as per the lease agreement without any default and, long
\nbefore expiry of the lease agreement, had also applied for extension of lease,
\nsuch application was not seriously considered by the respondents. While the
\npetitioner’s father-in-law was in possession of the land in question, he died on
\n02.09.2002. The petitioner, being one of the trustees of the public charitable
\ntrust created over an extent of about 7.5 cents of land, in succession to his
\nfather-in-law, was in continuous possession of the entire land in question.
\nPending consideration of the application sent by the petitioner’s father-in-law
\nprior to his death for extension of land, the petitioner, having been put in
\npossession of the lease hold land as his successor, submitted a representation
\nto the 2nd respondent for renewal of lease in her favour stating that other
\nlegal heirs of late Manicka Udayar gave a consent letter in an unequivocal
\nexpression consenting for extension of lease in her favour.
\n\tIt is also stated that the 4th respondent\/DRO, Pudukottai, and the 3rd
\nrespondent\/District Collector recommended for renewal of lease in favour of the
\npetitioner and for fixation of rent. On examining the case of the petitioner,
\nthe 2nd respondent\/Special Commissioner also recommended for renewal of lease,
\nhowever, the first respondent, in an unjust manner passed G.O. Ms. No.328,
\nRevenue Department, dated 26.05.2005, extending the lease by way of
\nregularisation only upto the date of the Government Order and directing
\nresumption of land on the ground that the land in question is a nedungulam
\nporamboke (watercourse-tank poramboke) and there is a general prohibition for
\ngrant of lease or assignment in respect of those lands which are classified as
\ntank proamboke.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy adverting to the above factual aspects, learned counsel submits that
\nthe impugned Government Order is liable to be set aside since it singles out the
\ncase of the petitioner, for, similar lands with same or similar classification
\nhave been assigned and leased in favour of others for commercial ventures, but,
\nin the case of the petitioner, the first respondent specifically directed the
\n3rd respondent to resume the land immediately on the date of publication of the
\nGovernment Order and not to extend the lease any further. Even though the
\npetitioner did not commit any default and had promptly paid the lease amount,
\nshe was not given an opportunity to put forth certain factual aspects noted in
\nthe impugned order relating to payment of rent, etc.
\n\tIt is further contended that for the past 40 years, the land in S.F.
\nNo.40\/2 was given on lease for commercial purpose and the Government was
\ncontinuously receiving rent at commercial rates; that being so, restoring the
\nclassification of such land as watercourse (negungulam) poramboke is only an
\napparent mistake and the resumption would only be a loss to the Government.
\nTherefore, the impugned Government Order is liable to be quashed as it is highly
\narbitrary, unfair and unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
\tUltimately, it is prayed that the respondents, who acted in an unfair and
\nunjust manner in utter violation to the principles of natural justice, may be
\ndirected to relax the temporary ban or the general prohibition standing in the
\nway of assignment or extension of lease hold rights in favour of the petitioner
\nregarding the land in question, by quashing the impugned Government Order as
\notherwise the petitioner, who is also doing public service by running a
\ncharitable trust in a portion of the land, would be put to irreparable loss and
\nhardship.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
\nrespondents\/State submitted that the land in question measuring to an extent of
\n23 cents and classified as nedungulam poramboke (watercourse poramboke) was
\noriginally leased out to one Navinraj, who committed default resulting in
\ncancellation of the lease granted in his favour, whereupon, the petitioner’s
\nfather-in-law and one Rajendran, who applied for 20.5 cents of land and 1 cent
\nrespectively, were given leasehold right fixing 14% of land revenue as lease
\nrent per annum, whereupon, one Thirunavukkarasu filed O.S. No.235 of 1996 before
\nDistrict Munsif Court, Aranthangi, for permanent injunction on the ground that
\nhe purchased the leasehold right from the erstwhile lessee Navin Raj, and the
\nsaid suit was dismissed by Judgment dated 27.10.1988. Subsequently, he filed
\nW.P. No.8241 of 1997 before this Court and the said petition was dismissed and
\nthereupon, the grant of lease in favour of petitioner’s father-in-law Manicka
\nUdayar and one Rajendran was upheld. After completing the lease period viz.,
\nthree years, Manicka Udayar made a renewal application and in the meanwhile, he
\ndied on 02.09.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is the daughter-in-law of
\nlessee-Manicka Udayar, made a representation to the authorities, seeking renewal
\nof lease. The representation was duly considered and her case was recommended
\nfor grant of lease. However, the Government, taking note of various crucial
\naspects including a specific directive of the High Court issued in W.P. No.20186
\nof 2000 vide order dated 27.06.2005, to the State Government prescribing ban
\nregarding allotment and assignment of lands classified as watercourse and water
\nbodies, and also considering the fact that the land in question had already been
\nclassified as a watercourse poramboke, declined to further extend the lease
\nperiod except till the date of issuance of the impugned G.O. on the ground that
\nevery tank, pond, kuttai, vari, odai or any other water course proamboke
\nclassified by the Settlement Authorities at the time of settlement of village is
\nabsolutely necessary to protect the welfare of the people for maintaining the
\nwater courses which are absolutely essential to recharge ground water levels.
\nSince any decision taken otherwise would run contrary to the directive issued in
\nthe aforesaid Judgment of this Court, the Government could not positively
\nconsider the claim of the petitioner and under such circumstances, the
\npetitioner cannot challenge the impugned Government Order passed in larger
\ninterest of the public and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Considered the rival submissions advanced on either side. The issue
\nthat arises for consideration is as to whether the respondents are justified in
\nrejecting the claim of the petitioner for extension of lease and ordering
\nresumption of land.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Admittedly, the land in question at S.F. No.40\/2, Rethinakottai
\nVillage, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District, leased out to the petitioner’s
\nfather-in-law for an extent of 20.5 cents, is a classified watercourse
\nporamboke. Originally, the land in question with some more extent viz., 23
\ncents, was leased out to one Navin Raj for running a kerosene Depot and it is
\nstated that he was a chronic defaulter and after his demise, his Legal heirs did
\nnot come forward to revive\/renew the leasehold rights in their favour.
\nSubsequently, on the application made by the petitioner’s father-in-law and one
\nRajendran, they were granted lease in respect of 20.5 cents and 1 cent
\nrespectively, by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.287, dated 12.03.1997. One
\nThirunavukkarasu, claiming to have purchased leasehold rights from the erstwhile
\nlessee Navin Raj, initiated civil proceedings in O.S. No. 235 of 1996 which came
\nto be dismissed by judgment dated 27.10.1998 and the writ petition filed by him
\nin W.P. No.8241 of 1997 challenging the grant of lease to the petitioner’s
\nfather-in-law and Rajendran was also dismissed with the following observation:
\n” The only ground on which the petitioner seeks his claim over the land is the
\npurchase of the lease hold right by a unregistered sale deed. It cannot be
\ndisputed that the lease granted in favour of the lessee cannot be transferred to
\nany other person, as it would be opposed to the condition of lease. Moreover,
\nafter the demise of the lessee himself and the rents were also not paid, the
\nrespondents-2 and 3 are entitled to resume the land as per the terms and
\nconditions of lease. A person is entitled to claim any right much less to any
\nlease hold right only on the ground that he has derived such a right from the
\nerstwhile lessee. As the claim would be contrary to the lease conditions, in the
\nabsence of right to claim any title over the land, the petitioner cannot have
\nany amenities over the impugned order in granting the lease in favour of
\nrespondents 2 and 3. ”\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is, even though an application for
\nextension of lease was made by her father-in-law long before expiry of the lease
\nperiod and, after his death in the year 2002, she herself, being successor to
\nthe Trust created by him in a portion of the land in question and having been
\ngranted consent letters from other legal heirs of her father-in-law for
\nextension of lease in her favour, made representation to the 2nd respondent,
\nwithout even affording an opportunity to her, the first respondent in an unfair
\nmanner straight way ordered resumption by the impugned Government Order.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. From a careful scrutiny of the impugned Government Order, this Court
\nfinds that the first respondent, before proceeding to resume the land,
\nelaborately traversed into all relevant aspects including the status of the
\nland, the claim of the parties as well as the grievance\/representation made in
\nthat regard, and the said Authority, taking note of the fact that the land in
\nquestion is a watercourse poramboke and there is a general ban and prohibition
\nto deal with the same by way of grant of lease, assignment etc., ultimately
\nordered for resumption of the land. In that context, as rightly pointed out, it
\nmust also be borne in mind that maintenance of water bodies such as kuttai,
\ntank, vari, odai and any other water course poramboke, as such is absolutely
\nessential to protect and recharge ground water levels in the larger interest of
\nthe public. Public interest is paramount and it always prevails over individual
\nand private interests and, viewing from such a longer perspective, this Court is
\nof the considered opinion that there was nothing wrong on the part of the
\nauthority in passing the order of resumption, which is just and equitable. Even
\notherwise, the petitioner does not derive any automatic right to claim extension
\nof lease, for, the authorities have to look into all essential facts and
\ncircumstances even before proceeding to renew a licence or lease.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Another vital aspect is, the learned Government Advocate has brought to
\nthe notice of this Court that the impugned G.O. came to be passed keeping in
\nmind the observations made by a division Bench of this Court while disposing of
\nW.P. No.20186 of 2000, by order dated 27.06.2005, on the aspect of maintenance
\nof water courses in the State. In this regard, it is relevant to quote below the
\nobservations of the Division Bench in the nature of a directive to the State:-
\n” Inasmuch this writ petition has come before us by way of a public interest
\nlitigation, we take this opportunity to direct the State Government to identify
\nall such natural water resources in different parts of the State and wherever
\nillegal encroachments are found, initiate appropriate steps in accordance with
\nthe relevant provisions of law for restoring such natural water storage
\nresources which have been classified as such in the revenue records to its
\noriginal position so that the suffering of the people of the State due to water
\nshortage is ameliorated. ”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn terms of such specific direction issued to the State for strict
\nimplementation, this court could infer that the authority has, in an endeavour
\nto implement the same, ordered resumption with a view to restore the original
\nposition of the land in question as a water course in the larger interest of the
\npublic to prevent water scarcity and recharge ground water levels in the area.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on the decisions
\nof the Apex Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 1601 (Food Corpn. of India v.
\nKamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries),<\/a> 1997 (7) SCC 592 (M.P. Oil Extraction vs.
\nState of M.P.) and 1995 (2) SCC 326 (U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi)<\/a>
\non the principle of ‘legitimate expectation’ and stated that, in a case of this
\nnature, failure to consider and give due weight to the legitimate expectation of
\nthe petitioner would render the ultimate decision arbitrary. Reliance is also
\nplaced on another Judgment of the Apex Court in Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v.
\nBombay Port Trust<\/a> (1989 (3) SCC 293) to highlight the principle that public
\nauthorities as landlord are not expected to behave like private landlord and, in
\nparticular, any authority covered under Article 12 cannot act arbitrarily even
\nin contractual matters and must act only to further public interest; and it is
\nsubmitted that, in the present case, the petitioner is treated as an unequal
\nwhile similarly placed persons are allowed to enjoy the benefit.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The above mentioned judgments are not related to either lease of land
\nor renewal of lease.  Therefore, in the above circumstances, the case laws
\nrelied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as cited supra, on the
\npoint of legitimate expectation and arbitrary exercise of power are held to be
\nnot applicable to the present case as they are distinguishable on facts. In the
\npresent case, the Government being party to a public interest litigation before
\nthe court, in implementation of the directives issued, took diligent steps in
\nrestoring the water bodies\/courses to their original position and the present
\ncase being one such instance, this Court does not find any reason much less
\nvalid reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Consequently, the Writ
\nPetition fails and it is dismissed as devoid of merits. Connected Miscellaneous
\nPetition is closed.\n<\/p>\n
ji\/rkm<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Secretary to Government,
\nRevenue Department, Fort St. George,
\nChennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Special Commissioner
\n& Commissioner of Land Administration,
\nChepauk, Chennai 600 005.\n<\/p>\n
3. The District Collector,
\nPudukkottai .\n<\/p>\n
4. The District Revenue Officer,
\nPudukkottai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 16\/09\/2010 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.RAJA Writ Petition (MD) No.7022 of 2005 and WPMP (MD) No.7628 of 2005 R.Banuraman … petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary […]<\/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-31592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-02T02:45:26+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-02T02:45:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2982,\"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\\\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010\",\"name\":\"R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-02T02:45:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-02T02:45:26+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-02T02:45:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010"},"wordCount":2982,"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\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010","name":"R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-02T02:45:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-banuraman-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Banuraman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31592","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=31592"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31592\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}