{"id":36544,"date":"2010-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-01T09:39:35","modified_gmt":"2015-07-01T04:09:35","slug":"lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer &#8230; on 5 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer &#8230; on 5 October, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 05\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nCrl.O.P.(MD).No.11413 of 2010\nand\nM.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010\n\n1.Lakshmanan\n2.Thangamuthu Pillai\n3.P.Muthumani\n4.Sethuramalingam\n5.Muthiah\n6.Jeyakumar\n7.Kumaran\n8.Jegatheeswaran\n9.Panivel\n10.Shamuganathan\n11.Sugumaran\n12.Pandi\n13.Manoharan\n14.Parasuraman\n15.Velmurugan\n16.Muthumani\n17.Maisthri Palanivelu\n18.Sathiyendran\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum\n  Sub Divisional Magistrate,\n  Periyakulam, Theni.\n2.The Inspector of Police,\n  Devathanappatti,\n  Periyakulam.\t\t\t ... Respondents 1 and 2\/\n\t\t\t\t\tComplainants\n\n3.Sangan\n4.Rajaram\n5.Murugesan\n6.Narayanan\n7.Easwaran @ Sooran\n8.Murugan\n9.Seemathanni @ Ramu\n10.Narayanan\n11.Ponnuchamy\n12.Rasu\n13.Maikset Ayyam Perumal\n14.Senthil\n15.Easwaran\n16.Sooran\n17.Periyasamy\n18.Giri\n19.Ayyam Perumal\n20.Muthiah\n21.Easwaran\t\t\t... Respondents 3 to 21\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\tB-Party.\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to\ncall for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent  in\nM.C.No.329\/2009\/A4 dated 23.09.2010 and quash the same.\n  \t\t\n!For Petitioners ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan\n^For Respondents ... Mr.L.Murugan,\n\t\t     Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)\n\t\t      for R.1 and R.2\n\t\t     Mr.T.Srinivasa Raghavan\n\t\t      for R.3 to R.21.\t\t\n* * * * *\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis petition is focussed to quash the impugned order of the first<br \/>\nrespondent in M.C.No.329\/2009\/A4 dated 23.09.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The gist and kernel of the arguments as submitted by the learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the petitioners would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) There is one temple Arulmighu Pattalamman Muthiah Swamy Thirukoil<br \/>\nsituated at Melmangalam village, Theni District.  There is a scheme formulated<br \/>\nby the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments<br \/>\n(Administration) Department, Madurai, in O.A.No.8 of 1976 dated 20.08.1979,<br \/>\nmandating that the representatives of the people living in five streets<br \/>\nadjoining the said temple should administer the temple and subsequently, one<br \/>\nother group raised some objection and filed an application for modifying the<br \/>\nscheme formulated by the Deputy Commissioner which was dismissed, as against<br \/>\nwhich the appeal was filed by them before the Commissioner, H.R &amp; C.E., who<br \/>\nremitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the modification as<br \/>\nsuggested by the appellant therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, W.P.No.8521<br \/>\nof 2010 was filed and in that, this Court vide order dated 03.08.2010 virtually<br \/>\nupheld the order of the Commissioner in remitting the matter to the Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner for considering the above said modification.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) As against the order of the learned Single Judge, a writ appeal was<br \/>\nfiled by the petitioners herein and obtained an order of interim stay in<br \/>\nM.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.A.No.1913 of 2010 dated 15.09.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer of that locality invoked<br \/>\nSection 145 Cr.P.C., and passed the preliminary order dated 23.09.2010 calling<br \/>\nupon the &#8216;A&#8217; party and &#8216;B&#8217; party to attend the proceedings relating to the<br \/>\ndispute which erupted regarding the conduct of festival concerning the said<br \/>\ntemple.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(e) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2010 passed by the first<br \/>\nrespondent, this Criminal Original Petition has been focussed on various grounds<br \/>\nincluding the one that he had no jurisdiction in matters of this nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(f) The present legal position relating to the administration of the<br \/>\ntemple is that the original scheme formulated during the year 1979 by the Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner holds good and as per which only, the petitioners&#8217; group (&#8216;A&#8217;<br \/>\nparty) is entitled to administer the temple and conduct the festival namely<br \/>\n&#8220;Purattasi Festival&#8221; on 11.10.2010, 12.10.2010 and 13.10.2010, whereas the other<br \/>\nparty (referred to as &#8216;B&#8217; party in the impugned order) which is having no right,<br \/>\nis trying to interfere with the administration of the temple as well as the<br \/>\ncelebration of the said festival.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would file an additional typed<br \/>\nset of papers informing this Court that the same Sub Divisional Magistrate who<br \/>\npassed the earlier order, passed one other order under Section 144 Cr.P.C.,<br \/>\nprohibiting &#8216;A&#8217; party and &#8216;B&#8217; party from conducting any sort of festival on<br \/>\n11.10.2010, 12.10.2010 and 13.10.2010.  Accordingly, he prays for setting aside<br \/>\nboth the orders of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Challenging and impugning, contradicting and refuting the averments as<br \/>\nset out in the petition, the learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 21 (&#8216;B&#8217;<br \/>\nParty in the impugned order) would put forth and set forth his arguments, the<br \/>\npith and marrow of the same would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe scheme formulated allegedly in the year 1979 is non-est in the eye of<br \/>\nlaw as it is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the law and<br \/>\nthat was set aside legally by the appropriate authority.  Because of the<br \/>\ncontumacious conduct of &#8216;A&#8217; party, the &#8216;B&#8217; party was excluded from the village<br \/>\nitself and they have been made to live away from the village and very many<br \/>\ncrimes were perpetrated on them, even though they are still having the right to<br \/>\nconduct the said festival.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 21 would place reliance on<br \/>\nthe paragraph No.12 of the order of the Commissioner dated 19.12.2008, whereas<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel for the petitioners\/&#8217;A&#8217; party would submit that those<br \/>\nobservations in the said order dated 19.12.2008 was set aside by this Court in<br \/>\nwrit proceedings.  As of now, this Court is not very much concerned with those<br \/>\ndetails.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 21 would further develop<br \/>\nhis argument that according to him, as of now, there is no scheme formulated by<br \/>\nany authority enuring to the benefit of the petitioners\/&#8217;A&#8217; party.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The above narration of facts as put forth on either side would<br \/>\nexemplify and demonstrate clearly the point that &#8216;A&#8217; party and &#8216;B&#8217; party are at<br \/>\nlogger heads and they could not see eye to eye.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. What I could understand from the submissions as well as from the<br \/>\nrecords, is that the festival is scheduled to be held on 11.10.2010, 12.10.2010<br \/>\nand 13.10.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The core question arises as to who should conduct the festival and how<br \/>\nit should be conducted without creating any law and order problem.  It appears<br \/>\nthat the Sub Divisional Magistrate is very much concerned with the law and order<br \/>\nproblem and he is not concerned with the administration of the temple while<br \/>\nexercising the power under Section 144 or Section 145 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. On considering the real problem, this Court is of the view that the<br \/>\nfestival in whatever befitting manner could be done religiously, should be<br \/>\ncaused to be done with the help of the Commissioner to be appointed by this<br \/>\nCourt taking into the confidence the views and suggestions of both sides and it<br \/>\nis for the both sides to co-operate with the Court Commissioner and see that the<br \/>\nfestival is conducted properly and the Commissioner has to be provided with<br \/>\nnecessary funds by the persons who are having the funds and proper accounts<br \/>\nshould be maintained in that regard.  The District Collector and the<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police and all other officials under them should see that they<br \/>\nare rendering proper assistance to the Court Commissioner to conduct the said<br \/>\nfestival with the co-operation of both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The name of Thiru.A.K.Kandasamy Panidan, Retd., District Judge, was<br \/>\nsuggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioners\/&#8217;A&#8217; party and I could hear<br \/>\nno counter proposal from the learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 21\/&#8217;B&#8217;<br \/>\nparty and hence, Thiru.A.K.Kandasamy Panidan, Retd., District Judge, is<br \/>\nappointed as the Court Commissioner for the above said purpose and his fees is<br \/>\nfixed at Rs.20,000\/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) initially payable by the<br \/>\npetitioners\/&#8217;A&#8217; party.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under<br \/>\nSection 145 Cr.P.C., shall stand modified.  Regarding the order passed by him<br \/>\nunder Section 144 Cr.P.C., that order shall stand good concerning law and order<br \/>\nsubject to the exception relating to the conduct of the festival.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of.<br \/>\nConsequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum<br \/>\n  Sub Divisional Magistrate,<br \/>\n  Periyakulam, Theni.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Devathanappatti,<br \/>\n  Periyakulam.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The District Collector,<br \/>\n  Theni District.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Superintendent of Police,<br \/>\n  Theni District.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\nMadurai Bench of the Madras High Court,<br \/>\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer &#8230; on 5 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05\/10\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11413 of 2010 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 1.Lakshmanan 2.Thangamuthu Pillai 3.P.Muthumani 4.Sethuramalingam 5.Muthiah 6.Jeyakumar 7.Kumaran 8.Jegatheeswaran 9.Panivel 10.Shamuganathan 11.Sugumaran 12.Pandi 13.Manoharan 14.Parasuraman 15.Velmurugan 16.Muthumani [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 5 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 5 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-01T04:09:35+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer &#8230; on 5 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-01T04:09:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1166,\"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\\\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 5 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-01T04:09:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer &#8230; on 5 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 5 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 5 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-01T04:09:35+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer &#8230; on 5 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-01T04:09:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010"},"wordCount":1166,"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\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010","name":"Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 5 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-01T04:09:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmanan-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-5-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer &#8230; on 5 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36544","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=36544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}