{"id":53028,"date":"2009-06-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009"},"modified":"2015-03-25T22:11:09","modified_gmt":"2015-03-25T16:41:09","slug":"sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of … on 24 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of … on 24 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 25703 of 2005(I)\n\n\n1. SHEELA.R. W\/O.AJITH KUMAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,\n\n3. K.JAGAL PRASAD, S\/O.V.K.PANICKER,\n\n4. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.B.HARISHKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :24\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                                               CR\n\n                     C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.\n                    ------------------------------\n                   W.P.(C)No. 25703 of 2005\n                    ------------------------------\n              Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                        ———————-\n<\/p>\n
      1.   This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order of<\/p>\n
the 4th respondent Tribunal, by which an appeal filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner against Ext.P3 order of the 1st respondent Corporation<\/p>\n
is dismissed. The complaint of the petitioner is that construction<\/p>\n
made by the 3rd respondent on the neighbouring property is in<\/p>\n
deviation from the approved plan, based on which building<\/p>\n
permit was issued.     There is no sufficient space left on the<\/p>\n
southern side of the 3rd respondent’s building as required under<\/p>\n
the Kerala Muncipality Building Rules (hereinafter referred as<\/p>\n
Building Rules for short).     The specific allegation is that the<\/p>\n
sunshade on the southern side of the 3rd respondent is<\/p>\n
constructed in such a manner that rain water will splash into the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s building causing inconvenience to him. On the basis<\/p>\n
of Ext.P1 complaint in this regard, the 1st respondent initiated<\/p>\n
action as contemplated under Section 406 of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Muncipality Act 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act for short)<\/p>\n
against the 3rd respondent and a provisional order along with a<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).25703\/05                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
show cause notice was issued. Eventhough Ext.P2 is referred as<\/p>\n
the show cause notice, copy of Ext.P2 produced in the writ<\/p>\n
petition is not a notice issued to the 3rd respondent.<\/p>\n
      2.    Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Secretary of the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent Corporation after hearing objections of the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent.     From Ext.P3 it is evident that a previous order<\/p>\n
issued in this regard was already set aside in Appeal No:34\/04 of<\/p>\n
the 4th respondent and the matter was remanded for fresh<\/p>\n
consideration.    The 1st respondent in Ext.P3 found that, the<\/p>\n
construction made by the 3rd respondent is not in accordance<\/p>\n
with the approved plan as much as the basement floor as shown<\/p>\n
in the plan is not constructed and instead of clearance shown on<\/p>\n
the southern side ranging from 110 cm to 100 cm the actual<\/p>\n
clearance provided is only ranging from 104 cm to 112 cm.<\/p>\n
Further on the back side also instead of 1 M to 2.60 M shown in<\/p>\n
the plan the clearance left is only 1.30 M to 2.20 M. Inspite of<\/p>\n
findings arrived about the irregularities, without pursuing any<\/p>\n
action as provided under S.406(3) of the Act, the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
arrived at a conclusion that construction can be regularised<\/p>\n
because the construction does not contravene any of the<\/p>\n
provisions and specifications contained in the Building Rules.<\/p>\n
Therefore the 3rd respondent was directed to submit application<\/p>\n
for regularisation along with fresh plan, after providing some<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).25703\/05                3<\/span><\/p>\n
measures on the southern sunshade in order to prevent falling of<\/p>\n
water into the property of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     Being aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner<\/p>\n
preferred appeal before the 4th respondent. The main contention<\/p>\n
against Ext.P3 is that the findings of the Secretary that the<\/p>\n
construction is not violative of any provision of the Building<\/p>\n
Rules, is not correct. According to the petitioner there is no set<\/p>\n
backs provided as required under the Building Rules, especially<\/p>\n
on the southern side which is the common boundary of both<\/p>\n
parties. The further contention is that such a finding arrived in a<\/p>\n
proceedings initiated under Section 406 was not proper,<\/p>\n
especially without considering merits of any regularisation<\/p>\n
application submitted along with fresh plan, and without<\/p>\n
collecting any compounding fee thereon.          On the contrary<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 3 contended before the Tribunal that the<\/p>\n
construction in question will not in any way violate the<\/p>\n
provisions of Building Rules and therefore the directions issued<\/p>\n
by the 1st respondent to regularise the construction was perfectly<\/p>\n
legal and in order.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     The petitioner placed reliance on Ext.C1 commission<\/p>\n
report filed by an Advocate Commissioner appointed from the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent Tribunal, in order to contend that there is no<\/p>\n
clearance on the southern side of the 3rd respondent’s building as<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).25703\/05                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
required under the Building Rules. But the Tribunal found that<\/p>\n
the descriptions about the compound wall in Ext.C1 report is<\/p>\n
unintelligible regarding its alignment and further found that all<\/p>\n
the measurements stated therein are only approximate.<\/p>\n
Therefore it is found that placing reliance on the report for<\/p>\n
entering into any conclusion will be unsafe. Hence the Tribunal<\/p>\n
found that there is no satisfactory evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
petitioner to prove that the building of the 3rd respondent is<\/p>\n
lacking from statutory clearance from boundaries of the<\/p>\n
property.     However, the Tribunal found that there exist a<\/p>\n
dispute, which is pending in a civil court, with respect to the<\/p>\n
alignment of the boundary line separating the properties of the<\/p>\n
petitioner and 3rd respondent.       Therefore it is held that<\/p>\n
conclusions in Ext.P3 to the effect that there is sufficient open<\/p>\n
space on the southern side of the 3rd respondent’s building, as<\/p>\n
stipulated in the Building Rules, is not acceptable, because such<\/p>\n
a finding is based only on the position of the boundary wall as it<\/p>\n
exist now, which may change when the actual boundary line is<\/p>\n
fixed.   Hence the Tribunal found that conclusions regarding<\/p>\n
sufficiency of open space on the southern side can be fixed only<\/p>\n
by a competent civil court. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed<\/p>\n
the appeal reserving right of the petitioner to move before the<\/p>\n
Secretary of the 1st respondent Corporation, after disposal of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).25703\/05                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
civil suit, in case if there is any change in the alignment of the<\/p>\n
common boundary as fixed by the civil court. It is clarified that<\/p>\n
decision if any taken by the Secretary with respect to<\/p>\n
regularisation will be subject to the petitioner’s right to move for<\/p>\n
re-consideration, on the basis of the decision of the civil court as<\/p>\n
stated above.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Heard Sri. K. Ramakumar, learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B. Harish Kumar, learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the standing<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Corporation.          The<\/p>\n
factual dispute regarding the alignment of the common<\/p>\n
boundary, which is pending adjudication in civil court, and the<\/p>\n
dispute    regarding    actual   clearance  available   cannot   be<\/p>\n
adjudicated and resolved by this Court. But the main thrust of<\/p>\n
argument of the learned senior counsel is regarding the<\/p>\n
irregularity and impropriety in Ext.P3 order, to the extent it<\/p>\n
arrived at a finding to the effect that there is required clearance<\/p>\n
on all sides of the 3rd respondent’s building, and the construction<\/p>\n
does not in any way infringe the provisions of the Building Rules,<\/p>\n
and the same can be regularised. Such a decision, according to<\/p>\n
the petitioner, is highly premature.     The question whether a<\/p>\n
construction made in deviation from the approved plan can be<\/p>\n
regularised or not and whether such deviated construction will<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).25703\/05                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
infringe the provisions of the Building Rules, are matters to be<\/p>\n
considered and adjudicated on the basis of the application for<\/p>\n
regularisation to be submitted along with fresh plan containing<\/p>\n
the altered constructions effected. It is not a matter which can<\/p>\n
be decided in a proceedings initiated under Section 406, even<\/p>\n
before receipt of an application for regularisation, is the<\/p>\n
contention.\n<\/p>\n
     6.     Section 406 of the Act contemplates procedure for<\/p>\n
demolition or alteration of building unlawfully commenced,<\/p>\n
carried on, or completed, in violation of an approved plan. The<\/p>\n
said provision contemplate issuance of a provisional order<\/p>\n
requiring the owner to demolish the work unlawfully executed or<\/p>\n
made in violation of the approved plan or to bring such work in<\/p>\n
conformity with the plan and specifications on which the<\/p>\n
permission is granted, or to show cause against confirming such<\/p>\n
provisional order. After hearing objections, the Secretary of the<\/p>\n
Corporation is empowered either to confirm the order or to<\/p>\n
modify the same to such extent he may think fit. Therefore the<\/p>\n
normal procedure in a proceedings under Section 406 of the Act,<\/p>\n
should culminate in a finding as to whether there is unauthorised<\/p>\n
or deviated construction and as to whether it is to be<\/p>\n
demolished, removed or altered.       But the proviso to Section<\/p>\n
406(1)(iii) give discretion to the Secretary for regularising such<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).25703\/05                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
construction on realisation of the prescribed compounding fee, if<\/p>\n
such construction is not in contravention of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Building Rules. Chapter XX of the Building Rules deals with<\/p>\n
Regularisation of unpermitted constructions and deviations.<\/p>\n
Rule 143 of the Building Rules deals with the powers of the<\/p>\n
Secretary to regularise certain constructions. The procedure to<\/p>\n
be adopted for the purpose of considering regularisation is<\/p>\n
enumerated in Rule 144. Rule 145 deals with the Application fee<\/p>\n
to be collected. Rule 146 prescribe detailed procedure to be<\/p>\n
adopted when a decision is taken either to grant or to refuse<\/p>\n
regularisation. It provides about determination of compounding<\/p>\n
fee to be collected, its rates, method of collection etc. Intimation<\/p>\n
to be given in a case of refusal is also contemplated therein.<\/p>\n
Again Rule 147 of the said Rules enumerate steps to be followed<\/p>\n
for demolition of buildings which are not regularised.<\/p>\n
     7.     From a scanning of the above quoted provisions it is<\/p>\n
evident that a comprehensive scheme is provided to deal with<\/p>\n
applications    for   regularising   unauthorised     or   deviated<\/p>\n
constructions. Therefore the question mooted for consideration<\/p>\n
is as to whether a decision permitting regularisation can be<\/p>\n
taken by the Secretary, without complying with the procedure<\/p>\n
contemplated in Chapter XX of the Building Rules, straight away<\/p>\n
in proceedings initiated under Section 406 for demolition of an<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).25703\/05                8<\/span><\/p>\n
unlawfully completed construction. Whether it is proper to drop<\/p>\n
any proceedings initiated under Section 406, merely on the<\/p>\n
finding that the unauthorised or deviated construction can be<\/p>\n
regularised. Basically, the right to approach the Secretary for<\/p>\n
regularisation is an option provided under the statute to the<\/p>\n
owner of the building which is constructed unauthorisedly or<\/p>\n
deviated from the approved plan. Only when the person, against<\/p>\n
whom an action under S.406(1) is initiated, approaches the<\/p>\n
Secretary with an application as contemplated under the proviso<\/p>\n
to Section 406(1)(iii) complying with all the procedure<\/p>\n
contemplated in Chapter XX of the Building Rules, the Secretary<\/p>\n
need to examine the scope for granting regularisation. Then<\/p>\n
only the Secretary can take an appropriate decision based on the<\/p>\n
particulars furnished in the application for regularisation and<\/p>\n
revised plan submitted therewith, as to whether regularisation<\/p>\n
can be granted or refused.   While considering a question as to<\/p>\n
whether a provisional order issued for demolition of the<\/p>\n
unauthorised construction need be confirmed or not, the<\/p>\n
Secretary is not expected to arrive at any conclusion regarding<\/p>\n
regularisation, without there being any such request submitted<\/p>\n
in accordance with the Building Rules.        Any decision with<\/p>\n
respect to grant of regularisation if taken without compliance of<\/p>\n
the procedure in Rule 143 to 147 contained in Chapter XX of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).25703\/05                9<\/span><\/p>\n
Building Rules cannot be sustained as proper and regular.<\/p>\n
     8.     Under the above mentioned position of law Ext.P3, to<\/p>\n
the extent it held that the construction made in deviation of the<\/p>\n
approved plan is liable to be regularised, cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n
Since the appellate authority had not looked into the matter in<\/p>\n
the above perspective, Ext.P4 also requires reversal. Hence the<\/p>\n
findings in Ext.P3 to the above extent, which is confirmed in<\/p>\n
Ext.P4, is hereby set aside. But the 1st respondent is restrained<\/p>\n
from taking any further steps against the 3rd respondent based<\/p>\n
on the findings regarding the unauthorised construction made in<\/p>\n
deviation from the approved plan, provided the 3rd respondent<\/p>\n
submits proper application for regularisation accompanied with<\/p>\n
plan and drawings along with remittance of required fee, as<\/p>\n
provided under Rule 143 to 145 of the Kerala Muncipality<\/p>\n
Building Rules, 1999, within a period of one month from today.<\/p>\n
If such an application is received, the Secretary of the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent Corporation shall consider and dispose of the same<\/p>\n
on its merits, following the procedure contemplated in Rule 143<\/p>\n
to 147 of the Building Rules, untramelled by any observations in<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 or P4 orders. Since the petitioner herein was pursuing<\/p>\n
her complaint in the matter, she should be afforded with an<\/p>\n
effective opportunity of personal hearing before any decision is<\/p>\n
taken in this regard. The decision in this regard will be taken by<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).25703\/05                10<\/span><\/p>\n
the Secretary as early as possible, at any rate within a period of<\/p>\n
six weeks from the date of receipt of such application. It is made<\/p>\n
clear that, considering the pendency of the civil dispute<\/p>\n
regarding alignment of the common boundary wall of the parties,<\/p>\n
the decision if any taken by the Secretary as above will be<\/p>\n
subject to the final outcome of the civil suit and either parties<\/p>\n
are at liberty to work out their remedies against such decision<\/p>\n
based on the final outcome of the civil suit.\n<\/p>\n
      The writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                           C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
okb<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of … on 24 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 25703 of 2005(I) 1. SHEELA.R. W\/O.AJITH KUMAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, … Respondent 2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, 3. K.JAGAL PRASAD, S\/O.V.K.PANICKER, 4. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53028","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSheela.R. vs The Corporation Of ... on 24 June, 2009 - 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\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of ... on 24 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-25T16:41:09+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of … on 24 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-25T16:41:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2107,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of ... on 24 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-25T16:41:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of … on 24 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of ... on 24 June, 2009 - 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\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of ... on 24 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-25T16:41:09+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of … on 24 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-25T16:41:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009"},"wordCount":2107,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009","name":"Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of ... on 24 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-25T16:41:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-r-vs-the-corporation-of-on-24-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sheela.R. vs The Corporation Of … on 24 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/53028","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=53028"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53028\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53028"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53028"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53028"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}