{"id":55343,"date":"2002-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002"},"modified":"2018-09-24T20:34:52","modified_gmt":"2018-09-24T15:04:52","slug":"n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 09\/08\/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\n\nWrit Petition No. 2076 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 12363 of 2001\nand\nW.M.P.Nos. 18118, 18119\/2001 and W.V.M.P.Nos.348 and  625 of 2002.\n\nW.P.No. 2076\/2000\n\n1. N. Ramasamy\n2. R. Shanmugham\n3. V.R. Sampath\n4. Nallavaradakonar\n5. V.M. Palaniappan\n6. M. Rangasamy\n7. Marudakonar\n8. Palaniappan\n9. Palanisamy\n10. V.K. Nanjappan\n11. P. Ramasamy\n12. K. Venkatachalakonar\n13. Karupakkal\n14. Natarajan\n15. Karuppasamy.                   .. Petitioners.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. State of Tamil Nadu,\n   represented by its Secretary,\n   Housing and Urban Development\n   Department, Fort St. George,\n   Chennai-9.\n\n2. The Special Tahsildar,\n   Land Acquisition,\n   Housing Scheme \u2013 II,\n   Coimbatore \u2013 18.\n\n3. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,\n   represented by its Managing\n   Director, Nandanam,\n   Chennai-35.                   .. Respondents<\/pre>\n
W.P.No. 12363\/2001\n<\/p>\n
1. R. Savithiri\n<\/p>\n
2. R. Nandagopal\n<\/p>\n
3. Mrs. Gandhimathi
\n                                 .. Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                         Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
\n   represented by its Secretary,
\n   Housing and Urban Development
\n   Department, Fort St. George,
\n   Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Special Tahsildar,
\n   Land Acquisition,
\n   Housing Scheme \u2013 II,
\n   Coimbatore \u2013 18.\n<\/p>\n
3. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
\n   represented by its Managing
\n   Director, Nandanam,
\n   Chennai-35.\n<\/p>\n
4. Union of India,
\n   Ministry of Environment and Forests,
\n   represented by Executive Engineer,
\n   Civil Engineering Division III,
\n   Civil Construction Unit,
\n   Koramangala, Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
   (R-4 impleaded as per order of Court
\n   dated 22-2-2002).\n<\/p>\n
                                 .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution  of  India,  for  issuance  of
\nWrits of Certiorarified Mandamus, as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioners in both W.Ps.    :   Mr.  M.  Venkatachalapathy, Senior counsel
\n                                     for Mr.  B.  Rajendran<\/p>\n
^For Respondents 1 and 2 in both W.Ps. :  Mr.  S.  Kandaswamy, Special Govt.,
\n                                         Pleader for<\/p>\n
                                        Mr.  R.  Muthukumarasamy, Additional Advocate
\n                                        General for Mr.  D.  Veerasekaran for R-3 in
\n                                        both W.Ps.\n<\/p>\n
                                        Mr.  R.  Santhanam for R-4 in W.P.12363\/2001.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 16-11-99, rejecting
\ntheir  request  for  re-conveyance  of  their land acquired for the purpose of
\nhousing scheme at Coimbatore, the petitioners numbering 15 have filed  W.P.No.
\n2076  of 200 0 on various grounds to quash the said proceedings and direct the
\nfirst  respondent-Government  to  release\/exempt   the   properties   of   the
\npetitioners in  S.F.Nos.  186, 188, 282, 283, 284, 284\/1, 284\/2, 285\/1, 285\/2,
\n286, 286\/1, 286\/2, 287, 287\/2, 288, 289, 29 0, 291, 293, 295, 295\/1 and  295\/2
\nof Koundampalayam   village,   Coimbatore   District   and  in  S.F.No.    430
\nTelungupalayam  village,  Coimbatore  District  from  the   land   acquisition
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Questioning  the  very  same  Government  Order  and  praying for similar
\ndirection, R.  Savithiri and two others have preferred W.P.No.  12363 of 2001.
\nThe case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder:
\nThe petitioners are all land  owners  in  Goundampalayam  village,  Coimbatore
\nTaluk and  District  situated  in  Survey Nos.  186, 188, 282, 283, 284,284\/1,
\n284\/2, 285\/1, 285\/2, 286, 286\/1, 286\/2, 287, 287\/2, 288, 289, 290,  291,  293,
\n295, 295\/1  and  295\/  2  and  Telungupalayam  S.F.No.    430 and they are all
\nadjoining and continuous owners of the property and these lands were sought to
\nbe acquired by the Housing and Urban Development Department.  By  constructing
\npucca houses,  they  are living in the land for t ime immemorial.  Most of the
\npetitioners are illiterate and they are not  aware  of  the  land  acquisition
\nproceedings.   Only  at  a later stage they came to know that their lands were
\nsought to be acquired by Housing Department for implementation of the housi ng
\nscheme; accordingly they filed a writ petition in Writ Petition No.    8361\/88
\nchallenging the  acquisition  proceedings.  By Order dated 29-7-97, this Court
\ndisposed of the said writ petition along with two other writ petitions with  a
\ndirection  to  the  pet  itioners  to make an application to the Housing Board
\nwithin 4 weeks seeking reconveyance of the lands covered by the buildings.  In
\nthe same order, this Court further observed that  on  such  application  being
\nmade,  the  Housing Board shall consider the reque sts of the writ petitioners
\nand take a decision in terms of resolution No.  7\/86 dated 2-7-86.  The  Court
\nhas  granted  three  months’  time  to  the  Housing  Board  to dispose of the
\nrepresentation.  The said order has been confirmed by the  Division  Bench  of
\nthi s Court  in Writ Appeal Nos.  1300 to 1302\/97 dated 21-10-97.  Pursuant to
\nthe said direction, they made a representation.    Without  considering  their
\nrepresentation  and  giving  personal  hearing,  by  order dated 16-11-99, the
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu, first r espondent herein, passed the impugned order,
\nrejecting their request of reconveyance.  Hence the present writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Deputy Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development  Department,
\nChennai-9 has filed a counter affidavit for first respondent disputing various
\naverments made  by  the petitioners.  It is stated that at the instance of the
\nExecut ive Engineer  and  Administrative  Officer,  Coimbatore  Housing  Unit,
\nCoimbatore,  land  acquisition  proceedings  were  initiated  for acquiring an
\nextent of 159.04 acres in Goundampalayam village of  Coimbatore  North  Taluk.
\nAfter  following the mandatory provisio ns of the Land Acquisition Act and the
\nRules made thereunder and after giving adequate opportunity to  all  the  land
\nowners  and the persons interested, the land acquisition officer passed awards
\non various dates.  Pursuant to the acquisition, the Governmen t considered the
\nsame in consultation with the requisitioning body, namely, Tamil Nadu  Housing
\nBoard.   At  the  instance  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Housing  Board,  Anna  Nagar
\nNeighbourhood Scheme at Coimbatore was formulated for construction  of  houses
\nto low  income  and  middle  income  group people.  The petitioners’ lands are
\nsituated in the vantage point in the Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Scheme.  As  the
\nexclusion of the petitioners’ land will affect the comprehensive nature of the
\nscheme, their representations were co nsidered and rejected by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Tamil  Nadu  Housing  Board-third respondent in W.P.No.  12363 of 2001 has
\nfiled a counter affidavit highlighting  the  strict  compliance  of  the  Land
\nAcquisition Act  and  the Rules made thereunder.  They also explained that the
\nBoard’s resolu tion No.  7\/86 dated 2-7-86  is  not  connected  to  this  land
\nacquisition  subject,  but  it  relates to availing loan from Hudco for E.W.S.
\nHouses at Mogappair, Chennai.  However, there is  another  Board’s  resolution
\nNo.67\/6-86 dated 2-7-86 in respect of Valasara vakkam, Chennai Scheme, but the
\nGovernment have not taken any decision on the resolution passed by them and no
\norders  have  been passed so far and, therefore, as on date, there is no legal
\nsanctity on the Board’s resolution.\n<\/p>\n
5.  Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests Department,  impleaded
\nas  4th  respondent in W.P.No.12363\/2001 has also filed an affidavit informing
\nthis Court that pursuant to the decision taken by Botanical Survey  of  India,
\nat  the  request of the Ministry, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, by order dated
\n10-1-2001, allotted lands to an extent of 2.09  Acres  at  Vadavalli  village,
\nCoimbatore   Taluk,  Coimbatore  and  the  Ministry  had  paid  a  total  sale
\nconsideration of Rs.1,25,42,964\/-.  The Ministry has parted  with  the  entire
\nsale  consideration  and  they  have  also  taken  possession  of the allotted
\npremises as early as on 8-8-2001.   The  said  lands  were  purchased  by  the
\nMinistry  for  the  purpose  of putting up residential accommodation for its e
\nmployees and  after  taking  possession  of  the  lands,  the  department  has
\ninitiated  action  for  plan approval from the appropriate authorities and has
\nalso spent huge amount towards planning of the project and barbed wire fencing
\naround the premises.\n<\/p>\n
6.  In the light of the above pleadings,  I  have  heard  the  learned  senior
\ncounsel  for  the  petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for
\nthe State Government.\n<\/p>\n
7.  Mr.  M.  Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel  for  the  petitioners,
\nafter  taking  me  through  the  earlier  order of this Court dated 29-7-97 in
\nW.P.Nos.  8361 of 88 etc., batch, would  contend  that  the  first  respondent
\ncommitted  an  error  in  not  complying  with  the  positive direction issued
\ntherein.  He also contended that the Government or the Housing Board ought  to
\nhave  given  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  representation before chossing to
\nreject the claim after a period of two years.  On th e other  hand,  Mr.    R.
\nMuthukumaraswami,  learned  Additional  Advocate  General,  after  drawing  my
\nattention to the ultimate decision of this Court,  namely,  dismissal  of  the
\nwrit  petitions  with  a direction and observation, contended that pursuant to
\nthe direct ion, the petitioners\/land  owners  made  a  representation  to  the
\nGovernment, and that the Government after consultation with the requisitioning
\nbody,  namely,  Tamil Nadu Housing Board, came to the conclusion that the land
\nin question is needed for completion of the scheme  and  the  same  cannot  be
\nexcluded, and  rightly rejected their application.  He also contended that the
\ncorrect resolution of the Housing Board is resolution No.  67\/86.   Since  the
\nsame is not a general resolution applicable to all land owners and is confined
\nto  acquisition of land in respect of Valasaravakkam, Chennai scheme, the same
\nhas no bearing with the request of the petitioners.    Further,  according  to
\nhim,  the  said  resolution  of the Housing Board has not been approved by the
\nGovernmen t.  Hence, it has no legal sanctity.\n<\/p>\n
8.  I have carefully considered the rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n
9.  Before considering the rival contentions, it is to be noted that in  these
\nwrit   petitions   the   petitioners   are  not  challenging  the  acquisition
\nproceedings.  As a matter of fact, as  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  learned
\nAdditional  Advocate  G  eneral,  in  the  earlier  round  of litigation, P.D.
\nDinakaran, J.  in W.P.Nos.  8361\/88, 6236\/89 and 8109\/89, after referring to a
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  others  v.    L.
\nKrishnan and  others<\/a> (1996–S.C.  497) as well as a Division Bench decision of
\nthis Court in W.A.Nos.  508 to 521 of 1995 dated 16-11-1996 dismissed all  the
\nwrit petitions  on 29-7-97.  However, he made an observation giving liberty to
\nthe  petitioners  to  make  an  application  to  the  Housing  Board   seeking
\nreconveyance of  the  lands  covered  by the buildings.  Since the controversy
\nrests on the said observation, it is relevant to refer the same:  (para 13)<\/p>\n
“13.  In the light of the above decisions, in AIR 1996 Supreme Court, 497  and
\nthe Division  Bench  in  W.A.Nos.  508 to 521 of 1995 dated 16-11-1996, I find
\nthe above writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with the observation  that
\nif  the wri t petitioners satisfy the requirements of resolution No.7\/86 dated
\n2-7-1986 passed by the Housing Board it is for  the  petitioners  to  make  an
\napplication seeking  reconveyance  of  the lands covered by the buildings.  In
\nsuch event, the Housing Board shall  c  onsider  such  requests  of  the  writ
\npetitioners and  take  a  decision  in  terms  of  resolution  No.  7\/86 dated
\n2-7-1986.  The petitioners shall make such representation to the Housing Board
\nfor reconveyance within four weeks from today and the same shall be dis  posed
\nof  by  the  respondents  within  three months from the date of receipt of the
\nrepresentation.”\n<\/p>\n
It is also not disputed that the said order of  the  learned  Judge  has  been
\nconfirmed by  the  Division  Bench  of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.  1300 to
\n1302 of 97 dated 21-10-1997.  While confirming the order of the learned Single
\nJudge, the Division Bench h as extended the time for making the representation
\nto the authority concerned by  another  six  weeks.    In  the  meanwhile  the
\npetitioners  made  a  joint  representation  to  the  Secretary to Government,
\nHousing and Urban Development, Chennai-9 and Managing Direct  or,  Tamil  Nadu
\nHousing Board,  Chennai-35 seeking reconveyance of their land.  Apart from the
\ngeneral  representation  dated  25-9-97,  the  petitioners  have   also   made
\nindividual representation  on  26-9-97.    The individual representations have
\nbeen made to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Housing  Department
\nand Special  Tahsildar,  Land  Acquisition, Housing Board, Coimbatore.  In all
\nthe individual representation, they prayed for exclusion of  their  land  from
\nthe acquisition.   The common representati on dated 25-9-97 and the individual
\nrepresentation dated 26-9-97 find a place at pages 19 to 26 of  the  typed-set
\nof papers  filed  along  with  the  writ  petition.    Though  in  the  common
\nrepresentation, they prayed for reconveyance of their land in  question,  i  n
\nthe  individual  representation,  they prayed for exclusion of their land from
\nthe scheme area.\n<\/p>\n
10.   On   receipt   of   the   representation   of   the   petitioners,   the
\nGovernment-Housing   Department,  after  referring  the  relevant  resolution,
\nnamely, resolution No.  67\/6 \u2013 86 dated 2-7-86 of the Tamilnadu Housing  Board
\nand  in  the light of the fact that the Government have not taken any decision
\nregarding the same, after considering the  fact  that  the  exclusion  of  the
\npetitioners’  land  will  affect  the  comprehensive  nature of the Anna Nagar
\nNeighbourhood Scheme, rejected their request.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Now I shall consider the direction of this Court with  reference  to  the
\nresolution of the Housing Board.  In the order of the learned single Judge, it
\nis  stated  that  in  the  event of petitioners’ satisfying the requirement of
\nresolution 7 \/86 dated 2-7-86  passed  by  the  Housing  Board  on  making  an
\napplication  of the petitioners, the Housing Board shall consider such request
\nand take a decision in terms of the said resolution.   Admittedly,  resolution
\nNo.   7\/86  dated  2-7-86 has nothing to do w ith the acquisition proceedings.
\nThe correct resolution is No.  67\/6-86 dated 2-7-86  and  the  same  had  been
\npassed  in  respect  of  Valasarkam  Chennai  Scheme giving certain reliefs to
\npersons having constructed houses in the scheme area.  However, it  is  to  be
\nnoted  that  till  date the Government have not taken any decision or approved
\nthe said resolution.  In such a circumstance, inasmuch as no orders have  been
\npassed  so  far,  as  rightly  pointed  out, there is no legal sanctity on the
\nBoard’s resolution.  Merel  y  because  there  is  a  reference  to  the  said
\nresolution  in  the earlier orders, in the light of the fact that first of all
\nthe correct resolution had not been brought to the notice  of  the  Court  and
\nconsequently even the correct resolution yet to be approved or accepted by the
\nGovernment, there  is  no  legal  sanctity  on  the  said resolution.  Learned
\nAdditional Advocate General has also brought  to  my  notice  a  copy  of  the
\nresolution No.   67\/6-86 dated 2-7-86.  As stated earlier, the said resolution
\nrelates to th e lands acquired in Valasaravakkam village.  The  resolution  of
\nthe  Housing  Board  was  to  the  effect  that  the  entire extent of land in
\nValasaravakkam village notified  for  acquisition  as  per  declaration  under
\nSection 6 of the Act may be acquired inclusive o f building which have come up
\nafter  4  (1) Notification and that the administrative and development charges
\nmay be collected from the respective land  owners  after  allotting  the  same
\nunder ex-owners category to avoid unnecessary hardship.  No doubt, in the same
\nresolution,  it  is  stated  that  similar procedure may be adopted in various
\nTamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes.    The  Board  accepted  the  resolution  on
\n11-6-86.   However,  as rightly pointed out, the same has not been approved or
\naccepted by the Governmen t till date.  In the light of the said position  and
\ninasmuch  as  it is not a general resolution applicable to all the land owners
\nwhose lands were acquired by the Housing Board, I am  of  the  view  that  the
\nrespondents cannot be compelled to apply and implem ent the said resolution to
\nsome other scheme namely the Anna Nagar Scheme at Coimbatore.  Even otherwise,
\non  receipt of common and individual representations from the petitioners, the
\nHousing Department of Government of Tamil Nadu after getting report fr om  the
\nrequisitioning  body  regarding feasibility, came to the conclusion that since
\nthe petitioners’ lands are situated in the vantage point  in  the  Anna  Nagar
\nNeighbourhood  Scheme  and  that  the exclusion of their lands will affect the
\ncomprehensive nature of the scheme, rejected their request.  Though  Mr.    M.
\nVenkatachalapathy,  learned  senior  counsel for the petitioners has contended
\nthat the impugned order of the  Government  is  not  in  accordance  with  the
\nspecific  direction  of  the learned Judge, in the lig ht of the fact that the
\nresolution No.67\/6-86 dated 2-7-86 of the Housing Board  does  not  relate  to
\nAnna Nagar Scheme, Coimbatore, but it relates to Valasaravakkam scheme and not
\napproved  by the Government of Tamil Nadu till date, that the petitioners have
\ngiven representations not only to the Housing Board, but also to  the  Housing
\ndepartment  of  the  Government  of Tamil Nadu, and that the Government, after
\nconsidering all these aspects including the relevant facts and  circumstances,
\nhave  rejected  their representations, I do not find any substance in the said
\ncontention.  No doubt, even though the learned senior counsel has referred  to
\na Division Bench  decision  of  this  Court  in  State  of  T.N.  etc., v.  V.
\nPramela Rajaram  and  others  (1996  W.L.R.    761)  and  a  decision  of   K.
\nGovindarajan, J.    in  W.P.No.8512\/2000  dated  19-7-2000,  for the aforesaid
\nreasons, I am of the view that  the  direction  in  those  decisions  are  not
\nhelpful to the petitioners’ case.  I have already referred to the fact that in
\nthe  individual  representation,  the petitioners have prayed for exclusion of
\ntheir  lands  from  the  acquisition  proceedings,  and  only  in  the   joint
\nrepresentation they  made  a prayer for reconveyance.  I have already referred
\nto the fact that  this  Court  has  dismissed  their  earlier  writ  petitions
\nchallenging the  acquisition proceedings.  Though the Government have power to
\nexempt a particular land from the Scheme area, in the light of the  report  of
\nthe Housing Board that the exclusion of the petitioners’ land will affect t he
\ncomprehensive  nature  of  the scheme, I am of the view that this Court cannot
\nissue mandamus either to release or exempt the properties of  the  petitioners
\nas claimed  in these writ petitions.  Further, pursuant to the request made by
\nthe Botanical Survey  of  India  which  is  a  department  under  Ministry  of
\nEnvironment  and  Forests,  Union  of  India, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has
\nalloted lands to an extent of 2.09  Acres  at  Vadavalli  village,  Coimbatore
\nTaluk,  Coimbatore  and  the  Ministry  had paid a total sale consideration of
\nRs.1,25,42,964\/- and they have also taken possession of the allotted  premises
\nas early as on 8-3-2001.  Pursuant to the same, it is stated that the Ministry
\nare in the process of finalising tenders and at the stage of awarding the work
\nto  the  successful tenderer for the construction of residential accommodation
\nand because of the order of this Court, they are not in a  position  to  award
\ncontract to the successful tenderer.\n<\/p>\n
12.   In  the  light  of  what  is  stated  above,  I do not find any error or
\ninfirmity in the impugned proceedings of the  first  respondent;  consequently
\nboth the Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.  No costs.
\nThe interim stay  granted  in  W.M.P.No.    18118\/2001  is vacated.  W.M.P.No.
\n18119\/2001, W.V.M.P.Nos.  348 and 625 of 2002 are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:- Yes
\nInternet:- Yes
\nR.B.\n<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  State of Tamil Nadu,
\nrepresented by its Secretary,
\nHousing and Urban Development
\nDepartment, Fort St.  George,
\nChennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Special Tahsildar,
\nLand Acquisition,
\nHousing Scheme \u2013 II,
\nCoimbatore \u2013 18.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
\nrepresented by its Managing
\nDirector, Nandanam,
\nChennai-35.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Union of India,
\nMinistry of Environment and Forests,
\nrepresented by Executive Engineer,
\nCivil Engineering Division III,
\nCivil Construction Unit,
\nKoramangala, Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
P.  SATHASIVAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
Order in W.P.Nos.\n<\/p>\n
2076\/2000 and 12363\/2001
\nand
\nWMP Nos.  18118, 18119\/2001
\nWVMP Nos.  348 and 625\/2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 09\/08\/2002 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Writ Petition No. 2076 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 12363 of 2001 and W.M.P.Nos. 18118, 18119\/2001 and W.V.M.P.Nos.348 and 625 of 2002. W.P.No. […]<\/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-55343","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-24T15:04:52+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-24T15:04:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3000,\"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\\\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002\",\"name\":\"N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-24T15:04:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-24T15:04:52+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-24T15:04:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002"},"wordCount":3000,"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\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002","name":"N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-24T15:04:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ramasamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Ramasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55343","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=55343"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55343\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55343"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55343"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55343"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}