{"id":55964,"date":"2003-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003"},"modified":"2015-09-30T01:36:27","modified_gmt":"2015-09-29T20:06:27","slug":"chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 30\/04\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nWRIT PETITION No.15714 OF 1996\n\n\n1. Chinnayya Gounder\n2. Peria Kutti gounder\n3. Valliammal                   .. Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by its Secretary to Government,\n   Housing and Urban Development\n     Department, Madras 9.\n\n2. The Chairman,\n   The Tamil Nadu State Housing Board,\n   Nandanam, Madras 35.\n\n3. The Special Tahsildar (LA)\n   Housing Scheme No.II,\n   Collectorate, Coimbatore.            .. Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.S.S.  Sundar for\n                Mr.T.R. Rajaraman\n\nFor Respondents 1&amp;3:  Mrs.N.G.  Kalaiselvi\n                        Special Govt.  Pleader\nRespondent -2 :  Mr.D.  Veerasekaran\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-<br \/>\n        The  petitioners  are the owners of the properties in S.Nos.313\/1, 313<br \/>\n\/2, 313\/3, 313\/4, 314\/1 &amp; 314\/2 measuring 10.24 acres  in  Kalapatti  village.<br \/>\nNotification  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as  the  Act)  dated  25.2.1994  was  published  in  Gazette  on<br \/>\n27.4.1994.   Subsequently,  declaration under Section 6 was made on 27.6.1995.<br \/>\nThe  acquisition  is  challenged  by  raising  several  grounds,  namely   (1)<br \/>\ndeclaration  under  Section 6 of the Act was made beyond the stipulated period<br \/>\nof one year (2) notice under Section 5-A has not  been  served  in  accordance<br \/>\nwith  Section  45  of  the Act (3) there is violation of Rule 3(b) of the Land<br \/>\nAcquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules and report of the requisitioning authority  has<br \/>\nnot been  furnished.  Apart from these technical grounds, it is also contended<br \/>\nthat acquisition is contrary to the policy of the Government and  even  though<br \/>\nmany  of  the  constructed  flats promoted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had<br \/>\nremained unsold, mechanically without the application of mind, acquisition has<br \/>\nbeen made.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Point No.1:  There  is  no  dispute  that  4(1)  notification  was<br \/>\npublished  in  the Gazette on 27.4.1994 and was published in two newspapers on<br \/>\n28.4.1994.  Section 6 declaration was made on 27.6.1995.  In the format signed<br \/>\nby the Tahsildar and produced in Court at the time of  eharing,  it  had  been<br \/>\nshown  as  if  locality  publication  had  been  made on 1 0.06.1994 which was<br \/>\nobviously more than one year prior to the date of declaration under Section  6<br \/>\nsubsequently  however  in  the  counter,  which  has  been filed after several<br \/>\nadjournments and after the matter has been heard, the  respondents  have  come<br \/>\nout  with  an  assertion  that  the  substance  of  the  notification has been<br \/>\npublished in the locality  on  30.6.1994,  and  therefore,  declaration  under<br \/>\nSection 6  made  on  27.6.19  95  is  within  one  year.   The exact method of<br \/>\npublication of the substance in the locality has not been indicated.    It  is<br \/>\nnot  indicated as to whether it was published in the locality by beat of drums<br \/>\nor by affixing in conspicuous places.  The records, which have  been  produced<br \/>\nbelatedly,  only  show that the Format indicates that locality publication was<br \/>\nmade on 30.6.1994.  The rule contemplates that publication of notification  is<br \/>\nto  be  made  in  convenient  places  and  by  affixture  at the office of the<br \/>\nCollector.  But the records do not show the publication of  4(1)  notification<br \/>\nin the  Notice  Board of the Collector.  Rule 2 of the Rules provides that the<br \/>\nnotice should be published in convenient places.  There is no  clear  material<br \/>\non  record  to show that there has been such publication in convenient places.<br \/>\nWhen the Gazette was published on 27.4.1994 and the newspaper publication  was<br \/>\nmade  on  28 .4.1994, it defies logic and there is no reason as to whether the<br \/>\nso called publication was made on 30.6.1994, after expiry of about two months.<br \/>\nThis unusual delay creates doubt as there  was  any  locality  publication  on<br \/>\n30.6.1994  or  such  belated locality publication has been invented so as to<br \/>\nbring the declaration within  the  prescribed  period  of  limitation.    This<br \/>\nsuspicion  is  further  compounded  by the fact that in the counter affidavit,<br \/>\ndetails regarding locality publication have not been indicated and the records<br \/>\ndo not clearly indicate about the method of locality publication.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  In 1993 WLR 324 <a href=\"\/doc\/1649312\/\">(A.  VEMBULI NAICKER v.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU  REP.<br \/>\nBY  COMMISSIONER  AND  SECRETARY  TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT<br \/>\nDEPARTMENT AND OTHERS)<\/a> it has been held that substance of the notification  in<br \/>\nthe  locality  has  to  be  published  by  beat  of  drums and by affixture in<br \/>\nconvenient places.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Even though the right to property is no  longer  considered  as  a<br \/>\nfundamental  right  under  Article 300-A of the Constitution, a constitutional<br \/>\nright has been recognised to the effect that the person should not be deprived<br \/>\nof his property save under the authority of law.  Obviously law in the  matter<br \/>\nis Land Acquisition Act and the Rules made thereunder.  When a person is being<br \/>\ndeprived  of his right to property as recognised under Article 300-A, which is<br \/>\na constitutional right even though not  a  fundamental  right,  the  procedure<br \/>\ncontemplated under the law should be strictly followed and it must be shown by<br \/>\nthe  authority that the procedure contemplated under the Act or Rules has been<br \/>\ncomplied with.  In the absence of  any  clear  material  to  the  effect  that<br \/>\nlocality  publication  was  made  in accordance with the Rules contemplated on<br \/>\n30.6.1994, Section 6 declaration made  on  27.6.1994,  which  was  beyond  the<br \/>\nperiod  of  one year from the date of publication in Gazette or newspapers, it<br \/>\nhas to be held as barred by  the  law  of  limitation  as  contemplated  under<br \/>\nSection 6 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Point Nos.2 &amp; 3:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        These two  points  being  inter-related, are taken up together.  It is<br \/>\nthe case of the petitioner that even though objections have been filed by  the<br \/>\npetitioner, but thereafter no further opportunity has been given nor a copy of<br \/>\nthe reply  of the requisitioning authority has been supplied.  Learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the State has contended that since objection has not been  filed<br \/>\nwithin  30  days  from the date of notice, there was no necessity to forward a<br \/>\ncopy of the reply of the requisitioning authority.  In the  counter  affidavit<br \/>\nit  has  been  indicated  that  individual  notices  have  been  served on the<br \/>\npetitioners, but it is not specifically mentioned as to when  such  individual<br \/>\nnotices have  been  served.    From  pages 41 to 43, 45 7 49 of the records it<br \/>\nappear that notice to the petitioners was purportedly served by  affixture  in<br \/>\nsurvey stone.    In  course  of hearing, the learned counsel for the State has<br \/>\nsubmitted that since the petitioners  have  refused  to  receive  the  notice,<br \/>\nnotice was  served  by  affixture.  Apart from the fact that no such stand has<br \/>\nbeen taken in the counter affidavit, there is no available material on  record<br \/>\nthat in  fact the petitioner had refused to receive the notice.  Even assuming<br \/>\nthat the notice was refused, it is not understood  as  to  why  there  was  no<br \/>\naffixture of notice on the house of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   Apart  from the above aspects, it is the specific case of<br \/>\nthe petitioners that in the  notification  published  in  the  newspapers  the<br \/>\nauthority  before  whom  the land owners are required to file their objections<br \/>\nhad not been indicated.  Unless it is made known to the authority before  whom<br \/>\nthe  objections  are  to  be filed or which authority is going to inquire, the<br \/>\nconcerned affected land owners may not be able to file their objections within<br \/>\nthe stipulated time before the appropriate authority.  Since  the  publication<br \/>\nof  notification  itself was defective, the respondents cannot insist that the<br \/>\nobjection filed beyond 3 0 days should  be  ignored.    Almost  under  similar<br \/>\ncircumstances in Smt.Pown Ammal &amp; Others Vs.  State of Tamil Nadu rep.  by its<br \/>\nCommissioner  and  Secretary,  Social  Welfare  Department, Madras and Another<br \/>\n(1999( II) MLJ 283)  the  acquisition  proceeding  has  been  quashed  as  the<br \/>\npublication  did not reveal the authority before whom the objections are to be<br \/>\nfiled.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Admittedly the petitioner has  filed  objections,  wherein<br \/>\nthey have  contended  that  lay-out  plans have already been sanctioned.  Even<br \/>\nthough there may not be any legal bar to acquire the land after  layout  plans<br \/>\nwere  sanctioned,  it is for the competent authority to consider as to whether<br \/>\nit is appropriate to acquire such lands in respect of which lay out plans  had<br \/>\nbeen sanctioned.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to accept the contention of<br \/>\nthe  petitioners  that  mandatory  provisions  have  not been complied and the<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice had been violated.  In  view  of  the  aforesaid<br \/>\nreasonings,  the  land  acquisition  proceedings  are  to be quashed and it is<br \/>\nunnecessary to deal with other contentions raised by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  For the aforesaid reasons, the writ  petition  is  allowed<br \/>\nand the  land  acquisition proceedings are quashed.  There will be no order as<br \/>\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The pro-forma signed by the Special Tahsildar (Land  Acquisition)  and<br \/>\nfiled in course of hearing shall be kept on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>dpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The State of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nrep.  by its Secretary to Government,<br \/>\nHousing and Urban Development<br \/>\nDepartment, Madras 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Chairman,<br \/>\nThe Tamil Nadu State Housing Board,<br \/>\nNandanam, Madras 35.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Special Tahsildar (LA)<br \/>\nHousing Scheme No.II,<br \/>\nCollectorate, Coimbatore.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30\/04\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION No.15714 OF 1996 1. Chinnayya Gounder 2. Peria Kutti gounder 3. Valliammal .. Petitioners -Vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, [&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-55964","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - 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\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-29T20:06:27+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\\\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-29T20:06:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1358,\"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\\\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\",\"name\":\"Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-29T20:06:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - 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\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-29T20:06:27+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\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-29T20:06:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003"},"wordCount":1358,"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\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","name":"Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-29T20:06:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnayya-gounder-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chinnayya Gounder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/55964","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=55964"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55964\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}