{"id":58620,"date":"2010-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-06T18:36:14","modified_gmt":"2018-08-06T13:06:14","slug":"s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:  08\/07\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL\n\nWrit Petition (MD)No.4753 of 2010\n\nS.Palanichamy Goundar\t\t...\tPetitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.  The District Collector,\n    Theni District.\n\n2.  The Commissioner\n    Village Panchayat Union,\n    Chinnamanur, Theni District.\n\n3.  The President,\n    Pulikuthy Village Panchayat,\n    Pulikutthy, Theni District.\n\n4.  The Assistant Divisional Engineer,\n    Highways Department,\n    Bodinayakkanur,\n    Theni District.\t\t...\tRespondents\n\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for\nthe issuance of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the third respondent from putting\nup bus shelter or any other construction in S.No.92\/2AO, Pulikkuthy Village in\nUthammapalayam Taluk in theni District, obstructing petitioner's access to the\nChinnapuram Sankarapuram  Highway from his property situated in S.No.92\/2AL.\n\n\n!For petitioner  ... Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan\n^For respondents ... Mr.R.Manoharan\n\tR-1 &amp; R4     Government Advocate\n\tR-2\t     Mr.Ajmal Khan\n\tR-3\t     Mr.So.Paramasivam\n\t\t     Government Advocate\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner is the absolute owner of the property comprised in<br \/>\nS.No.92\/2AL in Pulikutthy Village, Uthammapalayam Taluk, Theni District.  The<br \/>\nsaid property is situated on the west adjoining Chinnamanur-Sankarapuram Rural<br \/>\nHighway. The petitioner has made a construction in the said property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The third respondent President of Pulikutthy Village Panchayat started<br \/>\nputting up a bus shelter on the margin of the highway.  The petitioner would<br \/>\nsubmit that obstruction made by way of constructing a bus shelter is not<br \/>\npermissible. He asserts his right to have access to the highway from any part of<br \/>\nhis property.  Alleging that the bus shelter put up by the third respondent has<br \/>\naffected the right to have an access to the highway, the petitioner has filed<br \/>\nthe Writ Petition directing the third respondent not to put up a bus shelter on<br \/>\nthe highway margin.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the<br \/>\nprovision under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 would submit that<br \/>\nthe State Highways Authority may grant permission to put up any temporary<br \/>\nstructure with the concurrence of the Collector. But, in this case, there is no<br \/>\nmaterial to show that the Collector gave concurrence to the Highways Authority<br \/>\nto permit the third respondent to put up a bus shelter.  Referring to Section<br \/>\n127 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner would submit that the Village Panchayat is bound to obtain previous<br \/>\nconsent of the highways department even to break up the soil on the public road<br \/>\nbelonging to the highways department.  No previous sanction was obtained in this<br \/>\ncase by the third respondent from the highways department to put up a<br \/>\nconstruction on the highway margin.  Referring to the proceedings of the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent dated 05.04.2010, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nwould submit that the fourth respondent had in fact plunged into action, on<br \/>\ncoming to know that the third respondent has started putting up a bus shelter in<br \/>\nfront of the property of the petitioner.  Referring to a couple of decisions of<br \/>\nthis Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the<br \/>\npetitioner, who has his property by the side of the highways, is entitled to<br \/>\nhave access to the highway from all the points of his property.  Therefore, he<br \/>\nwould submit that the petitioner has made out a case as against the third<br \/>\nrespondent and therefore, the third respondent shall be restrained from putting<br \/>\nup bus shelter in front of the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit referring to<br \/>\nthe subsequent order passed by the fourth respondent that the fourth respondent<br \/>\nhas virtually no objection for putting up a bus shelter by the third respondent.<br \/>\nIt is his further submission that the fourth respondent was pleased to revise<br \/>\nthe earlier stand taken and permit the third respondent to put up a<br \/>\nconstruction.  It is his further submission that the Collector has allotted<br \/>\nsufficient funds for the construction of the bus shelter.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nCollector has also got no objection for putting up a bus shelter on the road<br \/>\nmargin of the highway.  He would also submit that there are about six feet<br \/>\npathway leading to the property of the petitioner from the highways.  Only after<br \/>\nthe encroachments were successfully removed by the third respondent, the bus<br \/>\nshelter is being constructed to fulfil the wishes of the villagers.  It is his<br \/>\nfurther submission that Section 127 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994 and<br \/>\nSection 26 of the State highways Act will have no application to the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of this case, it is submitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and<br \/>\n4 would submit that they have virtually no objection for the third respondent to<br \/>\nput up a bus shelter on the road margin of the highways.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Chapter 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 deals with prevention of<br \/>\nunauthorised occupation of, an encroachment on, a highway and removal of<br \/>\nencroachment.  Section 26 of the Said Act specifically deals with the steps to<br \/>\nbe taken by the highways authority to prevent unauthorised occupation of the<br \/>\nhighway.  Only in that context, the said section says that no person shall<br \/>\noccupy or encroach on any highway within highway boundaries.  The highways<br \/>\nauthority empowers to grant permission on temporary basis to put up any<br \/>\nconstruction, of course, with the concurrence of the Collector.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The highways maintained by the Tamil Nadu Highways department caters to<br \/>\nthe needs of the public, who commutes through the highways.  The highways<br \/>\ndepartment which caters to the needs of the passengers, who travel by bus,<br \/>\nshould have put up some bus shelters in the interest of the public.  But, it<br \/>\nappears that the highways department has not put up any such structure on the<br \/>\nmargin of the highways.  The third respondent, it appears, has taken initiative<br \/>\nsensing the requirement of the public and their convenience to put up a bus<br \/>\nshelter on the road margin of the highways.  The construction of a bus shelter<br \/>\nmight have been started without the initial concurrence of the highways<br \/>\nauthority. The initial proceedings issued by the highways department on<br \/>\n05.04.2010 would go to show that the fourth respondent Tamil Nadu Highways<br \/>\ndepartment had some objections in putting up bus shelter by the third respondent<br \/>\nwithout getting due permission from it. But the proceedings of the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent subsequently issued on 21.04.2010 would go to show that the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent has issued no objection certificate for the third respondent to put<br \/>\nup bus shelter on the highways road margin.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. It is not as if the highways authority shall give permission to a<br \/>\nperson only after obtaining written permission from the Collector.  The<br \/>\nconcurrence of the Collector would suffice.  In this matter, it is brought to<br \/>\nthe notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the third<br \/>\nrespondent that the bus shelter is put up only with the fund earmarked from and<br \/>\nout of MLA constituency development fund by the first respondent Collector.<br \/>\nThough the proceedings of the Collector does not specifically refer to the<br \/>\nlocation where the bus shelter should be put up, we can easily draw inference<br \/>\nthat the Collector had in fact allocated this fund only for putting up a bus<br \/>\nshelter on the highways margin, as no objection had emanated from the Collector<br \/>\nso far. The Collector, who had allocated such funds would have visited the<br \/>\nplaces of construction to verify as to whether such constructions are really<br \/>\nmade out of the fund allotted for the said purposes.  Therefore, only with the<br \/>\nblessings of the first respondent, it appears that the bus shelter is being<br \/>\nconstructed on the road margin of the highways.  Even at the stage when the<br \/>\nmatter is taken up for arguments, the Collector has not objected to the<br \/>\nconstruction being made by the third respondent with the fund allocated by the<br \/>\nCollector from the MLA constituency development fund.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. A bus shelter, whether it is temporary or permanent in nature, can be<br \/>\nput up only with a pucca roof in order to accommodate the passengers to take<br \/>\nshelter over there.  If at all the highways authority finds in future that such<br \/>\na construction in any way endangers the safety and convenience to the traffic,<br \/>\nit has the power to cancel the permission granted to the third respondent to put<br \/>\nup bus shelter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent rightly brought<br \/>\nto the notice of this Court that the third respondent is not putting up any<br \/>\nconstruction for his personal use. The third respondent being the responsible<br \/>\nPanchayat President is putting up bus shelter for the convenience of the public.<br \/>\nThe public interest shall always outweigh the private interest of an individual.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\ncited a decision of this Court in KVK.Janarthanan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nrepresented by the Collector of Salem, etc and 3 others reported in 1995 (1) LW<br \/>\n451, wherein it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;It has been repeatedly held that the owner of the land adjoining the<br \/>\npublic street has got a right of access at eery point where his or her land<br \/>\nadjoins public street.  In view of the above ratio, the fencing of an iron fence<br \/>\nput up between the land of the petitioner and that of the suit cart track is<br \/>\nillegal and on that ground alone the petitioners are entitled to an order of<br \/>\ninjunction as prayed for. &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In the case cited supra, it appears that an iron fence was put up<br \/>\nbetween the lane of the petitioner therein and the suit cart track, which was<br \/>\nrunning abetting the lane of the petitioner.  The petitioner in that said case<br \/>\ncould not have access to the suit cart track which was in common use.  Under<br \/>\nsuch circumstances, it was held that the owner of the adjoining property cannot<br \/>\nbe prevented from having access to the public cart track by fencing the ridge of<br \/>\nthe cart track.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In Melagaram Town Panchayat represented by its Administrative Officer,<br \/>\nTenkasi vs. Roman Catholic Mission Sarveswaran Tiruchabai, St. Michael<br \/>\nAthiluthar Thiruchabai represented by Rev.Father, Tenkasi reported in 2007 (6)<br \/>\nMLJ 1642, a learned Single Judge of this Court referring to the earlier decision<br \/>\nlaid down by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1880539\/\">Dhamodhar Naidu and others vs. Thirupurasundari Ammal<br \/>\nand<\/a> another (85 LW 381) held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;24.The defendant has no right to construct a wall on the northern boundary of<br \/>\nT.S.No.1784 and S.No.1770 of 2002 from east to west so as to prevent the<br \/>\nplaintiff, his lessees and others claiming under him from having access to the<br \/>\npublic street.  The endeavours of the defendant Municipality to construct a wall<br \/>\nfrom east to west on the southern boundary of the plaintiff&#8217;s property and the<br \/>\nnorthern boundary of the public street so as to prevent the plaintiff and his<br \/>\nman having access to the public street is not motivated by any interest of the<br \/>\npublic, and is mala fide.  The defendant has no right to collect any licence fee<br \/>\nfrom the plaintiff or his lessee for having access to the public street.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. In the said case referred to above, the Municipality put up a wall on<br \/>\nthe public street completely preventing the plaintiff therein from having access<br \/>\nto the public street.  Further, the act of the Municipality was also found to be<br \/>\nmala fide one.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. Of course, it is a well settled proposition of law that a person, who<br \/>\nowns a property abetting public road is entitled to have access to the public<br \/>\nroad from all the points of his property.  But such a principle cannot be<br \/>\nextended to a situation where a bus shelter for the convenience of the public is<br \/>\nconstructed on the highway margin with the blessings of the highway authority.<br \/>\nIf the aforesaid general proposition is out stretched to cover such a situation<br \/>\nalso, no bus shelter can be constructed on the margin of the highways as the<br \/>\nowners of the property abetting the highways will definitely raise objections to<br \/>\nput up any bus shelter on the margin of the highway.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. It is not as if all the access to the highway road available to the<br \/>\npetitioner was completely blocked by putting up a bus shelter.  It is brought to<br \/>\nthe notice of this Court that a six feet width of pathway has been left open for<br \/>\nthe petitioner to have access to the highways. There may be some inconvenience<br \/>\nfor the petitioner to have access to the highway from one of the points of his<br \/>\nproperty but in the larger interest of the public, the petitioner has to put up<br \/>\nwith such inconvenience.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the third<br \/>\nrespondent Section 127 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994 will have no<br \/>\napplication to the facts and circumstances of the case.  The said provision<br \/>\nwould apply only where the Village panchayat in the process of maintaining a<br \/>\ndrainage alongside the highways road or maintaining or repairing the foot-paths,<br \/>\nbreaks up the soil on the highways road. Only in such cases previous consent of<br \/>\nthe highways department as contemplated under Section 127 of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nPanchayats Act 1994 would be required.  Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994 does not<br \/>\ncontemplate obtention of permission from the highways department in case the<br \/>\nvillage panchayat proposes to put up a bus shelter on the highways margin.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the third respondent continued to put up a construction even after an order<br \/>\nof stay was granted by this Court.  But the fact remains that the third<br \/>\nrespondent stopped the entire construction the moment a notice was served on<br \/>\nhim. No tangible material has been placed before this Court to establish that<br \/>\nthe third respondent continued to put up construction even after he was posted<br \/>\nof the fact that an order of stay was granted by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Court finds that the<br \/>\nact of the third respondent is completely motivated by public interest, and<br \/>\ntherefore, no malafide can be attributed to the third respondent.  As it is<br \/>\nfound that the third respondent goes ahead with the construction of the bus<br \/>\nshelter with the blessings of the highways department as well as the District<br \/>\nCollector, no direction can be issued as sought for by the petitioner<br \/>\nrestraining the third respondent from putting up the bus shelter on the extreme<br \/>\nroad margin of the highways road.  The petitioner has in fact not made out a<br \/>\ncase.  Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.  No costs.  Consequently<br \/>\nconnected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>RR\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The District Collector,<br \/>\n    Theni District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Commissioner<br \/>\n    Village Panchayat Union,<br \/>\n    Chinnamanur, Theni District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The President,<br \/>\n    Pulikuthy Village Panchayat,<br \/>\n    Pulikutthy, Theni District.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Assistant Divisional Engineer,<br \/>\n    Highways Department,<br \/>\n    Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08\/07\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL Writ Petition (MD)No.4753 of 2010 S.Palanichamy Goundar &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector, Theni District. 2. The Commissioner Village Panchayat Union, Chinnamanur, Theni District. 3. The [&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-58620","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>S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-06T13:06:14+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-06T13:06:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2311,\"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\\\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010\",\"name\":\"S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-06T13:06:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-06T13:06:14+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-06T13:06:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010"},"wordCount":2311,"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\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010","name":"S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-06T13:06:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-palanichamy-goundar-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Palanichamy Goundar vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58620","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=58620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}