{"id":59311,"date":"2011-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011"},"modified":"2016-04-29T14:38:22","modified_gmt":"2016-04-29T09:08:22","slug":"r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 18\/10\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.3887 of 2011\nW.P.(MD)No.3888 to 3897 of 2011\n\nR.Kannan\t\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3887 of 2011\n\nN.Ravi\t\t\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3888 of 2011\n\nN.Karuppaiah\t\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3889 of 2011\n\nG.Rajendran\t\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3890 of 2011\n\nMuthu\t\t\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3891 of 2011\n\nManickam\t\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3892 of 2011\n\nR.Sasivarnam\t\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3893 of 2011\n\nM.Raman\t\t\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3894 of 2011\n\nKarthikeya Rajadurai\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3895 of 2011\nR.Amsalakshmi\t\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3896 of 2011\n\nM.I.Arulandham\t\t\t... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t    W.P.No.3897 of 2011\n\nvs.\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   Rep. by its Secretary to Government\n     Industries,\n   Labour and Co-operation Department,\n   Secretariat,\n   Chennai.\n\n2.The Director,\n   Small Industries Development Corporation\n     (SIDCO), Thondi Road,\n   Sivaganga,\n   Sivaganga District.\t\t...  Respondents in all\n\t\t\t\t     the Writ Petitions.\n\nCOMMON PRAYER\n\nWrit Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st\nrespondent herein to exercise the power vested under Section 48-B read with\nSection 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition\n(Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 1996 (Tamil Nadu Act 16 of 1997) in the light of the\norder, dated 28.11.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.46292, 37302, 46288, 46286, 46289,\n46285, 38789, 46283, 46287, 46291, 46293 and 46290 of 2002 respectively on the\nfile of the Honourable High Court, Madras and by considering the applications\nsubmitted by the petitioners on 29.12.2009, 16.09.2004 and 21.06.2004\nrespectively.\n\n!For Petitioner\t  \t... Mr.B.S.Meltiue\n^For R -  1\t\t... Mr.M.Govindan,\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader.\nFor R - 2\t\t... Ms.T.Kaviya for\n(in all the WPs)\t    Mr.K.Mahendran\n\t\t\t\t               ******\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThe petitioners are having the second round of litigation. In the<br \/>\nearlier round of litigation, they filed writ petitions before the Principal Seat<br \/>\nin the year 2002 seeking to challenge the acquisition proceedings taken by the<br \/>\nState Government acquiring the petitioners&#8217; land in favour of Small Industries<br \/>\nDevelopment Corporation.  Those writ petitions came to be dismissed by this<br \/>\nCourt.  At that time, the petitioners contended that they were owners of the<br \/>\nland holding Cowle patta and possession was not taken over. But the seventh<br \/>\nrespondent therein, Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO), the second<br \/>\nrespondent herein appeared before this Court and informed that major portions of<br \/>\nthe land were utilized and as per the Government Policy, trees have been planted<br \/>\nand as and when necessary, such lands shall be utilized.  The counter affidavit<br \/>\nfiled by the SIDCO, the 7th respondent therein asserted that since they are the<br \/>\nrequisitioning body and compensation was paid and the writ petitions having been<br \/>\nfiled after a long period, the writ petitions were not maintainable.  This Court<br \/>\nafter recording the same held that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge<br \/>\nthe impugned acquisition made in favour of the SIDCO.  However, it was stated<br \/>\nthat if the land was not utilized, it is open to the petitioners to approach the<br \/>\nState Government by filing appropriate application under Section 48-B of the<br \/>\nLand Acquisition Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. It was pursuant to the observation made by the learned Judge, the<br \/>\npetitioners sent representations to the Small Industries Department seeking for<br \/>\nthe return of the land.  They also stated in the representation that the Revenue<br \/>\nDivisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer, Sivangai District have<br \/>\nrecommended their cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced a copy of an office<br \/>\nnote stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue<br \/>\nOfficer, Sivangai District have recommended their cases. But it is unfortunate<br \/>\nsuch a recommendation furnished by unauthorized authorities, for the purpose<br \/>\nexercising of power under Section 48-B is being produced.  It is very clear that<br \/>\nif the requisitioning body was not using the land for the purpose for which it<br \/>\nwas acquired and if such authority returned the land to the State Government and<br \/>\nthe State Government on taking a decision in respect of the utilisation of the<br \/>\nland for any other public purpose, then, if it is considered that the land<br \/>\nshould be returned to the original owners it may do so after recovering the<br \/>\ncompensation paid as well as the interest on the said amount.  The Revenue<br \/>\nDivisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer, Sivangai District have no<br \/>\nright over the said land as it had already given to SIDCO.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. When the matter came up on 01.04.2011, notice of motion was<br \/>\nordered in the writ petitions.  On behalf of the second respondent Ms.T.Kaviya,<br \/>\nrepresenting for Mr.K.Mahendran, learned counsel appeared and she stated that<br \/>\ntheir clients are utilizing the lands.  In the earlier round of litigation,<br \/>\ntheir stand was recorded by the learned Judge in the Principal Seat at Paragraph<br \/>\nNo.3 of the said order and it reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;3. The contentions raised by the petitioners have been resisted by the<br \/>\nlearned counsels appearing for the State Government as well as appearing for the<br \/>\nSmall Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO).  It is contended by them that<br \/>\npossession had been taken earlier and major portion of the land had been<br \/>\nutilized and in respect of other portion, as per the Government policy, trees<br \/>\nhave been planted and as and when necessary, such lands would be utilized.  It<br \/>\nis also been indicated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the<br \/>\ncontesting respondent\/SIDCO that compensation had been paid and at any rate, the<br \/>\nwrit petition having been filed after a long gap of about four decades, it<br \/>\nshould be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, there cannot be any second round of litigation to invoke the power<br \/>\nunder Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act 1984.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. In this context, it is necessary to refer certain decisions of<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court.  The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/617498\/\">Tamil Nadu Housing<br \/>\nBoard v. Keeravani Ammal and Ors<\/a> reported in 2007 (2) CTC 447 in paragraph 11<br \/>\nhad observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;Section 48-B introduced into the Act in the State of Tamil Nadu is an<br \/>\nexception to this rule. Such a provision has to be strictly construed and strict<br \/>\ncompliance with its terms insisted upon. Whether such a provision can be<br \/>\nchallenged for its validity, we are not called upon to decide here.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/679914\/\">Tamil Nadu Housing Board v.<br \/>\nL.Chandrasekaran and Ors<\/a> reported in 2010 (2) SCC 786, dealt with the scope of<br \/>\nSection 48-B and has considered all the cases arising out of reconveyance. In<br \/>\nparagraphs 28 and 29, it was observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;28. It need no emphasis that in exercise of power under Section 48-B of<br \/>\nthe Act, the Government can release the acquired land only till the same<br \/>\ncontinues to vest in it and that too if it is satisfied that the acquired land<br \/>\nis not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public<br \/>\npurpose.  To put it differently, if the acquired land has already been<br \/>\ntransferred to other agency, the Government cannot exercise power under Section<br \/>\n48-B of the Act and re-convey the same to the original owner.  In any case, the<br \/>\nGovernment cannot be compelled to re-convey the land to the original owner if<br \/>\nthe same can be utilized for  any public purpose other than the one for which it<br \/>\nwas acquired.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Emphasis added)<\/p>\n<p>\t29. Before concluding, we may notice the judgment of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/617498\/\">Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal<\/a> (supra). The question considered in that<br \/>\ncase was whether the Division Bench of the High Court could direct release of<br \/>\nthe acquired land which had been transferred to the appellant-Board. While<br \/>\nsetting aside the impugned order, this Court observed: (SCC pp.261-62, paras 13-\n<\/p>\n<p>16)<br \/>\n&#8220;13.It is clearly pleaded by the State and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board that the<br \/>\nscheme had not been suspended or abandoned and that the lands acquired are very<br \/>\nmuch needed for the implementation of the scheme and the steps in that regard<br \/>\nhave already been taken. In the light of this position, it is not open to the<br \/>\nCourt to assume that the project has been abandoned merely because another piece<br \/>\nof land in the adjacent village had been released from acquisition in the light<br \/>\nof orders of the Court. It could not be assumed that the whole of the project<br \/>\nhad been abandoned or has become unworkable. It depends upon the purpose for<br \/>\nwhich the land is acquired. As we see it, we find no impediment in the lands in<br \/>\nquestion being utilised for the purpose of putting up a multi-storied building<br \/>\ncontaining small flats, intended as the public purpose when the acquisition was<br \/>\nnotified. Therefore, the High Court clearly erred in proceeding as if the scheme<br \/>\nstood abandoned. This was an unwarranted assumption on the part of the Court,<br \/>\nwhich has no foundation in the pleadings and the materials produced in the case.<br \/>\nThe Court should have at least insisted on production of materials to<br \/>\nsubstantiate a claim of abandonment.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.We have already noticed that in the writ petition, there are no sufficient<br \/>\nallegations justifying interference by the Court. Mere claim of possession by<br \/>\nthe writ petitioners is not a foundation on which the relief now granted could<br \/>\nhave been rested either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of<br \/>\nthe High Court. On the materials, no right to relief has been established by the<br \/>\nwrit petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.We may also notice that once a piece of land has been duly acquired under the<br \/>\nLand Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State. The State can<br \/>\ndispose of the property thereafter or convey it to anyone, if the land is not<br \/>\nneeded for the purpose for which it was acquired, only for the market value that<br \/>\nmay be fetched for the property as on the date of conveyance. The doctrine of<br \/>\npublic trust would disable the State from giving back the property for anything<br \/>\nless than the market value. <a href=\"\/doc\/943108\/\">In State of Kerala v. M.Bhaskaran Pillai<\/a>  (1997) 5<br \/>\nSCC 432 in a similar situation, this Court observed : (SCC p.433, para 4)<br \/>\n&#8220;4&#8230;..The question emerges whether the Government can assign the land to the<br \/>\nerstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public<br \/>\npurpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be<br \/>\nused for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for<br \/>\nwhich the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the<br \/>\nerstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched<br \/>\nin the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in<br \/>\nthe Directive Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find<br \/>\nis that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act<br \/>\nand is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is<br \/>\nwell justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. Whatever assignment<br \/>\nis made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government<br \/>\nshould be sold only through the public auctions so that the public also gets<br \/>\nbenefited by getting a higher value.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>16.Section 48-B introduced into the Act in the State of Tamil Nadu is an<br \/>\nexception to this rule. Such a provision has to be strictly construed and strict<br \/>\ncompliance with its terms insisted upon. Whether such a provision can be<br \/>\nchallenged for its validity, we are not called upon to decide here. &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> \t\t8. In view of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the<br \/>\nwrit petitions. Hence, these writ petitions stand dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>vsm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary,<br \/>\n   Government of Tamil Nadu Industries,<br \/>\n   Labour and Co-operation Department,<br \/>\n   Secretariat,<br \/>\n   Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Director,<br \/>\n   Small Industries Development Corporation<br \/>\n     (SIDCO), Thondi Road,<br \/>\n   Sivaganga,<br \/>\n   Sivaganga District.\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18\/10\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.3887 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.3888 to 3897 of 2011 R.Kannan &#8230; Petitioner in W.P.No.3887 of 2011 N.Ravi &#8230; Petitioner in W.P.No.3888 of 2011 N.Karuppaiah &#8230; Petitioner in [&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-59311","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>R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011 - 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\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-29T09:08:22+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-29T09:08:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1699,\"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\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011\",\"name\":\"R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-29T09:08:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011 - 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\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-29T09:08:22+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-29T09:08:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011"},"wordCount":1699,"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\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011","name":"R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-29T09:08:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Kannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2011"}]},{"@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\/59311","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=59311"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59311\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}