{"id":64766,"date":"2006-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006"},"modified":"2014-02-23T23:21:35","modified_gmt":"2014-02-23T17:51:35","slug":"arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED:  09\/08\/2006\n\n\nCORAM\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. VENKATARAMAN\n\n\nWrit Petition (MD) No. 9827 of 2005\n\n\n\nArokiaraj\t\t\t\t...\tAppellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n1. The District Collector,\n    Tiruchirappalli.\n\n2. The District Revenue  Officer,\n    Tiruchirappalli.\n\n3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n    Tiruchirappalli.\n\n4. The Tahsildar,\n    Srirengam Taluk Office,\n    Srirengam, Tiruchi.2.\t\n\n\n5. The Commissioner,\n     Manikandam Panchayat Union,\n     Manikandam, Trichy.\n\n6. Munian\n7. Mayilvahanam\n8. Richard\n9. P. Rengasamy\n10. P. Oppaye\n11. Periyasamy\n12. Pilavendra Raja\n13. K. Muthusamy\n14. c. Savarimuthu\n15. S. Thomas\n16. Savarimuthu\t\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\n\n\n\tWrit petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India\nto issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to initiate proceedings\nto cancel the patta unlawfully given to the respondents  6 to 16 and direct the\nrespondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachments made by the respondents made by\nthe respondents 6 to 16 in the 'sengulam' pond situate in S.No. 365 Alundur\nVillage, Manikandam Panchayat Union, Srirengam Taluk, Trichy District.\n\n\n!For Appellant    \t...\tMr. J. Maria roseline\n\n\n^For Respondent\t\t...\tMr. M. Rajarajan - R1 to R5\n\t\t\t\tGovt. Advocate\n\t\t\t\tMr. K. Mahendran - R5\n\t\t\t\tMr. P. Kanagaraj - R6,7,10 &amp; 12 to 15\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>( Judgment of the Court was<br \/>\n delivered by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.,)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis is a public interest litigation.  The petitioner, who is one of<br \/>\nthe  Ayyacattudars of water body by name Sengulam situated at S.F.No. 365 at<br \/>\nAlundur Village of Manikandam Panchayat Union, Trichy, seeks for the issuance of<br \/>\na Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to initiate proceedings to<br \/>\ncancel the patta unlawfully issued to respondents 6 to 16 and also direct the<br \/>\nrespondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachments made by the respondents  6 to 16<br \/>\nin Sengulam situated in S.F.No. 365 Alundur Village, Manikandam Panchayat Union,<br \/>\nSrirangam Taluk, Trichy District.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.  According to the petitioner, the water body of Sengulam has been<br \/>\nclassified as such in the revenue records  of Alundur  Village which originally<br \/>\nspread over to an extent of 29 hectares equal to 61.5 ares which was<br \/>\nsubsequently curtailed and brought down to 19 hectares equal to 45.5 ares.   It<br \/>\nis stated that the said water body was the main source of supply of water for<br \/>\ncultivation to  the Ayacutdars in and around the said pond.  It is also stated<br \/>\nthat by virtue of the encroachments allowed to  take place even at the instances<br \/>\nof the revenue authorities, about 40% of the pond was ceased to be of a water<br \/>\nbody and such encroachers were allowed to raise Karuvelan trees, which has<br \/>\nconsequently affected the water storage facility in the pond.\tAs a sequence<br \/>\nto such an encroachment and depletion in the water storage facility, the ayacut<br \/>\nlands stated to have become dry lands (Tharisu) and thereby forcing the<br \/>\nAyacutdars to give up cultivation.  That apart, it is also stated that because<br \/>\nof the shrinkage of the water body pursuant to the encroachment, the water table<br \/>\nin and around the said village is also stated to have been gone down to a<br \/>\nconsiderable extent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.  Having regard to above factors and since the efforts of the<br \/>\nayacatdars as well as the steps taken by the local panchayat viz., Manikandam<br \/>\nPanchayat Union, not having yielded desired results to remove the encroachments,<br \/>\nthe petitioner, as one of the Ayacutdars, has come forward with the present writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.  In this writ petition, notice was ordered as early as<br \/>\n28.10.2005.  Neither the respondents 1 to 5 nor the alleged encroachers viz.,<br \/>\nrespondents 6 to 16 have come forward with any counter affidavit till this date.<br \/>\nIn fact, when the writ petition came up for hearing on 12.7.2006, two weeks time<br \/>\nwas granted for filing counter by the respondents.  Again, since no counter was<br \/>\nfiled, the writ petition was adjourned by two more weeks on 26.7.2006 as a last<br \/>\nchance for  filing counter.  But, no counter has been filed on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondents 1 to 5 or by respondents 6,7.10,12 to 15.  Though respondents 8,9<br \/>\nand 11 were served, they failed to appear either in person or through  counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.   According to the learned counsel for the respondents 6,7.10 and<br \/>\n12 to 15, they were assigned with the lands situated in S.F.365 in the year 1971<br \/>\nafter classifying those lands as &#8216;waste lands&#8217; and that the respondents have<br \/>\ndeveloped those lands by growing certain fire wood trees and  therefore, any<br \/>\nattempt to remove those respondents from the lands in question, would cause<br \/>\nprejudice to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned<br \/>\nGovernment Advocate, Mr. Mahendran, learned counsel for the 5th respondent as<br \/>\nwell as the learned counsel for respondents 6,7,10 and 12 to 15 and having<br \/>\nperused the material documents placed before the Court, we find that in the<br \/>\nrevenue map of Alundur village, the land situated in S.F.No. 365 has been<br \/>\ndescribed as Sengulam with the depth of six feet. The  total extent of land has<br \/>\nbeen mentioned as 29 Hectares  equal to 61.5 ares.  Similarly, in the revenue<br \/>\nrecords also, the lands situated in S.F.No. 365 has been described as Sengulam<br \/>\nand the extent of which  has been shown as 29 hectares  equal to 61.5 ares.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.  However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who  has<br \/>\nproduced subsequent sub-divided revenue records  wherein S.F.No. 365 has been<br \/>\nsub divided as 365\/1 to 17 in  which S.F.No. 365\/1 alone has been described as<br \/>\nSengulam and the concerned water body is an extent of 19 hectares and 45.5.<br \/>\nares.  The remaining sub-divided lands in S.F.No. 365 have been shown in the<br \/>\nname of different individuals while the lands in S.F.No. 365\/9 have been<br \/>\ndescribed as &#8216;Panjai tharisu&#8217;.   The material papers also disclose the<br \/>\nrepresentations made by the local villagers in the year 1997 to the first<br \/>\nrespondent as well as the representation of the panchayat union President of<br \/>\nManikandam to the first respondent in December 1999.  The resolution of the<br \/>\nPanchayat Union specifically mentioned that efforts should be taken to restore<br \/>\nthe Sengulam water body to its full extent by removing the encroachments.<br \/>\nThereafter, the Ayacutdars have also made a representation to the respondents 1<br \/>\nto 5 .  In their representation dated 23.7.2005 they have explained in detail as<br \/>\nto how the encroachments into the water body of Sengulam has seriously affected<br \/>\nthe water storage facility which inturn affected the cultivation of Aycutdars.<br \/>\nThe Ayacatdars, therefore, pleaded with  the respondents 1 to 5 for removal of<br \/>\nencroachments made in Sengulam and for restoration of the water body to its full<br \/>\nextent.  Though on behalf of the respondents 6,7,10 and 12 to 15, it was<br \/>\ncontended that valid assignments have been made in their favour, neither the<br \/>\nrespondents 1 to 5 nor the respondents 6 to 16 have placed before this Court any<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence in support of the said claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.  Even assuming that any such assignment came to be made in the<br \/>\nyear 1971, such action would be in contravention of the constitutional mandate<br \/>\nin respect of the protection and maintenance of the water bodies as has been<br \/>\nstipulated under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India.  The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt has made a stress on Article 51-A of the Constitution of India and has<br \/>\nheld in the decision reported in M.C.MEHTA &#8211; Vs. &#8211; UNION OF INDIA, 1997, (3) SCC<br \/>\n715 as well as in the decision reported in  HINCH LAL TIWARI &#8211; Vs.- KAMALA DEVI<br \/>\nAND OTHERS (2001,(6) SCC 496 that every efforts should be taken to maintain such<br \/>\nwater bodies and other environments in the interest of public at large.   The<br \/>\nwordings of the Supreme Court in para-13 of the said decision that material<br \/>\nresources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc.<br \/>\nare nature&#8217;s bounty and since they maintain delicate ecological balance, they<br \/>\nneed to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which would enable the<br \/>\npeople to enjoy a quality life which in turn is the essence of the guaranteed<br \/>\nright under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.  Again, in the decision reported in M.C. MEHTA &#8211; Vs. &#8211; UNION OF<br \/>\nINDIA (1997, 3, S.C.C.715) , the Honourable Supreme Court while making a stress<br \/>\non Article 51(A)(g) of the Constitution of India held that those provisions give<br \/>\nclear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to<br \/>\nsafeguard the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers etc., The<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has held as under in para-10:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8221; We have no hesitation in holding that in order to protect the two lakes<br \/>\nfrom environmental degradation, it is necessary to limit the construction<br \/>\nactivity in the close vicinity of the lakes&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of even holding that the<br \/>\nconstruction activities even in the close vicinity of the lakes should be<br \/>\nlimited in order to protect such water bodies.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.  The above said decisions were followed by a Division Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court in the decision reported in L. KRISHNAN &#8211; Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU<br \/>\nREP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (LAND DEVELOPMENT), CHENNAI. (2005<br \/>\n(4) C.T.C. P.1), wherein the Division Bench has issued a Mandamus to the State<br \/>\nGovernment to restore all water bodies to its original position by removing<br \/>\nwhatever illegal encroachments are found  by taking appropriate steps in<br \/>\naccordance with relevant provisions of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.  Therefore, the encroachments into the present water body viz.,<br \/>\nSengulam situated in S.F.No. 365 Alundur Village, Manigandam Panchayat Union,<br \/>\nSrirangam Taluk, Trichi District has to be restored to its original position by<br \/>\nthe respondents 1 to 5.  There is no ground saying that  part of the water body<br \/>\nhas been assigned in favour of respondents 6 to 16.  Such assignment being<br \/>\nwholly illegal, any encroachment on the part of the respondents 6 to 16 have to<br \/>\nbe removed and the water body is to be restored to its original extent of 29<br \/>\nhectares equal to 61.5 ares.  We, therefore, direct the respondents 1 to 5 to<br \/>\ntake appropriate steps for the removal of the encroachments by any one including<br \/>\nrespondents 6 to 16 by taking appropriate recourse to law.  Such exercise should<br \/>\nbe carried out by respondents 1 to 5 expeditiously, preferably, within a period<br \/>\nof three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 12.  This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.  No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The District Collector,<br \/>\n    Tiruchirappalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The District Revenue  Officer,<br \/>\n    Tiruchirappalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,<br \/>\n    Tiruchirappalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The Tahsildar,<br \/>\n    Srirengam Taluk Office,<br \/>\n    Srirengam, Tiruchi.2.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The Commissioner,<br \/>\n     Manikandam Panchayat Union,<br \/>\n     Manikandam, Trichy.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09\/08\/2006 CORAM The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice K. VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No. 9827 of 2005 Arokiaraj &#8230; Appellant Vs. 1. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli. 2. [&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-64766","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006 - 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\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-23T17:51:35+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-23T17:51:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1505,\"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\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-23T17:51:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006 - 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\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-23T17:51:35+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-23T17:51:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006"},"wordCount":1505,"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\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006","name":"Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-23T17:51:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arokiaraj-vs-the-district-collector-on-9-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arokiaraj vs The District Collector on 9 August, 2006"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/64766","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=64766"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64766\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64766"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64766"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64766"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}