{"id":69077,"date":"2009-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-25T04:44:55","modified_gmt":"2016-01-24T23:14:55","slug":"p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 08\/12\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n\nW.P.(MD)No.7494 of 2009\nand\nM.P.No.2 of 2009\n\nP.K.Subramanian\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner.\n\nVersus\n\n1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\nR.D.O.Office,\nPalani, Dindigul District.\n\n2.The Tahsildhar,\nTahsildhar Office,\nOttanchathiram,\nOttanchathiram Taluk,\nDindigul District.\n\n3.The Deputy Tahsildar,\nTaluk Office,\nOttanchathiram,\nOttanchathiram Taluk,\nDindigul District.\n\n4.Veluchamy\n5.Naresh\n6.M.Renganayagi\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents.\n\nPRAYER\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying\nfor a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the\n2nd respondent's proceedings made in Na.Ka.No.553\/2009\/Aa2, dated 22.7.2009,\nquash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the Patta\nTransfer appeal proceedings in C.P.No.27 of 2006, in the petitioner's presence,\nwithin a stipulated period, as may be fixed by the Hon'ble Court.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Sundar\n^For Respondents... Mr.D.Gandhi Raj (R1 to R3)\n\t\t    Government Advocate\n\t\t      Mr.A.Natarajan\n\t\t    (Senior counsel) (R4 &amp; R5)\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels<br \/>\nappearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The petitioner has stated that the properties situated, in<br \/>\nS.F.Nos.171\/3, 171\/4, 69\/1, 69\/9A and 69\/9B in Veeralapatti Village,<br \/>\nOttanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District, belongs to the 4th and the 6th<br \/>\nrespondents. The sixth respondent&#8217;s husband, namely, Murugesan, had filed a suit<br \/>\nin O.S.No.229 of 1975, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani, as<br \/>\nagainst the 4th respondent, his father Ellappa Naicker and his mother,<br \/>\nMuthammal, praying for the relief of partition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. During the pendency of the said suit, a compromise had been recorded,<br \/>\namongst the parties and it was passed as a decree, in I.A.No.1358 of 1980, on<br \/>\n23.7.1980. Since the husband of the sixth respondent was not satisfied with the<br \/>\ncompromise, he had filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Dindigul, in A.S.No.124<br \/>\nof 1980, in which the said compromise had been set aside and the matter was<br \/>\nremanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Since there was no<br \/>\nrepresentation on behalf of the plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed for default,<br \/>\non 13.2.1995. Thereafter, no action was initiated to restore the said suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. In the meantime, Murugesan, had executed a settlement deed, on<br \/>\n4.9.2003, in favour of the sixth respondent, with regard to his portions alone.<br \/>\nThe said settlement deed was acted upon and the sixth respondent had got his<br \/>\nshare by virtue of the settlement deed. Thereafter, the sixth respondent had<br \/>\napplied for patta, with regard to her portions, before the third respondent. All<br \/>\nthe parties concerned were called for an enquiry and thereafter, the third<br \/>\nrespondent was pleased to dismiss the patta transfer application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. It has been further stated that the sixth respondent had preferred an<br \/>\nappeal before the first respondent, in C.P.No.27 of 2006, and it is still<br \/>\npending on his file. In such circumstances, the petitioner had purchased the<br \/>\nsaid property, from the sixth respondent, on 5.8.2008, by virtue of a sale deed,<br \/>\ndated 5.8.2008. The sale deed had been registered in the District Registrar&#8217;s<br \/>\nOffice, Palani, as Document No.2444 of 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner has been<br \/>\nin possession and enjoyment of the said property, without any interruption.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. While so, the fourth and the fifth respondents have filed separate<br \/>\nproceedings before the second respondent. Accordingly, they had prayed for the<br \/>\nquashing of the proceedings, made in R.T.R.No.1082 of 2008, on the file of the<br \/>\nthird respondent. A notice had been issued to all the parties concerned, for the<br \/>\nholding of an enquiry. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner is the owner of<br \/>\nthe property in question the second respondent had started to proceed with the<br \/>\nenquiry, contrary to the provisions of the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. The<br \/>\nrepresentations made by the petitioner have not been considered by the second<br \/>\nrespondent. However, the second respondent had passed the impugned proceedings,<br \/>\non 22.7.2009, cancelling the patta granted in the name of the petitioner, in<br \/>\nrespect of the properties in question. In such circumstances, the petitioner has<br \/>\npreferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the<br \/>\nproceedings of the second respondent, dated 22.7.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and<br \/>\nvoid. The second respondent had failed to note that, as per the provisions of<br \/>\nthe Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, only an appeal should have been preferred,<br \/>\nagainst the order of the Tahsildar, before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The<br \/>\nsecond respondent had proceeded with the enquiry, without giving an opportunity<br \/>\nto the petitioner, to put forth his case. Therefore, the proceedings of the<br \/>\nsecond respondent is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Since the<br \/>\nsame issue is pending before the first respondent, the second respondent ought<br \/>\nnot to have decided the issue. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings<br \/>\nof the second respondent, dated 22.7.2009, is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, and in view<br \/>\nof the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties concerned and<br \/>\non a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that<br \/>\nthe petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to<br \/>\ninterfere with the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated<br \/>\n22.7.2009. Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, he has<br \/>\nnot been in a position to substantiate his claims.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Even though the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is<br \/>\nthat the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 22.7.2009,<br \/>\nwithout giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court is of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that an appeal remedy is available to the petitioner under<br \/>\nSection 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with<br \/>\nthe impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 22.7.2009. However, it<br \/>\nis made clear that it is open to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy,<br \/>\nprovided under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. As<br \/>\nsuch the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be<br \/>\ndismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. In view of the dismissal of the<br \/>\nwrit petition, on the basis of the existence of the availability of an<br \/>\nalternative remedy to the petitioner, this Court has not chosen to express its<br \/>\nopinion, on the merits of the matter. It would be open to the petitioner to<br \/>\nraise all the grounds available to the petitioner, before the authority<br \/>\nconcerned, while availing the alternative remedy, in the manner known to law. No<br \/>\ncosts. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>csh<\/p>\n<p>1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,<br \/>\nR.D.O.Office,<br \/>\nPalani, Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Tahsildhar,<br \/>\nTahsildhar Office,<br \/>\nOttanchathiram,<br \/>\nOttanchathiram Taluk,<br \/>\nDindigul District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Deputy Tahsildar,<br \/>\nTaluk Office,<br \/>\nOttanchathiram,<br \/>\nOttanchathiram Taluk,<br \/>\nDindigul District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08\/12\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.(MD)No.7494 of 2009 and M.P.No.2 of 2009 P.K.Subramanian .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, R.D.O.Office, Palani, Dindigul District. 2.The Tahsildhar, Tahsildhar Office, Ottanchathiram, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul [&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-69077","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>P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009 - 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\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-24T23:14:55+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-24T23:14:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":988,\"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\\\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009\",\"name\":\"P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-24T23:14:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009 - 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\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-24T23:14:55+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-24T23:14:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009"},"wordCount":988,"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\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009","name":"P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-24T23:14:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-subramanian-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.K.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/69077","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=69077"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69077\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69077"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69077"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69077"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}