{"id":71721,"date":"1991-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991"},"modified":"2016-08-24T16:08:44","modified_gmt":"2016-08-24T10:38:44","slug":"a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991","title":{"rendered":"A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land &#8230; on 9 August, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land &#8230; on 9 August, 1991<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1966, \t\t  1991 SCR  (3) 465<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nA. VISWANATHA PILLAI AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSPECIAL TAHSILDAR FOR LAND ACQUISITIONNO. IV AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/08\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 1966\t\t  1991 SCR  (3) 465\n 1991 SCC  (4)\t17\t  JT 1991 (3)\t575\n 1991 SCALE  (1)286\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1992 SC 974\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\n    Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Ss. 4, 9, 18--Land  acquisi-\ntion--Hindu coparcenery property--Acquisition  of--Compensa-\ntion--Reference under s. 18 by one coparcener--Other  copar-\nceners\tnot  parties to reference--Whether  a  reference  on\nbehalf of all co-parceners--Entitlement of enhanced  compen-\nsation--Whether\t all  coparceners entitled  to\tcompensation\npro-rata  as  per their shares--Whether\t State\tshould\ttake\ntechnical objections to entitlement of claim.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t three appellants and their eldest brother, under  a\nfamily\tpartition, which took place in 1954, kept in  common\ncertain\t ancestral  properties under the management  of\t the\nlatter.\t These\tproperties were acquired in pursuance  of  a\nnotification  dated  15.1.1967\tunder s. 4(1)  of  the\tLand\nAcquisition  Act, 1894. The eldest brother filed  objections\nreferring to the partition deed of 1954 and stated that each\nof  the\t four brothers had 1\/4 share in\t the  properties  in\nquestion.  Ultimately the compensation was made to  all\t the\nbrothers at 1\/4th share each.\n    The\t eldest\t brother sought six references under  s.  18\nbeing dissatisfied with the awards. The Civil Court enhanced\nthe compensation and granted an award of 1\/4th share thereof\nto  the eldest brother with solatium and interest,  but\t did\nnot  award  the balance amount to the  appellants  in  their\nrespective  shares on the ground that they did\tnot  jointly\nask  for the reference. Out of the remaining three  brothers\ntwo asked for reference for two awards only and the last one\ndid not ask for reference of any award. On appeal, the\tHigh\nCourt  confirmed the award and decrees of the  civil  court.\nAggrieved, the appellants preferred appeals by special leave\nto this Court.\n    On\tthe question: whether in a reference under s. 18  of\nthe Land Acquisition Act sought for by one of the co-owners,\nthe  other co-owners, who did not expressly  seek  reference\nare entitled to enhanced compensation pro-rata as per  their\nshares?\nAllowing the appeals, this Court,\n466\n    HELD: 1.1 The Courts below committed a manifest error in\nrefusing to pass an award and payment thereof to the  appel-\nlants.\tThe coparceners claimants-appellants in the  instant\ncase  were entitled to payment of the enhanced award by\t the\nCivil  Court pro-rate of their 1\/4th share each with 15\t per\ncent  solatium\tand 4 per cent interest as  awarded  by\t the\nCivil Court. [471C-D]\n    1.2 It was not in dispute that under the partition deed,\nthe four brothers as coparceners kept in common the acquired\nproperty  under\t the management of the eldest  brother.\t The\nincome\tderived\t therein was being shared in  proportion  to\ntheir shares by all the brothers. Therefore, it remained  as\njoint property. As co-owners everyone was entitled to  1\/4th\nshare therein. [468E; 470F]\n    1.3\t When  one of the co-owners or\tcoparceners  made  a\nstatement  in  the reference application that  the  acquired\nproperty  belonged to him and his brothers, that he  himself\nand  his brothers were dissatisfied with the award  made  by\nthe Collector and that they were entitled to higher  compen-\nsation,\t it  would be clear that he was\t making\t a  request,\nthough not expressly stated so but by necessary\t implication\nthat he was acting on his behalf and on behalf of his  other\nco-owners  or  coparceners and was seeking  a  reference  on\ntheir  behalf as well. What was acquired was their  totality\nof  right, title and interest in the acquired  property\t and\nwhen the reference was made in respect thereof under s.\t 18,\nthey were equally entitled to receive compensation  pro-rata\nas per their shares. [468F; 471A-B]\n    2.1 One of the co-owners can file a suit and recover the\nproperty  against strangers and the decree would  ensure  to\nall  the co-owners. A co-owner is an owner of  the  property\nacquired  but  entitled to  receive  compensation  pro-rata.\n[470A &amp; E]\n     2.2  A  co-owner  is as much an  owner  of\t the  entire\nproperty  as a sole owner. It is not correct to say  that  a\nco-owner's  property was not his own. He owns several  parts\nof the composite property along with others and it cannot be\nsaid  that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner  in\nthe property. [470C-D]\n     2.3 No co-owner has a definite right, title and  inter-\nest  in\t any particular item or a portion  thereof.  On\t the\nother  hand he has right, title and interest in\t every\tpart\nand parcel of the joint property or coparcenary under  Hindu\nLaw by all the coparceners. [470A-B]\nKanta  Goel v.B.P. Pathak &amp; Ors., [1977] 3 S.C.R.  412;\t Sri\nRam\n467\n<a href=\"\/doc\/942903\/\">Pasricha  v. Jagannath &amp; Ors.,<\/a> [1977] 1 S.C.R. 295  and\t Pal\nSingh v. SunderSingh (dead) by Lrs. &amp; Ors., [1989] 1  S.C.R.\n67, relied on.\n    3.\tIt is surprising that the State having acquired\t the\nproperty  of a citizen would take technical  objections\t re-\ngarding the entitlement of the claim. The State certainly is\nright  and is entitled to resist claim for  enhancement\t and\nlead  evidence in rebuttal to prove the prevailing price  as\non  the date of notification and ask the court to  determine\nthe correct market value of the lands acquired\tcompulsorily\nunder the Act. But so far as the persons entitled to receive\ncompensation  are concerned, it has no role to play.  It  is\nfor the claimants inter se to lay the claim for compensation\nand  the Court would examine and award the  compensation  to\nthe rightful person. [469E-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 54 to 56<br \/>\nof 1975.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  29.6.1973  of\t the<br \/>\nKerala High Court in A.S. Nos. 603,604 and 605 of 1969.<br \/>\nN. Sudhakaran for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>    K.V. Viswanathan, K.R. Nambiar and T.T. Kunhikannan\t for<br \/>\nthe Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    K.\tRAMASWAMY,  J. These appeals by\t special  leave\t are<br \/>\ndirected  against  the judgment and decrees of\tKerala\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  in A.S. Nos. 603,604 and 605 of 1969 dated  June\t 29,<br \/>\n1973 confirming the award and decrees of the Civil Court  in<br \/>\nL.A.O.P. No. 413 etc. of 1964 and 370 and 405 of 1966  dated<br \/>\nJanuary 16, 1969. The notification under section 4(1) of the<br \/>\nLand  Acquisition  Act 1894 (for short &#8216;the Act&#8217;)  was\tpub-<br \/>\nlished\tin  the\t gazette on October 25,\t 1960  acquiring  an<br \/>\nancient\t Chalai\t Anicut together with  embarkments  sluices,<br \/>\nculverts  etc.\tby six notifications.  This  ancient  Chalai<br \/>\nAnicut\toriginally  belonged  to Arumughom  Pillai.  On\t his<br \/>\ndemise\tit devolved on his four sons  Venkatachalam  Pillai,<br \/>\nVishwanathan Pillai, Pasupathy Pillai and Subhapathy  Pillai<br \/>\nby  intestate succession as coparceners. By  partition\tdeed<br \/>\nEx.  B-23 dated December 22, 1954, the four brothers  parti-<br \/>\ntioned certain properties but kept in common acquired Chalai<br \/>\nAnicut\tunder the management of the eldest brother  Venkata-<br \/>\nchalam\tPillai. Pursuant to the notice issued under  section<br \/>\n9(3) and 10 of the Act, Venkatacha-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">468<\/span><\/p>\n<p>lam  filed  his objections making reference therein  to\t the<br \/>\npartition  deed No. 2437 of 1954 in the Registrar&#8217;s  office,<br \/>\nPalghat\t and that each of the brothers had 1\/4 share in\t the<br \/>\nAnicut\tand irrigation system. After the award made  by\t the<br \/>\nLand  Acquisition Officer compensation was made to  all\t the<br \/>\nbrothers  at  1\/4th  share each.  Venkatachalam\t sought\t six<br \/>\nreferences under section 18 as he was dissatisfied with\t the<br \/>\nawards made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Civil Court<br \/>\nenhanced in all to a sum of Rs.52,009.40 p. The State  filed<br \/>\nno  appeal against the enhancement of the compensation.\t The<br \/>\nCivil Court granted an award of 1\/4 share thereof to  Venka-<br \/>\ntachalam  Pillai with solatium at 15 per cent  and  interest<br \/>\nthereon\t at 4 per cent and did not award the balance  amount<br \/>\nto  the appellants in their respective shares on the  ground<br \/>\nthat  they  did not jointly ask for reference but  only\t one<br \/>\nalone  asked for. The two brothers asked for  reference\t for<br \/>\ntwo  awards only and the last one did not ask for  reference<br \/>\nof any award. On appeals, the High Court confirmed the award<br \/>\nand decrees of the Civil Court. Thus these three appeals  at<br \/>\ntheir behest. Common question of law arises in these appeals<br \/>\nand hence they are disposed of by a common judgment.<br \/>\n    The sole question for decision is whether in a reference<br \/>\nSought\tfor  by one of the co-owners whether the  other\t co-<br \/>\nowners who did not expressly seek reference, are entitled to<br \/>\nenhanced  compensation pro-rata as per their shares.  It  is<br \/>\nnot  in\t dispute  that under the partition  deed,  the\tfour<br \/>\nbrothers as coparceners kept in common the acquired property<br \/>\nand  Venkatachalam  was in management thereof and  each\t are<br \/>\nentitled to 1\/4 share in the ancient Anicut and the  irriga-<br \/>\ntion  system.  It  is also undisputed  that  total  enhanced<br \/>\ncompensation is Rs.52,009.40 p. Therein all the four  broth-<br \/>\ners including the appellant are entitled to 1\/4 share  each.<br \/>\nIn  the\t reference  application made  by  the  Venkatachalam<br \/>\nindisputably  he  mentioned that the acquired  property\t be-<br \/>\nlonged\tto him and his other brothers and  the\tcompensation<br \/>\nawarded\t by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate\t and<br \/>\nvery  low.  It was also stated that they Should get  an\t en-<br \/>\nhanced\tamount\tat  the figure specified  in  the  reference<br \/>\napplication. Undoubted he stated therein that he is entitled<br \/>\nto  1\/4 share. What he stated thereby was that of his  enti-<br \/>\ntlement of 1\/4 share of the total enhanced compensation\t and<br \/>\nobviously, after the reference on par with his three  broth-<br \/>\ners,  he is entitled to receive compensation at\t 1\/4  share.<br \/>\nThe Courts below disallowed the payment to the appellants on<br \/>\nthe ground that there is no mention in the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">469<\/span><br \/>\nclaim petition of the partition deed; that they are the\t co-<br \/>\nowners and that there is no averment that the  Venkatachalam<br \/>\nwas seeking reference under section 18 on his behalf and  on<br \/>\nbehalf of his other three brothers. As regards the first two<br \/>\ngrounds\t are  concerned they are palpably incorrect.  It  is<br \/>\nseen  that  an express averment was made in  the  objections<br \/>\nfiled pursuant to notice under section 9(3) and 10 and\talso<br \/>\nin  his reference application under section 18 of  the\tAct,<br \/>\nthat there was prior partition and each of the brothers\t are<br \/>\nentitled to 1\/4th share and that they are dissatisfied\twith<br \/>\nthe award of the Collector. Undoubtedly there is no  express<br \/>\naverment in the reference application under section 18\tthat<br \/>\nhe is seeking a reference on his behalf and on behalf of his<br \/>\nthree brothers. It is contended by the counsel for the State<br \/>\nthat the pleadings are to be strictly construed and that  as<br \/>\nthe  reference was sought for only by Venkatachalam  of\t all<br \/>\nthe six awards the other three brothers are not entitled  to<br \/>\nany  share in the enhanced compensation. In support  thereof<br \/>\nit is also further contended that Viswanathan and  Pasupathy<br \/>\nhad  only asked for reference in respect of two\t awards\t and<br \/>\nSabhapathy Pillai made no request for reference against\t any<br \/>\nof  the\t six awards made by the Collector. It is  true\tthat<br \/>\nViswanathan  and Pasupathy made such request in\t respect  of<br \/>\ntwo  awards  and  Sabhapathy did not make  any\trequest\t for<br \/>\nreference  against any of the awards. But what would be\t the<br \/>\nconsequence  in law is the question. It is  surprising\tthat<br \/>\nthe  State having acquired the property of a  citizen  would<br \/>\ntake  technical objections regarding the entitlement of\t the<br \/>\nclaim.\tThe State certainly is right and entitled to  resist<br \/>\nclaim for enhancement and lead evidence in rebuttal to prove<br \/>\nthe prevailing price as on the date of notification and\t ask<br \/>\nthe court to determine the correct market value of the lands<br \/>\nacquired  compulsorily\tunder the Act. But  as\tregards\t the<br \/>\npersons\t entitled to receive compensation are  concerned  it<br \/>\nhas no role to play. It is for the claimants inter se to lay<br \/>\nthe  claim for compensation and the court would examine\t and<br \/>\naward  the compensation to the rightful person. As  seen  in<br \/>\nthe objections pursuant to the notice under section 9(3) and<br \/>\n10,  Venkatchalam made necessary averments that himself\t and<br \/>\nhis  brothers  had 1\/4 share in the  Anicut  and  irrigation<br \/>\nsystem\tpursuant to the partition deed referred to  therein.<br \/>\nIn his reference application under section 18 also he<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">470<\/span><br \/>\nreiterated  the same and stated that the amount\t awarded  by<br \/>\nthe  Collector was in adequate and that they were  dissatis-<br \/>\nfied  with  it\tand that they are entitled to  more.  It  is<br \/>\nsettled\t law that one of the co-owners can file a  suit\t and<br \/>\nrecover the property against strangers and the decree  would<br \/>\nenure  to all the co-owners. It is equally settled law\tthat<br \/>\nno co-owner has a definite right, title and interest in\t any<br \/>\nparticular  item or a portion thereof. On the other hand  he<br \/>\nhas  right, title and interest in every part and  parcel  of<br \/>\nthe joint property or coparcenery under Hindu Law by all the<br \/>\ncoparceners.  In Kanta Goel v.B.P. Pathak &amp; Ors,.  [1977]  3<br \/>\nS.C.R. 4 12, this Court upheld an application by one of\t the<br \/>\nco-owners  for eviction of a tenant for personal  occupation<br \/>\nof  the co-owners as being maintainable- The same  view\t was<br \/>\nreiterated in <a href=\"\/doc\/942903\/\">Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath &amp; Ors.,<\/a>  [1977]1<br \/>\nS.C.R.\t395 and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh (dead) by  Lrs.  &amp;<br \/>\nOrs., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 67. A co-owner is as much an owner  of<br \/>\nthe  entire property as a sole owner of the property. It  is<br \/>\nnot  correct to say that a co-owner&#8217;s property was  not\t its<br \/>\nown. He owns several parts of the composite property  along-<br \/>\nwith  others  and it cannot be said that he is only  a\tpart<br \/>\nowner  or a fractional owner in the property. That  position<br \/>\nwill  undergo a change only when partition takes  place\t and<br \/>\ndivision was effected by metes and bounds. Therefore, a\t co-<br \/>\nowner  of the property is an owner of the property  acquired<br \/>\nbut  &#8216;entitled to receive compensation pro-rata.  The  State<br \/>\nwould  plead  no waiver nor omission by other  co-owners  to<br \/>\nseek reference nor disentitle them to an award to the extent<br \/>\nof their legal entitlement when in law they are entitled to.<br \/>\nSince the acquired property being the ancestral\t coparcenary<br \/>\nand  continued to be kept in common among the  brothers\t and<br \/>\nthe income derived therein was being shared in proportion of<br \/>\ntheir  shares  by  all the brothers  it\t remained  as  joint<br \/>\nproperty.  As  co-owners everyone is entitled to  1\/4  share<br \/>\ntherein. It was also laid by this Court in a recent judgment<br \/>\nin  Ram Kumar &amp; Ors. v. Union of India &amp; Ors., [1991] 1\t SCR<br \/>\n649 that it is the duty of the Collector to send full infor-<br \/>\nmation of the survey numbers under acquisition to the  court<br \/>\nand  make reference under section 18 and failure thereof  is<br \/>\nillegal.  The  same ratio would apply to the facts  in\tthis<br \/>\ncase as well. When one of. the co-owner or coparceners\tmade<br \/>\na  statement in his reference application that\thimself\t and<br \/>\nhis brothers<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">471<\/span><br \/>\nare  dissatisfied with the award made by the  Collector\t and<br \/>\nthat  they are entitled to higher compensation, it would  be<br \/>\nclear  that  he was making a request, though  not  expressly<br \/>\nstated so but by necessary implication that he was acting on<br \/>\nhis behalf and on behalf of his other co-owners or coparcen-<br \/>\ners and was seeking a reference on behalf of other co-owners<br \/>\nas  well.  What was acquired was their\ttotality  of  right,<br \/>\ntitle  and  interest in the acquired property and  when\t the<br \/>\nreference was made in respect thereof under section 18\tthey<br \/>\nare equally entitled to receive compensation pro-rata as per<br \/>\ntheir  shares. The courts below committed manifest error  in<br \/>\nrefusing to pass an award and payment thereof to the  appel-<br \/>\nlants merely on the ground that there was no mention in this<br \/>\nregard\tin the reference application or two of\tthem  sought<br \/>\nreference in respect of two awards and the last one made  no<br \/>\nattempt\t in  their  behalf. The claimants  are\tentitled  to<br \/>\npayment of the enhanced award by the Civil Court pro-rata of<br \/>\ntheir  1\/4  share each with 15 per cent solatium and  4\t per<br \/>\ncent interest as awarded by the Civil Court. The appeals are<br \/>\naccordingly allowed with costs of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<pre>R.P.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">472<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land &#8230; on 9 August, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1966, 1991 SCR (3) 465 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: A. VISWANATHA PILLAI AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SPECIAL TAHSILDAR FOR LAND ACQUISITIONNO. IV AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/08\/1991 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-71721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land ... on 9 August, 1991 - 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\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land ... on 9 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-24T10:38:44+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land &#8230; on 9 August, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-24T10:38:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991\"},\"wordCount\":1752,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991\",\"name\":\"A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land ... on 9 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-24T10:38:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land &#8230; on 9 August, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land ... on 9 August, 1991 - 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\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land ... on 9 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-24T10:38:44+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land &#8230; on 9 August, 1991","datePublished":"1991-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-24T10:38:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991"},"wordCount":1752,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991","name":"A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land ... on 9 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-24T10:38:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-viswanatha-pillai-and-ors-vs-special-tahsildar-for-land-on-9-august-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land &#8230; on 9 August, 1991"}]},{"@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\/71721","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=71721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71721\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}