{"id":79191,"date":"2006-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006"},"modified":"2019-01-07T15:07:25","modified_gmt":"2019-01-07T09:37:25","slug":"mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED: 01\/08\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM\n\n\nWrit Petition No.650 of 2004\n\n\nMrs.Sethu Parvatham\t\t....\t\tPetitioner\n\n\nVs\n\n\nThe Commissioner, Corporation\nof Madurai, Madurai.\t\t....\t\tRespondent\n\n\n\tPETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the\nissuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the levy, demand and collection of\nvacant site tax in Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, Schedule II\nSection 8 of the power vested with the Commissioner from the petitioner at\nRS.No.178\/2 of Karpagam Nagar IV Street in Ward NO.4 as a condition precedent\nfor grant of planning permission\/building permit as illegal, ultra vires the\nprovisions of the District Municipalities Act and unconstitutional and\nconsequently direct the respondent to process the application filed by the\npetitioner in S.No.2855 dated 28.5.2004 pending before the respondent and grant\nplanning permission\/building permit without insisting upon the payment of vacant\nsite tax.\n\n!For Petitioner \t...\tMr.R.Suriyanarayanan\n\n\n^For Respondent \t...\tMr.P.Srinivas\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tBy consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. It is the case of the petitioner that plot NO.750, 4th Street, Karpaga<br \/>\nNagar, K.Pudur, Madurai measuring about 2400 sq.ft. and situated in R.S.NO.178\/2<br \/>\nTallakulam Village, Madurai was purchased by the petitioner from one Mr.Meyyappa<br \/>\nChettiar under a registered document bearing No.186 of 2003 executed by one<br \/>\nMr.S.Subramanian as power of attorney agent of the vendor &#8211; the said Mr.Meyyappa<br \/>\nChettiar on 3.6.2003. Pursuant to the purchase, the petitioner applied to the<br \/>\nrespondent for a building permission and the application was registered as<br \/>\nS.NO.2855 on 28.5.2004. Immediately thereafter, the respondent caused a demand<br \/>\nnotice dated 27.5.2004 under Section 168 of the Madurai City Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 9 of the<br \/>\nTaxation Rules contained in Schedule II of the Act demanding payment of vacant<br \/>\nsite tax for the following periods :\n<\/p>\n<p>\ti. from 1.10.1998 onwards; and<br \/>\n\tii. from 1.4.2003 onwards.\n<\/p>\n<p>Aggrieved by the said demand, the above writ petition has been filed seeking for<br \/>\nthe issuance of a Writ of Declaration.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The contention of the petitioner is that the demand of vacant site tax<br \/>\nas a condition precedent for grant of building licence\/planning permission is ex<br \/>\nfacie illegal; there is no provision in the Act empowering the Municipalities to<br \/>\nlevy tax directly on vacant land at any point of time including at the time of<br \/>\nsale of vacant land or at the time when the vacant land is sought to be<br \/>\ndeveloped by applying for the planning permission or building licence or when<br \/>\nthe sub.division of the vacant land or plot is sought for.  It is further<br \/>\ncontended that there cannot be a tax on vacant land and the vacant site tax and<br \/>\nproperty tax cannot both co-exist and that the vacant site tax has no<br \/>\ncorrelation to any services rendered and is without any authority of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent<br \/>\ncontending that it is the duty of the petitioner to verify as to whether the<br \/>\nvacant land is assessable for vacant site tax and any arrears are there  and<br \/>\nalso to find out as to whether the area in which the site is located comes under<br \/>\nthe planning permission area. It is further contended by the respondent that<br \/>\nSection 168 of the Act permits to assess and collect the tax for six years from<br \/>\nthe date of assessment and the respondent came to know about the purchase of the<br \/>\nsite by the petitioner only when she came to the Corporation seeking planning<br \/>\npermission. It is the contention of the respondent that under Section 120(4)(a)<br \/>\nof the Act, the Corporation can collect the vacant site tax and though the said<br \/>\nprovision authorises the respondent to levy the vacant site tax not exceeding 6%<br \/>\nof the capital value of the property, the Corporation has levied only 2%. It is<br \/>\nfurther contended by the respondent that the vacant site tax is a tax and not a<br \/>\nfee and therefore, it does not require any quid pro quo. It is also contended<br \/>\nthat when the statute provides for levy of vacant site tax, the petitioner<br \/>\ncannot challenge the demand alone without challenging the charging provision<br \/>\ncontained in the Act. It is further contended that it is open to the respondent<br \/>\nto demand the arrears of vacant site tax before granting planning permission.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Heard both.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has<br \/>\ndemanded the vacant site tax at Rs.3,600\/- per half year for the periods from<br \/>\n1.10.1998 to 31.3.2003 and at Rs.5,270\/- per half year from 1.4.2003 to<br \/>\n27.5.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the<br \/>\npetitioner purchased the house site on 3.6.2003 and applied for planning<br \/>\npermission on 28.5.2004 and the impugned notice of demand was issued<br \/>\ncontaining the date as 27.5.2004. According to him, the petitioner, as a<br \/>\ntransferee, is liable to pay tax under Section 127(4)(a) of the Act only from<br \/>\nthe date of purchase and not for the periods earlier to that. Learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner also submitted that the demand of tax from 1.10.1998 is<br \/>\nillegal and the respondent  is not authorised to demand arrears of vacant site<br \/>\ntax as a condition precedent for granting planning permission.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to the following provisions<br \/>\n:\n<\/p>\n<p>\ti. Section 120(4)(a);\n<\/p>\n<p>\tii. Section 127(4)(a); and<br \/>\n\tiii. Section 168 of the Act, which read as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Section 120(4)(a) :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSave as otherwise provided in Clause (b), the Council shall, in the case<br \/>\nof lands which are not used exclusively for agricultural purposes and are not<br \/>\noccupied by, or adjacent and appurtenant to, buildings, levy the property tax on<br \/>\nthe capital value of such lands at such percentages as it may fix which shall<br \/>\nnot exceed six percent of their capital value;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSection 127(4)(a) :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tEvery person who makes a transfer as aforesaid without giving such notice<br \/>\nto the Commissioner shall in addition to any other liability which he may incur<br \/>\nthrough such neglect continue liable for the payment of the property tax<br \/>\nassessed on the premises transferred until he gives notice or until the transfer<br \/>\nshall have been recorded in the municipal registers, but nothing in this section<br \/>\nshall be held to affect\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) the liability of the transferee for the payment of the said<br \/>\n\t tax.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSection 168 :\n<\/p>\n<p>\tNotwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or the<br \/>\nrules made thereunder, if for any reason any person liable to pay any of the<br \/>\ntaxes or fees leviable under this Chapter has escaped assessment in any half<br \/>\nyear or year has been assessed in any half year or year at a rate lower than the<br \/>\nrate at which he is assessable or, in the case of property tax has not been duly<br \/>\nassessed in any half year consequent in the building or land concerned having<br \/>\nescaped proper determination of its annual value, the Commissioner may at any<br \/>\ntime within six years from the date of which such persons should have been<br \/>\nassessed, serve on such person a notice assessing him to the tax or fee due and<br \/>\ndemanding payment thereof within fifteen days from the date of such service; and<br \/>\nthe provisions of this Act and the rule made thereunder shall so far as may be<br \/>\napply as if the assessment was made in the half year or year to which the tax or<br \/>\nfee relates.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Relying upon the said provisions, learned counsel for the respondent<br \/>\nsubmitted that the respondent Corporation is entitled to levy property tax on<br \/>\nthe capital value of the land at a rate not exceeding 6% of the capital value<br \/>\nand the Corporation has levied the tax only at 2%. He further submitted that the<br \/>\npetitioner, as the transferee of the site, is liable to pay the tax. Learned<br \/>\ncounsel also submitted that the respondent is entitled to demand arrears of<br \/>\nvacant site tax within a period of six years as provided for in Section 168 of<br \/>\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the<br \/>\npetitioner cannot question the legality or validity of the levy or demand of<br \/>\nvacant site tax without challenging the provisions of Section 120(4)(a) of the<br \/>\nAct, which is the charging section for levying the vacant site tax. Admittedly,<br \/>\nthe petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said provision. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe challenge regarding the legality of the demand has to fail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the<br \/>\nrespondent Corporation cannot demand the arrears of vacant site tax for the<br \/>\nperiods prior to his purchase i.e. for the periods from 1.10.1998 to 31.3.2003<br \/>\nhas to fail, in view of the provisions  contained in Section 168 of the Act. As<br \/>\nper the provisions contained in Section 168 of the Act, the Corporation is<br \/>\nentitled to claim and demand arrears of tax for a period of six years prior to<br \/>\nthe date of demand. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the petitioner, as the transferee of the vacant site, is liable to pay tax<br \/>\nonly from the date of purchase and not earlier to that has also to be rejected<br \/>\nin view of the provisions contained in Section 127(4)(a) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. A reading of the said provision clearly shows that every person, who<br \/>\nmakes transfer of the property, shall continue to be liable for payment of<br \/>\nproperty tax assessed on the premises transferred until he gives notice or until<br \/>\nthe transfer shall have been recorded in the municipal registers.  It is also<br \/>\nprovided that nothing in that section shall be held to affect the liability of<br \/>\nthe transferee for payment of the said tax.  Therefore, it is very clear that<br \/>\nthe contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transferee is<br \/>\nliable to pay tax only from the date of purchase has to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the value of<br \/>\nthe vacant site in urban areas is spiralling day by day and therefore, the<br \/>\nquantum of tax levied is too high and on that ground, submitted that the<br \/>\nimpugned proceedings should be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of tax levied, she ought<br \/>\nto have filed an appeal to the competent Appellate Authority provided for under<br \/>\nthe Act and without doing so, it is not open to the petitioner to question the<br \/>\nquantum of tax levied in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The next contention of the petitioner that the respondent is not<br \/>\nentitled to demand arrears of vacant site tax as a condition precedent for the<br \/>\ngrant of planning permission is without substance. When the petitioner is liable<br \/>\nto pay vacant site tax and when she is seeking the planning permission from the<br \/>\nrespondent to put up a building in the site, in respect of which, she is in<br \/>\narrears of vacant site tax, the respondent is well within its right in demanding<br \/>\nthe payment of arrears before granting planning permission. No provision of the<br \/>\nAct prevents the respondent from demanding the same before granting the planning<br \/>\npermission. When the arrears of property tax\/vacant site tax is the first charge<br \/>\non the property, it is legal on the part of the respondent to demand arrears of<br \/>\ntax before granting the planning permission. Therefore, the contention of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner fails and the same is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. For the above said reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.<br \/>\nNo costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01\/08\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM Writ Petition No.650 of 2004 Mrs.Sethu Parvatham &#8230;. Petitioner Vs The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai. &#8230;. Respondent PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India [&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-79191","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>Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 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\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-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=\"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-07T09:37:25+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\\\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-07T09:37:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1755,\"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\\\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-07T09:37:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 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\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-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":"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-07T09:37:25+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\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-07T09:37:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006"},"wordCount":1755,"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\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006","name":"Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-07T09:37:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-sethu-parvatham-vs-the-commissioner-on-1-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs.Sethu Parvatham vs The Commissioner on 1 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:\/\/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\/79191","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=79191"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79191\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}