{"id":81711,"date":"2002-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002"},"modified":"2016-01-17T09:05:29","modified_gmt":"2016-01-17T03:35:29","slug":"v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 06\/09\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nW.P.NO. 9222 OF 1995\n\nV.K. Veeraraghava Reddy                        ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The District Revenue Officer,\n   Chengalpattu District at\n   Kancheepuram.\n\n2. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by its Commissioner &amp;\n     Secretary to Govt.,\n   Revenue Department,\n   Fort St. George, Madras 9.\n\n3. The President,\n   Tambaram  Muslim Jamaith,\n   Tambaram, Madras 45.                 ..  Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.M.S.  Subramanian\n\nFor Respondents :  Mrs.N.G.  Kalaiselvi\n                1 &amp; 2 Special Govt.  Pleader\n\nFor Respondent-3 :  Mr.K.  Ilias Al\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>                In this writ petition prayer has been made to quash the  order<br \/>\ndated   25.5.1995  made  in  G.O.Ms.No.430\/Revenue  Department  and  to  issue<br \/>\nnecessary directions for resumption of land in S.No.324\/1A1B in  Tambaram  and<br \/>\nthereafter to assign the said la etitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   The facts required to be noticed in detail are as follows<br \/>\n:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        The disputed land along with some land was intended to be utilised for<br \/>\na Chavadi.  The present respondent No.3 had applied to the Government to allot<br \/>\na portion of the land for the purpose of running an Arabic School.  Ultimately<br \/>\nthe Government had d ed to place 23  cents  (present  disputed  land)  at  the<br \/>\ndisposal  of  the respondent No.3 subject to the condition that the respondent<br \/>\nNo.3 should purchase a private land measuring  10  cents  in  S.No.329\/1B1  of<br \/>\nTambaram  Village  and  place such land at the disposa l of the Government for<br \/>\nthe purpose of utilising such alternative site for construction of a  chavadi.<br \/>\nThe  Respondent  No.3  was  also required to pay the land value for the excess<br \/>\nextent of 13 cents and also to pay Rs.83\/- to the contractor who  already  sta<br \/>\nrted some work prior to such allotment by the Government.  Ultimately an order<br \/>\nwas  passed  by the District Revenue Officer on 17.4.1963 placing such land at<br \/>\nthe disposal of the respondent No.3  for  running  an  Urudu  Madrasa  (Arabic<br \/>\nSchool).  It was indicate d :\n<\/p>\n<p>        \u201c The grant is subject to the usual conditions laid down in B.S.O.24 \u2013<br \/>\nAppendix and also to the following special conditions:<br \/>\n(1) That the land should be used only for running the Arabic School and for no<br \/>\nother purpose.  .  .  .  \u201d<\/p>\n<p>        The  aforesaid action was impugned in W.P.No.616\/63 which was disposed<br \/>\nof rejecting the contention of the then petitioner that the land  had  already<br \/>\nbeen  vested  with  the Panchayat and the Government had no power to deal with<br \/>\nthe matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Subsequently the respondent No.3 wanted to  construct  certain  shops.<br \/>\nAt  that  stage, W.P.No.1482\/72 was filed by another person seeking for a writ<br \/>\nof Mandamus to cancel the allotment in favour of the respondent No.3  alleging<br \/>\nthat  the  third responden d utilised the land for the purpose contrary to the<br \/>\nconditions imposed at the time of allotment of the land.  The  aforesaid  writ<br \/>\npetition was disposed of with the direction to the Government to look into the<br \/>\nmatter  and  particularly  the representation ma de by the petitioner within 3<br \/>\nmonths from the date of the order.  Subsequently, alleging that no action  had<br \/>\nbeen  taken  by  the  Government  on the direction issued by the High Court in<br \/>\nW.P.No.1482\/72, the present petitioner and another person made represent ation<br \/>\nbefore the Government and since there was no response from the Government, the<br \/>\npresent petitioner and the other person filed separate writ petitions,  namely<br \/>\nW.P.Nos.7717  and  7718  of 1981 respectively with the same prayer in both the<br \/>\nwrit petitions to resume the land.  In  W.P.No.7717  of  1981,  filed  by  the<br \/>\npresent  petitioner, a prayer was also made for granting the land in favour of<br \/>\nthe present petitioner and in the other writ petition  prayer  had  also  been<br \/>\nmade  for allotting the land for the purpose of constructing a community hall.<br \/>\nBoth the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by  a  common  order  dated<br \/>\n29.11.1989.   It  was noticed in the aforesaid writ petitions that pursuant to<br \/>\nthe direction of this Court in the  earlier  W.P.No.1482\/72  that  out  of  23<br \/>\ncents,  10  cents  were  granted on assignment in exchange of 10 cents of land<br \/>\noffered by the respondent No.3 and in respect of balance of 13 cents of  land,<br \/>\na  direction  had  been issued to the respondent No.3 to pay certain amount as<br \/>\napparently there h ad been some violation of the  conditions.    It  was  also<br \/>\nbrought  to  the  notice  of this Court, the present respondent No.3 had filed<br \/>\nrepresentation against such direction of the Government  regarding  additional<br \/>\namount and the matter was pending before the Go vernment.  Keeping in view all<br \/>\nthese  aspects,  both the writ petitions were disposed of with the observation<br \/>\nthat the prayer of the writ petitioner to cancel  the  assignment  had  become<br \/>\ninfructuous  and  liberty  was  given to the present petitioner as well as the<br \/>\nother petitioner to approach the Government by filing appropriate application.<br \/>\nIt was further directed that the representation made by the present respondent<br \/>\nNo.3 regarding payment of additional amount should also be considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Thereafter, after a loss of about 5 to 6 years, the  present  impugned<br \/>\norder  dated  25.5.1995  has  been  passed,  wherein the representation of the<br \/>\npresent petitioner to allot the land in his favour had been  rejected  and  it<br \/>\nhas  been further observed that present respondent No.3 is not required to pay<br \/>\nany additional amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   It  has  been  contended on behalf of the writ petitioner<br \/>\nthat since the school has not been constructed on the allotted land  and  same<br \/>\nwas  used  for commercial purpose, the grant in favour of the third respondent<br \/>\nshould have been  cancelled  a  should  have  been  allotted  to  the  present<br \/>\npetitioner, who was prepared to deposit 5 times of the market value.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  A counter has been filed by the third respondent  refuting<br \/>\nthe contentions raised in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   The  question  relating  to cancellation had already been<br \/>\nagitated in the earlier W.P.No.7717 of 1981 at the  instance  of  the  present<br \/>\npetitioner.   By  then  the  Government had already considered the question of<br \/>\ncancellation and had come to th n that instead of cancelling  the  grant,  the<br \/>\npresent  respondent  No.3  would be required to pay certain additional amount.<br \/>\nThe prayer of the petitioner for cancellation of the grant  as  such  had  not<br \/>\nbeen  allowed,  but  the petitioner was directed to approach the Government in<br \/>\nthe matter relating to allotment of land in his favour.   The  Government  was<br \/>\nalso  directed  to  consider the representation of the present respondent No.3<br \/>\nrelating to payment of additional amount.  Rightly or wrongly, this Court  had<br \/>\nobser  ved  that  the  prayer  for  cancellation  of the assignment had become<br \/>\ninfructuous.  The petitioner had not further challenged the  order  passed  by<br \/>\nthis Court.    Even  when the earlier writ petition was decided, the very same<\/p>\n<p>allegations have been made and the G overnment had not decided to  cancel  the<br \/>\ngrant,  but,  on  the  other hand had decided to realise the additional amount<br \/>\nfrom the third respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  In the present writ petition, the petitioner has contended<br \/>\nthat since there is violation of the conditions  imposed  by  the  Government,<br \/>\nthere  is  no  question  of  directing  the present respondent No.3 to pay any<br \/>\nadditional amount and an order on of land should have been issued.  As already<br \/>\nindicated, this  question  had  already  been  raised  in  the  previous  writ<br \/>\npetition,  but  that  portion of the prayer of the petitioner was not granted.<br \/>\nThe matter having become final between the parties, is  not  available  to  be<br \/>\nraised once again.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  The Government after considering the representation of the<br \/>\nthird  respondent has now waived the direction regarding payment of additional<br \/>\namount.  The above direction of the Government to waive the amount payable  is<br \/>\nalso being  impugned.  H has to be noticed that the present writ petition does<br \/>\nnot purport to be a public interest litigation.  The question  as  to  whether<br \/>\nthe  respondent  No.3  should  be  directed  to  pay  further amount or not is<br \/>\nessentially a matter between the respondent No.3 and the  Government  and  the<br \/>\npresent petitioner  has no stake in the matter.  It has to be noticed that the<br \/>\npresent petitioner happens to be a lessee under the respondent No.3 in respect<br \/>\nof one of the shops allegedly earlier constructed  in  violation  of  the  con<br \/>\nditions imposed  by  the  Government.    It  is obvious that the petitioner is<br \/>\ntrying to pursue his individual claim  by  challenging  the  order  passed  in<br \/>\nfavour of the respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the respondent No.3 has<br \/>\nsubmitted that the shops in question had been constructed on 10 cents of  land<br \/>\nwhich  had  been  given  to  the  respondent  NO.3 in lieu of 10 cents of land<br \/>\npurchased and placed by the respon t the disposal of the Government.   It  has<br \/>\nbeen  further  submitted  that  the  income from 13 shops in question is being<br \/>\nutilised for the purpose of running the school and it cannot be said  strictly<br \/>\nthat there is any violation of the conditions imposed by the Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  has  refused this<br \/>\ncontention by making submission to the effect that no school is being run  and<br \/>\nthe  respondent  No.3  has  utilised  the  land  only  for commercial purpose.<br \/>\nWhether a school is being run or not ted question  of  fact  which  cannot  be<br \/>\ndecided  in  this  writ  petition  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution.<br \/>\nMoreover,in the present writ petition the main question relates to  resumption<br \/>\nof land.  The prayer for resumption having not been granted earlier, cannot be<br \/>\nreagitated.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the<br \/>\nwrit petition, which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<br \/>\ndpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The District Revenue Officer,<br \/>\nChengalpattu District at<br \/>\nKancheepuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The State of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nrep.  by its Commissioner &amp;<br \/>\nSecretary to Govt.,<br \/>\nRevenue Department,<br \/>\nFort St.  George, Madras 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The President,<br \/>\nTambaram Muslim Jamaith,<br \/>\nTambaram, Madras 45.\n<\/p>\n<p>Judgment in<br \/>\nW.P.No.9222 of 1995<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06\/09\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA W.P.NO. 9222 OF 1995 V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District at Kancheepuram. 2. The State of [&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-81711","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>V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002 - 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\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-17T03:35:29+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\\\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T03:35:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1551,\"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\\\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002\",\"name\":\"V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T03:35:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002 - 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\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-17T03:35:29+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\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T03:35:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002"},"wordCount":1551,"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\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002","name":"V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T03:35:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-veeraraghava-reddy-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-6-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.K. Veeraraghava Reddy vs The District Revenue Officer on 6 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/81711","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=81711"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81711\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}