{"id":86753,"date":"2009-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2"},"modified":"2017-08-01T17:46:30","modified_gmt":"2017-08-01T12:16:30","slug":"c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Deepak Verma<\/div>\n
                                                                   REPORTABLE\n\n                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4968            OF 2009\n               [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6591 of 2007]\n\n\nC.J. Paul & Ors.                                        ...Appellants\n\n                                       Versus\n\nDistrict Collector & Ors.                               ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    Interpretation and\/ or application of the provisions of the Indian<\/p>\n
Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”) as amended by the State of Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu is in question herein.\n<\/p>\n
      It arises out of the following factual matrix:<\/p>\n
      Appellants herein purchased some properties situate in Devala<\/p>\n
Village, Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris in the State of Tamil Nadu by a<\/p>\n
registered deed of sale dated 1.02.1990. Some lands are situated in the
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
State of Kerala also. The details of the lands purchased by them in the<\/p>\n
State of Tamil Nadu are as under:<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\nSl.        Name of the purchaser     Survey No.          Extent     Doc. No.\nNo.                                                                 and date\n1.         C.J. Paul, Malapuram      146, 147\/2,2,3      44.00      382\/90 -\n                                                         Acres      2.2.90\n2.         C.P. Jose, Malapuram      -do-                44.01      381\/90 -\n                                                         Acres      2.2.90\n3.         V.M. Mary, Malapuram -do-                     44.00      383\/90 -\n                                                         Acres      2.2.90\n4.         C.J.          Mathews, -do-                   44.00      384\/90 -\n           Malapuram                                     Acres      2.2.90\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
3.    The Sub – Registrar, Gudalur came to know of the execution of the<\/p>\n
said deeds of sale on or about 30.03.1996. It initiated a proceeding<\/p>\n
purported to be under Section 47A (1) of the Act and Section 19B<\/p>\n
thereof. The proceedings were initiated for collection of deficit stamp<\/p>\n
duty on or about 5.05.1998 by issuing a letter to the then Collector under<\/p>\n
the Act. However, notice in Form I was sent on 7.06.1998.<\/p>\n
4.    Appellants filed a writ petition questioning the legality of said<\/p>\n
notice. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge,<\/p>\n
stating:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “12. From the facts and circumstances of the case,
\n               it is clear that all the transactions appear to be not
\n                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
bonafide and many questions in reference to the
\nnature and purport of these transactions remain
\nunanswered like for instance. Why when the
\nfamily members get a sale deed in respect of about
\n176 acres in Tamil Nadu they should go to Kerala
\nto combine with a sale of 16 cents, as to why the
\nvendor father Thomas assignee of these lands
\nshould purchase 16 cents on 04.09.1990 so as to
\nsell the lands in Tamil Nadu. After lands having
\nvested as per Section 3 of the Gudalur Janmam
\nEstates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
\nAct (XXIV of 1969) Jenmis are entitled only
\nryotwari patta if they had been cultivating on the
\nappointed day i.e. on 01.06.1969, and for the
\ntenants under Jenmis if they had been personally
\ncultivating. In this case one Mathew Kutty is said
\nto have purchased in the year 1967 and in turn sold
\nto Father Thomas. All these prima facie appears
\nare made with ulterior purpose.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred
\nto the judgment in M. Ponnusamy & Others Vs.
\nDistrict Collector (1992) 2 Law Weekly 231,
\nwherein a learned Judge of this Court has taken the
\nview that reference under Section 47-A(1) of the
\nAct should be immediately after completion of the
\nregistration or sooner the registration is completed
\nand at any rate, within three weeks from the date
\nof completion of registration of the document. The
\nsaid decision is of no assistance to the petitioner.
\nIn this case, the petitioners were called upon to pay
\nthe difference of duty immediately after receipt of
\ndocument in their office and a reference notice was
\nissued to the petitioners which are impugned in
\nthese writ petitions in the year 1998 itself and after
\nenquiry, the Deputy Collector has passed an order
\ndetermining the market value in November, 2000.
\nHence, no question of limitation arises in these
\nmatters.”\n<\/p>\n
                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
5.    Writ appeals were preferred thereagainst and a Division Bench of<\/p>\n
the High court, by reason of the impugned order, dismissed the said<\/p>\n
appeals, stating:\n<\/p>\n
             “5. It is not in dispute that the properties
\n             covered under the documents lie within the
\n             State of Tamil Nadu. But the documents
\n             were registered at Kalpetta, Kerala State. As
\n             per Section 19-B(1) of the Act, unless such
\n             instrument is received in the State of Tamil
\n             Nadu, no action can be taken for
\n             undervaluation. The learned Single Judge,
\n             by relying on the said provision and after
\n             noting that those documents registered in
\n             February, 1990, were received by the Office
\n             of the Sub Registrar, Gudalur only on
\n             30.03.1996 and the proceedings were
\n             initiated under Section 19-B of the Act and
\n             further proceedings for reference were made
\n             on 05.05.1998, has arrived at a conclusion
\n             that the action taken by the authority is not
\n             barred by limitation. On going through the
\n             relevant provision, particularly, Section 19-
\n             B(1) of the Act and of the factual
\n             information that those documents were
\n             registered at Kerala in February 1990, were
\n             received by the Office of the Sub Registrar,
\n             Gudalur only on 30.03.1996, we are in entire
\n             agreement with the conclusion arrived at by
\n             the learned single judge.        Accordingly,
\n             finding no merits, we dismiss all the writ
\n             appeals. No costs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.    Mr. K. Rajeev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellants would contend that a proceeding under Section 47A of the Act<\/p>\n
could be initiated only within a period of two years from the date of
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
registration and as the same has been initiated after more than eight years,<\/p>\n
the same was barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    It was furthermore contended that the High Court committed a<\/p>\n
serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the<\/p>\n
amendments to the Act subsequent to the execution of the deeds of sale<\/p>\n
are not attracted to the facts of the present case.<\/p>\n
8.    Mr. R. Sundaravaradan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
of the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that Section 19B of<\/p>\n
the Act being a special provision, the period of limitation would start<\/p>\n
from the date of knowledge of the authorities under the Act and not from<\/p>\n
the date of registration of the documents. In any event, the proviso<\/p>\n
appended to Section 19B(4) of the Act having provided for four years’<\/p>\n
limitation, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted.<\/p>\n
9.    The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to<\/p>\n
stamps.   Stamp duty is payable on different types of instruments as<\/p>\n
prescribed by the State.\n<\/p>\n
      Section 19B of the Act was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 43 of<\/p>\n
1992. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “19B. Payment of duty on copies, counter parts or
\n             duplicates when that duty has not been paid on the
\n             principal or original instrument
\n                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
(1) Where any instrument is registered in any part
\nof India other than the State of Tamil Nadu and
\nsuch instrument relates, wholly or partly to any
\nproperty situate in the State of Tamil Nadu, the
\ncopy of such instrument shall, when received in
\nthe State of Tamil Nadu under the Registration
\nAct, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), be liable to
\nbe charged with the difference of duty as on the
\noriginal instrument.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(2) The difference of duty shall be calculated
\nhaving regard to–\n<\/p>\n
(a) the extent of property situate in the State of
\nTamil Nadu; and\n<\/p>\n
(b) the proportionate consideration or value or
\nmarket value of such extent of property.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The party liable to pay duty on the original
\ninstrument shall upon the receipt of notice from the
\nregistering officer, pay the difference in duty
\nwithin the time allowed by such registering officer.
\n(4) Where deficiency in duty paid is noticed from
\nthe copy of any instrument, the Collector may suo
\nmotu or on a reference from any court or any
\nregistering officer, require the production of the
\noriginal instrument before him within the period
\nspecified by him for the purpose of satisfying
\nhimself as to the adequacy of the duty paid
\nthereon, and the instrument so produced before the
\nCollector, shall be deemed to have been produced
\nor come before him in the performance of his
\nfunctions and the provisions of section 47-A shall
\nmutatis mutandis apply :\n<\/p>\n
      Provided that no action under this sub-
\n      section shall be taken after a period of four
\n      years from the date of receipt of the copy of
\n      such instrument in the State of Tamil Nadu
\n      under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central
\n      Act XVI of 1908.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(5) In case the original instrument is not produced
\nwithin the period specified by the Collector, he
\nmay require the payment of deficit duty, if any,
\n                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
              together with penalty under section 40, on the copy
\n              of the instrument, within such time as may be
\n              prescribed.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.     We may notice that the proviso appended to Section 19B(4)<\/p>\n
underwent an amendment insofar as in stead and place of “from the date<\/p>\n
of registration of such instrument”, the words “from the date of receipt of<\/p>\n
the copy of such instrument in the State of Tamil Nadu under the<\/p>\n
Registration Act, 1908” were inserted. The said amendment came into<\/p>\n
force with effect from 22.02.2000 in terms of Tamil Nadu Act 39 of<\/p>\n
1999.\n<\/p>\n
11.     Section 47A of the Act was inserted in the State of Tamil Nadu by<\/p>\n
Act 24 of 1967. Indisputably, the period of limitation was two years for<\/p>\n
initiation of a proceedings thereunder. However, Section 47A of the Act<\/p>\n
also underwent an amendment by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2000 which came<\/p>\n
into force with effect from 6.03.2000 whereby and whereunder the period<\/p>\n
of limitation was extended to five years.\n<\/p>\n
12.     The liability to pay stamp duty arises on presentation of a<\/p>\n
document. Indisputably, the registration office of the State of Kerala had<\/p>\n
the requisite jurisdiction to register the document in terms of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Registration Act.\n<\/p>\n
13.     The registration authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu came to<\/p>\n
know of the registration of the said documents on 30.03.1996 when they
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
were filed before some authorities. In terms of the provisions of the Act,<\/p>\n
the Collector alone would initiate a proceeding for recovery of deficit<\/p>\n
stamp duty. The proceeding was initiated on 5.05.1998 but the notices<\/p>\n
were issued only on 7.06.1998.\n<\/p>\n
14.   The period of limitation so far as Section 47A of the Act is<\/p>\n
concerned is two years. The limitation of period of four years was<\/p>\n
provided for in terms of the proviso appended to Section 19B(4) of the<\/p>\n
Act but the statute which was applicable at the relevant point of time<\/p>\n
provided for invoking the period of limitation was four years from the<\/p>\n
date of registration.\n<\/p>\n
15.   Sections 47A and 19B of the Act provide for penalty. A statute of<\/p>\n
limitation conferring jurisdiction upon the statutory authorities to impose<\/p>\n
penalty must, therefore, be construed strictly. A penal statute, as is well-<\/p>\n
known, unless expressly provided, cannot be given a retrospective effect.<\/p>\n
[See Ritesh Agarwal and Another v. Securities and Exchange Board of<\/p>\n
India<\/a> (2008) 8 SCC 205]<\/p>\n
16.   The amendments carried out by the State of Tamil Nadu in the Act<\/p>\n
must, therefore, be held to have a prospective operation only. There<\/p>\n
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that ordinarily in a case of this nature,<\/p>\n
the date of knowledge would be the starting point for computing the<\/p>\n
period of limitation. The authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu came to
\n                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
know of the execution of the deeds of sale dated 1.02.1990 only on<\/p>\n
30.03.1996. They could have initiated a proceeding, if any, within a<\/p>\n
period of two years from the said date as provided for in Section 47A of<\/p>\n
the Act. However, in terms of Section 19B of the Act, the period of<\/p>\n
limitation provided was four years from the date of registration and not<\/p>\n
from the date of knowledge.\n<\/p>\n
17.      Submission of Mr. Sundaravaradan that the subsequent amendment<\/p>\n
carried out by Act 1 of 2000 was only clarificatory in nature cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted. The State advisedly used the words “four years” from the date<\/p>\n
of registration. Only at a later stage, wisdom dawned on them that they<\/p>\n
may not be able to find out the evasion of stamp duty within the<\/p>\n
aforementioned period, amended the said provision so that the period of<\/p>\n
limitation may start from the date of knowledge and not from the date of<\/p>\n
registration.    The said amendment is, thus, also not retrospective in<\/p>\n
nature.\n<\/p>\n
         It is now well-settled that the Court cannot supply casus omissus.<\/p>\n
[See Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector<\/p>\n
& ETIO and Others<\/a> (2007) 5 SCC 447]<\/p>\n
18.      For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n
                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
                        ……………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                 [S.B. Sinha]<\/p>\n
                      ……………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                 [Deepak Verma]<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
July 31 , 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Deepak Verma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4968 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6591 of 2007] C.J. Paul & Ors. …Appellants […]<\/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-86753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nC.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-01T12:16:30+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\\\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-01T12:16:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1952,\"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\\\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2\",\"name\":\"C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-01T12:16:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-01T12:16:30+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\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-01T12:16:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2"},"wordCount":1952,"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\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2","name":"C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-01T12:16:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-j-paul-ors-vs-district-collector-ors-on-31-july-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.J. Paul & Ors vs District Collector & Ors on 31 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86753","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=86753"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86753\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86753"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86753"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86753"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}