{"id":88146,"date":"2005-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005"},"modified":"2017-08-31T05:46:13","modified_gmt":"2017-08-31T00:16:13","slug":"the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 24\/11\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN  \n\nWrit Petition No. 9341 of 2004\nand W.P.M.P.No. 10918 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.2481 of 2005     \n\n\nThe District Revenue Officer,\nErode District,\nErode. .. Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. R. Palanisamy,\n   Assistant,\n   Erode District Revenue Unit,\n   Erode.\n\n2. The Registrar,\n   Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,\n   Chennai. .. Respondents.\n\n        Writ  Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to  orders\ndated 24-07-2003  made  in  O.A.No.    3211  of 1995 on the file of Tamil Nadu\nAdministrative Tribunal\/2nd Respondent herein and quash the same. \n\n!Mr.  E.  Sampathkumar, Govt., Advocate:-For petitioner.\n\n^Mr.  P.  Rajendran:- For 1st Respondent.\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of Court was made by P.  Sathasivam, J.,)<\/p>\n<p>Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Administrative Tribunal dated<br \/>\n24-7-2003 made in O.A.No.  3211 of 1995, directing the Department  to  proceed<br \/>\nagainst  the  applicant in accordance with the decision in Criminal Court, the<br \/>\nDistrict Revenue Officer, Erode has filed the above Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  A criminal case as well as disciplinary proceedings were initiated against<br \/>\nthe first respondent herein, namely, R.  Palanisamy,  an  Assistant  of  Erode<br \/>\nDistrict  Revenue Unit for irregularities of misappropriating Government money<br \/>\nto the tune of Rs.96,206.41.  The criminal case  instituted  in  the  Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate&#8217;s Court,  Perundurai  in  C.C.No.  110\/90 ended in acquittal of the<br \/>\nindividual from the criminal charges levelled against him  on  13-7-99.    The<br \/>\ndepartmental  disciplinary  proceedings was initially stayed by the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal by an interim order in O.A.No.  3211\/95  dated  4-7-95<br \/>\nand  the  Tribunal  finally  heard  the case and issued direction in its order<br \/>\ndated 24-7-2003 to take  action  in  consonance  with  the  judgement  of  the<br \/>\ncriminal case.    Being  aggrieved of the said direction, the District Revenue<br \/>\nOfficer has filed the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  Heard Mr.  E.  Sampathkumar, learned Government  Advocate  for  petitioner<br \/>\nand Mr.  P.  Rajendran, learned counsel for first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   The  only  point  for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the<br \/>\nTribunal is justified in issuing direction to the  Revenue  Administration  to<br \/>\nproceed  against  the  applicant  in  accordance with the decision in Criminal<br \/>\nCourt?\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The first respondent herein while working as Revenue Inspector,  Kanjikoil<br \/>\nFirka  in  Perundurai Taluk of Erode District during the period from 6-8-81 to<br \/>\n29-9-82, he was charged that he had misappropriated an amount of  Rs.96,206.41<br \/>\nduring the  said  period.  A criminal case was registered against him in Crime<br \/>\nNo.  589\/82 under Sections 420, 409 and 477-A read  with  Section  109  I.P.C.<br \/>\nand the same was taken on file in C.C.No.  110\/90 of the Judicial Magistrate&#8217;s<br \/>\nCourt, Perundurai.    During  the  pendency of the criminal case, charges were<br \/>\nframed under Rule 17 (b) of the  Tamil  Nadu  Civil  Service  (Classification,<br \/>\nControl  and  Appeal)  Rules and he was dismissed from service as per District<br \/>\nRevenue Officer&#8217;s proceedings dated 6-7-86.  Against this order, he  preferred<br \/>\nan  appeal  before  the  Special  Commissioner  and  Commissioner  of  Revenue<br \/>\nAdministration, Chennai, and the latter remanded back  the  matter  for  fresh<br \/>\ndisposal for  rectification  of  certain procedural irregularities.  The first<br \/>\nrespondent was placed under suspension again and  subsequently  fresh  charges<br \/>\nwere framed  against him on 10-7-90.  By orders of the Administrative Tribunal<br \/>\nin O.A.No.  5011 of 93 and in view of  the  fact  that  the  disposal  of  the<br \/>\ncriminal case  takes  longer time, he was allowed to join duty.  The grievance<br \/>\nof the Revenue administration is that because of the dilatory tactics  adopted<br \/>\nby  the first respondent, the departmental proceedings would not be completed.<br \/>\nIt is also their claim that even after acquittal by the criminal  court,  they<br \/>\nare free  to  proceed  with  the  departmental  enquiry.    Learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate basing reliance on <a href=\"\/doc\/309285\/\">Ajit Kumar Nag v.   G.M,  Indian  Oil  Corporation<br \/>\nLimited,<\/a>  reported  in  2005  AIR  SCW  4986,  would contend that acquittal by<br \/>\ncriminal court will not preclude  the  department  from  holding  departmental<br \/>\nproceedings.  In the impugned order, it is true that the Tribunal has directed<br \/>\nthe department  to proceed based on the result of the criminal case.  In other<br \/>\nwords, as per the direction of the Tribunal, if the  criminal  case  ended  in<br \/>\nacquittal,  the  department is barred from proceeding further or else they are<br \/>\nfree to proceed with the  departmental  enquiry.    It  is  settled  law  that<br \/>\nacquittal  by  a  criminal  court  would not debar an employer\/department from<br \/>\nexercising power in accordance with the rules and regulations in force.    The<br \/>\ntwo  proceedings,  namely,  criminal  and departmental are entirely different.<br \/>\nThey operate in different fields and have different objectives.  The object of<br \/>\ncriminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the  offender,  whereas<br \/>\nthe   purpose   of   enquiry  proceedings  is  to  deal  with  the  delinquent<br \/>\ndepartmentally and to impose on him penalty in accordance with service  Rules.<br \/>\nIn  a  criminal  trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain<br \/>\ncircumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in  evidence.<br \/>\nSuch  strict  rules  of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental<br \/>\nproceedings.  Likewise, the degree of proof which  is  necessary  to  order  a<br \/>\nconviction  is  different  from  the  degree  of proof necessary to record the<br \/>\ncommission of delinquency.  The rule relating to appreciation of  evidence  in<br \/>\nthe two  proceedings is also not similar.  In criminal law, burden of proof is<br \/>\non the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove  the  guilt  of<br \/>\nthe accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a Court of Law.<br \/>\nWhereas,  in  departmental  enquiry  penalty  can be imposed on the delinquent<br \/>\nofficer  on  a  finding  recorded  on  the  basis  of  the  preponderance   of<br \/>\nprobability.   Acquittal  of  the accused by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore,<br \/>\ndoes not ipso facto absolve him from  the  liability  under  the  disciplinary<br \/>\njurisdiction of  the Revenue administration.  The contention that since he was<br \/>\nacquitted by a criminal  court,  the  department  is  completely  debarred  to<br \/>\nproceed with the enquiry cannot be accepted.  However, as observed in M.  PAUL<br \/>\nANTHONY Vs.    BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD., [AIR 1999 SC 1416], since the facts and<br \/>\nthe evidence in both the proceedings, namely, departmental proceedings and the<br \/>\ncriminal case were the same, without their being an iota  of  difference,  the<br \/>\ndistinction which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and<br \/>\nthe  criminal  case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be<br \/>\napplicable.  In the case on hand, the facts  and  the  evidence  in  both  the<br \/>\nproceedings,  namely,  departmental  and criminal were the same and in view of<br \/>\nacquittal of the criminal case on merits, we are of the view that the  Revenue<br \/>\nadministration is not justified in pursuing the departmental enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Even  if we accept the departmental proceedings can be continued, in view<br \/>\nof enormous and unexplained delay on the part of the  Revenue  Administration,<br \/>\nthey are  not  permitted  to  proceed with the enquiry.  The details regarding<br \/>\ndates and events amply show that in view of the enormous delay, the department<br \/>\ncannot be permitted to proceed further.  It is not in dispute that the  period<br \/>\nof alleged  misconduct  pertains  from  6-8-81  to  10-8-82.  First respondent<br \/>\nherein was placed under suspension on 9-11-82.   Charge  Memo  was  issued  on<br \/>\n26-01-83.   Order  of  dismissal  from  service was passed by the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority on 6-7-86.  The order of dismissal was set aside  by  the  appellate<br \/>\nauthority  and  the  matter  was  remanded  to  the  disciplinary authority on<br \/>\n7-10-86.  Fresh charge memo was issued to the  first  respondent  on  10-7-90.<br \/>\nThere  is  no  explanation at all for taking four years&#8217; time from the date of<br \/>\nremand by the appella te authority for framing fresh charge memo.  On 26-10-93<br \/>\nthe first respondent who was under suspension from 9-11-82 to 26-10-93 (for 11<br \/>\nyears) was reinstated in service  following  the  order  of  the  Tribunal  in<br \/>\nO.A.No.  5011\/1993.    Copies of the documents relied upon by the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority were furnished to the first respondent on  13-01-95  i.e.,  after  5<br \/>\nyears from  the  date  of  charge  memo.  The Tribunal stayed the departmental<br \/>\nproceedings in O.A.No.   3211\/1995  on  4-7-95.    The  first  respondent  was<br \/>\nacquitted by  Judicial  Magistrate, Perundurai in C.C.No.  110\/90 on 13-7-99 .<br \/>\nThe Tribunal passed final order  in  O.A.No.    3211\/95  on  24-7-2003.    The<br \/>\npetitioner\/District  Revenue  Officer filed this Writ Petition and obtained an<br \/>\norder of stay on 7-4-2004.  It is also brought to our notice  that  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent is due to retire from service on 30-11-2005.  In this regard, it is<br \/>\nuseful to refer  a judgement of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1100953\/\">P.V.  Mahadevan v.  M.D.,<br \/>\nT.N.  Housing Board,<\/a> reported in 20 05 (4) CTC 403 wherein the  Supreme  Court<br \/>\nafter  finding  that  there  is inordinate delay of 10 years in initiating the<br \/>\ndepartmental enquiry against the appellant, in the absence of explanation from<br \/>\nhis employer-Tamil Nadu Housing Board, concluded  that  allowing  the  Housing<br \/>\nBoard  to  proceed  with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time<br \/>\nwould be very prejudicial to the appellant and consequently quashed the charge<br \/>\nmemo issued against him.  While arriving such a  conclusion,  Their  Lordships<br \/>\nmade a reference to  <a href=\"\/doc\/1167627\/\">State  of  U.P.  v.  N.  Radhakrishnan,<\/a> 1998 (4) SCC 154.<br \/>\nAfter considering the factual details and rival contentions, the Supreme Court<br \/>\nhas concluded that:  (para 11)<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;11.  Under the circumstances,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  allowing  the<br \/>\nrespondent  to  proceed  further  with  the  departmental  proceedings  at the<br \/>\ndistance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant.  Keeping a  higher<br \/>\nGovernment  official  under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would<br \/>\ncause unbearable mental agony and distress to  the  officer  concerned.    The<br \/>\nprotracted   disciplinary   enquiry  against  a  Government  employee  should,<br \/>\ntherefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the Government employee but<br \/>\nin public interest and also in the interests of inspiring  confidence  in  the<br \/>\nminds of the government employees.  At this stage, it is necessary to draw the<br \/>\ncurtain and  to put an end to the enquiry.  The appellant had already suffered<br \/>\nenough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings.  As  a  matter  of<br \/>\nfact,  the  mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings would be much more than  the  punishment.    For  the<br \/>\nmistakes  committed  by  the  department  in  the procedure for initiating the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>After holding so, the Supreme Court quashed the charge memo issued against the<br \/>\nappellant and also directed settlement of all retiral benefits  in  accordance<br \/>\nwith law  within  3  months  from  the date of the order.  Following the above<br \/>\ndecision, this Court (P.  Sathasivam and S.K.  Krishnan, JJ)  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/755172\/\">Obaidhullah,<br \/>\nA.  v.    The State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> (2005 (5) CTC 380) quashed the second charge<br \/>\nmemo issued after a lapse of more than 12 years.  In view of the fact that the<br \/>\nalleged misconduct dates back to 8-11-82 and of  the  fact  that  the  Revenue<br \/>\nadministration  had  taken  longer  time at every stage and taking note of the<br \/>\nfact that the first respondent  herein  is  due  to  retire  from  service  on<br \/>\n30-11-2005  and  also of the fact that it would not be fair on the part of the<br \/>\ndepartment to proceed with the departmental enquiry  after  24  years  of  the<br \/>\nalleged  incident,  the  petitioner-District  Revenue  Officer,  Erode  is not<br \/>\npermitted to proceed with the departmental  enquiry.    The  first  respondent<br \/>\nshall  be allowed to retire on 30-11-2005, if there is no other charge pending<br \/>\nagainst him.  The Writ Petition is dismissed with the  above  direction.    No<br \/>\ncosts.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:- Yes<br \/>\nInternet:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.B.\n<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Registrar,<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,<br \/>\nChennai-104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24\/11\/2005 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN Writ Petition No. 9341 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No. 10918 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.2481 of 2005 The District [&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-88146","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>The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005 - 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\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-31T00:16:13+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\\\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-31T00:16:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1820,\"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\\\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005\",\"name\":\"The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-31T00:16:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005 - 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\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-31T00:16:13+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\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-31T00:16:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005"},"wordCount":1820,"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\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005","name":"The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-31T00:16:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-revenue-officer-vs-r-palanisamy-on-24-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy on 24 November, 2005"}]},{"@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\/88146","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=88146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}