{"id":88936,"date":"2009-06-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-18T16:27:56","modified_gmt":"2017-12-18T10:57:56","slug":"the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nLA.App..No. 976 of 2002(D)\n\n\n1. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SYED HUSSAIN SHAH, S\/O. SYEDAMMU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SYED MUHAMMED SHAH, S\/O. SYEDAMMU,\n\n3. SYED YOOSAF SHAH, S\/O. SYEDAMMU,\n\n4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THRISSUR\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI\n\n Dated :25\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n     PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.\n    ----------------------------------------------------------\n  LAA. Nos. 976 & 1751 of 2002, 524, 527 & 573 of 2006\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------\n          Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
     LAA. Nos. 976 of 2002, 524 of 2006 and 527 of 2006<\/p>\n
are   preferred    by    the   requisitioning    authority,    the<\/p>\n
Corporation of Thrissur, while LAA. Nos. 1751 of 2002 and<\/p>\n
573 of 2006 are preferred by the claimants. All these cases<\/p>\n
pertain to acquisition of land within the erstwhile Trichur<\/p>\n
Municipality, presently the Corporation of Thrissur for the<\/p>\n
purpose of widening of Pattalom Road and construction of a<\/p>\n
Shopping Centre. The relevant section 4(1) notification was<\/p>\n
published on 13-5-1996.          The land acquisition officer<\/p>\n
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,45,400\/- per Are<\/p>\n
corresponding to Rs.58,842.5 per cent. The reference court<\/p>\n
would re-fix the land value on the basis of the evidence<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                             -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
which came on record at Rs.97,600\/- per cent.          In the<\/p>\n
appeals preferred by them, the claimants pray that relying<\/p>\n
on sale deed No.1898\/95 which was marked as Ext.A1 in<\/p>\n
LAR. No. 50\/04 corresponding to LAA. Nos. 573\/06 and<\/p>\n
524\/06 the market value of the lands under acquisition be<\/p>\n
uniformly fixed between Rs.4,02,152.63 and Rs.4 lakhs per<\/p>\n
cent. The requisitioning authority on the contrary in their<\/p>\n
appeals contend that the enhancement presently granted by<\/p>\n
the reference court is excessive and seeks that award of the<\/p>\n
land acquisition officer be approved or at least the<\/p>\n
enhancement granted by the reference court be reduced<\/p>\n
considerably.\n<\/p>\n
     2. We have heard the submissions of           Sri. S.V.<\/p>\n
Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellants in<\/p>\n
LAA. No.573 of 2006, Sri.S.P.Chaly, Advocate for the<\/p>\n
appellants in LAA. No. 1751 of 2002 and those of<\/p>\n
Sri.K.B.Mohandas, standing counsel for the Corporation of<\/p>\n
Thrissur and also those of Sri.Basant Balaji, senior Govt.<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
     3. We have made a reappraisal of the evidence which<\/p>\n
was available before the reference court. Pursuant to our<\/p>\n
directions it was submitted before us by the learned Govt.<\/p>\n
Pleader on the basis of the instructions received by him<\/p>\n
from the Government that as per the Fair Value Order<\/p>\n
issued by the Government in the context of stamp duty to<\/p>\n
be collected on documents submitted for registration at<\/p>\n
Trichur that the ratio between the value of land on the<\/p>\n
Swaraj Round, the Municipal Office Road and the Pattalom<\/p>\n
Road is Rs.50 lakhs : Rs.30 lakhs : Rs.15 lakhs. Though<\/p>\n
information was sought for regarding the value under the<\/p>\n
Fair Value Order for lands on Post Office Road, the same<\/p>\n
was not furnished.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer as well as Mr.Chaly would<\/p>\n
argue that the court below was not justified in rejecting<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 sale document altogether.    According to them, A1<\/p>\n
was in respect of property on the Post Office Road situated<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                                -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
at a distance of just 120 metres from the property under<\/p>\n
acquisition.      They submitted that A1 document had been<\/p>\n
proved to the very hilt by examining AW2 whose credibility<\/p>\n
was not shaken in cross-examination. A1 reveals land value<\/p>\n
of more than Rs.4 lakhs per cent. The learned Subordinate<\/p>\n
Judge rejected Ext.A1 on the reason that the property<\/p>\n
covered by A1 was not barren land but took in a building<\/p>\n
also and that the building was not separately valued in the<\/p>\n
document.         It was submitted that yet another reason for<\/p>\n
rejecting Ext.A1 was that going by the schedule description<\/p>\n
of A1 the property took in some “Kuzhikoors”.          It was<\/p>\n
submitted by the learned counsel that it was an old Post<\/p>\n
Office building which existed on the A1 property and that<\/p>\n
within a few days of the agreement which preceded Ext.A1,<\/p>\n
the building was easily removed. The building did not have<\/p>\n
even a nominal value. The expression “Kuzhikoors” crept<\/p>\n
into the schedule description only due to the usage of a<\/p>\n
routine expression by the document writer and the same did<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
not have much significance. The learned counsel submitted<\/p>\n
that it is relying on   Ext.R2 award of the court that the<\/p>\n
learned Subordinate Judge granted enhancement under the<\/p>\n
impugned judgments. In R2, the document relied on was<\/p>\n
document No.501\/94 which was in respect of land situated<\/p>\n
at Veliyannoor, which was far inferior to land on Pattalom<\/p>\n
Road and Post Office Road which are by all standards land<\/p>\n
with utmost commercial potentiality.    Mr.Balakrishna Iyer<\/p>\n
submitted that even going by the information supplied by<\/p>\n
the learned Govt. Pleader based on the Fair Value Order it<\/p>\n
can be easily assumed that the ratio between the value of<\/p>\n
properties on Pattalom Road and those on the Post Office<\/p>\n
Road should be 15 : 20.       Even adopting that ratio the<\/p>\n
learned counsel argued that there is justification for<\/p>\n
granting at least Rs.3,15,750\/- per cent as land value. Mr.<\/p>\n
Balakrishna Iyer would fortify his submissions on the<\/p>\n
authority of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hasanali<\/p>\n
Walimchand v. State of Maharashtra,<\/a> (1998) 2 SCC 388 and<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                              -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
also on       the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shaji<\/p>\n
Kuriakose & another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2001(3)<\/p>\n
ILR Kerala 605. Counsel submitted that the relevant factors<\/p>\n
to be taken into account while proceeding to determine<\/p>\n
market value on the basis of value revealed in a comparable<\/p>\n
sale document are the following: (1) The sale must be a<\/p>\n
genuine transaction. (2) The sale deed must have been<\/p>\n
executed at a time proximate to the date of issuance of<\/p>\n
section 4(1) notification. (3) The land covered by the sale<\/p>\n
must be in the vicinity of the acquired land. (4) The land<\/p>\n
covered by the sale must be similar to the acquired land.<\/p>\n
(5) The size of plot of the land covered by the sale should<\/p>\n
be comparable to the land acquired.        According to the<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel, this is a case where all these five<\/p>\n
factors are satisfied and there is no reason why Ext.A1<\/p>\n
should not be adopted completely for determining market<\/p>\n
value.\n<\/p>\n
     5. All the submissions of the learned senior counsel and<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                             -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr.Chaly were very forcefully resisted by Sri.K.B.Mohandas,<\/p>\n
learned standing counsel for the Corporation. Submissions<\/p>\n
of Mr.Mohandas were supported by Mr.Basant Balaji,<\/p>\n
learned senior Govt. Pleader.    Mr.Basant Balaji submitted<\/p>\n
that it may not be very safe to rely on the ratio fixed as per<\/p>\n
the Fair Value Order to arrive at the ratio between the<\/p>\n
values of the properties at various points in Thrissur<\/p>\n
Corporation in 1996. In 1996, Pattalom Road did not have<\/p>\n
even 1\/5th importance of areas like Post Office Road,<\/p>\n
Municipal Office Road and Swaraj Round. Learned senior<\/p>\n
Govt. Pleader also submitted that the Fair Value Order has<\/p>\n
been suspended by the Government in view of the<\/p>\n
anomalies noticed therein.       According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel, Ext.R2 judgment relied on by the learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge has attained finality and the maximum which could<\/p>\n
have been granted to the claimants has already been<\/p>\n
granted by the reference court.\n<\/p>\n
     6. We have very anxiously considered the rival<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                               -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
submissions addressed at the Bar. Determination of market<\/p>\n
value in land acquisition cases will involve a little bit of<\/p>\n
guess work and evaluation of imponderables.       The safest<\/p>\n
method to determine market value of properties acquired,<\/p>\n
even according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation<\/a> relied on by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the claimant is comparable sales<\/p>\n
methods. It would appear that at least four of the five<\/p>\n
factors mentioned by the Supreme Court in that judgment<\/p>\n
are applicable to the property covered by Ext.A1. But the<\/p>\n
first factor mentioned by the Supreme Court is that the sale<\/p>\n
must be proved to be a genuine transaction.           Ext.A1<\/p>\n
document was sought to be proved through AW-2 who is<\/p>\n
party to A1.         AW2 was cross-examined not only by the<\/p>\n
counsel for the Corporation but also by the Govt. Pleader for<\/p>\n
the State and the L.A. Authority. It is not suggested to AW2<\/p>\n
that the transaction is not a genuine one or that an inflated<\/p>\n
value was shown in the document so that the claimant can<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                               -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
stake claim for a higher value in the land acquisition case.<\/p>\n
However, we are not inclined to place complete reliance on<\/p>\n
the oral evidence given by AW2 since it appears to us that<\/p>\n
he who is a friend of one of the claimants has given an<\/p>\n
exaggerated version regarding relative importance and<\/p>\n
value of the property under acquisition and the property<\/p>\n
covered by Ext.A1. According to us it may not be safe to<\/p>\n
place complete reliance on Ext.A1 for determining market<\/p>\n
value of the acquired properties. This does not mean that<\/p>\n
we are rejecting Ext.A1 from consideration altogether.<\/p>\n
     7. Ext.R2 is the document which was relied on by the<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge.      The basis document Ext.R1 was not<\/p>\n
relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge and according to<\/p>\n
us, on good reasons. The learned Subordinate Judge relied<\/p>\n
on Ext.R2.       In R2, as already stated, enhancement was<\/p>\n
granted on the basis of document No.1501\/94. It is not<\/p>\n
disputed before us that the said document pertains to<\/p>\n
property in Veliyannoor which situated 430 metres south-<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                             -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
west of the acquired property. We do not find any difficulty<\/p>\n
to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
claimants that in terms of market value and commercial<\/p>\n
potentiality the acquired property on Pattalom Road is far<\/p>\n
superior to the property in Veliyannoor at the relevant time.<\/p>\n
So relying on Ext.R2 for determining market value of the<\/p>\n
acquired property will also not be safe.\n<\/p>\n
     8. We notice our judgment dated 1-6-2009 in LAA.<\/p>\n
Nos. 960 and 1043 of 2000. Those cases were in respect of<\/p>\n
acquisition at the instance of the Thrissur Municipal<\/p>\n
Corporation itself. The purpose of the acquisition in that<\/p>\n
case was for construction of bell mouth and shopping centre<\/p>\n
at the point where the Municipal Office Road meets the<\/p>\n
Swaraj Round. The relevant notification under section 3(1)<\/p>\n
of the Kerala Act, corresponding to section 4(1) of the<\/p>\n
Central Act, in those cases was published on 15-7-1989.<\/p>\n
The land acquisition officer in those cases awarded land<\/p>\n
value at the rate of Rs.18,297\/- per cent. The reference<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                              -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
court under the judgments impugned in those cases, which<\/p>\n
were    revised judgments passed pursuant to an order of<\/p>\n
remand passed by this Court, would re-fix land value of the<\/p>\n
properties under acquisition in those cases at Rs.1,50,000\/-<\/p>\n
per cent.\n<\/p>\n
     9. Dismissing the claimants’ appeal, we under that<\/p>\n
judgment would approve the fixation of market value of<\/p>\n
those properties at Rs.1,50,000\/- per cent. The judgment<\/p>\n
of the Honourable Supreme Court in G.M.Oil Oil & Natural<\/p>\n
Gas Corpn. Ltd. v. R.Jivanbhai Patel &<\/a> another, 2008 SAR<\/p>\n
(Civil) 894 will now be noticed.     It is laid down by the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court therein that when courts proceed to rely on<\/p>\n
pre-notification documents and determine market value by<\/p>\n
giving addition to the value revealed by those documents for<\/p>\n
passage of time, the appropriate percentage of additions to<\/p>\n
be made in urban areas shall not be more than 10% to<\/p>\n
15%. We have no doubt at all in our minds that the lands<\/p>\n
under acquisition were situated in a purely urban area. As<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                                -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
for the lands covered by our judgment in LAA Nos. 960 and<\/p>\n
1043 of 2000, i.e., situated on the northern end point of<\/p>\n
Municipal Office Road, the same by all standards were in<\/p>\n
urban area.          Adopting the principles laid down by the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in that judgment, addition at the rate of<\/p>\n
12.5% per Are will have to be given to the property covered<\/p>\n
by that judgment and in that way the market value of the<\/p>\n
property covered by that judgment (Municipal Office Road<\/p>\n
property) as on the date of the 4(1) notification in this case<\/p>\n
will come to Rs.2,71,500\/-. Going by the Fair Value Order,<\/p>\n
the value of the properties of Pattalom Road should be at<\/p>\n
least 50% of the value of properties on M.O. Road.<\/p>\n
Calculating that way, the value of the acquired properties<\/p>\n
can come only to Rs.1,35,750\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     10. Though we have found elsewhere in the judgment<\/p>\n
that AW-2, who is a friend of one of the claimants in the<\/p>\n
case has exaggerated while deposing about the relative<\/p>\n
importance and value of properties on Post Office Road and<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                              -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
Pattalom Road we notice once again that it was not even<\/p>\n
suggested to AW-2 that it is a bogus transaction which is<\/p>\n
recorded in Ext.A1.      The learned Subordinate Judge also<\/p>\n
does not hold that the transaction recorded in Ext.A1 is not<\/p>\n
a genuine one.        On the contrary, the Subordinate Judge<\/p>\n
rejects Ext.A1 for the reason that a building existed on the<\/p>\n
property and that the building was not separately valued<\/p>\n
and on the further reason that going by the schedule<\/p>\n
description of the document “Kuzhikoors” also existed. As<\/p>\n
for the “Kuzhikoors” we are inclined to accept the<\/p>\n
submission of Mr.Balakrishna Iyer. As for the buildings also<\/p>\n
since it is not disputed that the building which existed was<\/p>\n
the old dilapidated building of the old Post Office which<\/p>\n
existed on the property, the value of the building if at all to<\/p>\n
be taken into account was only a small portion of the total<\/p>\n
consideration set out in the document. We rely on Ext.A1<\/p>\n
for holding that the market value of the property on the Post<\/p>\n
Office Road at the relevant time should have been above<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                             -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.3,50,000\/-. As already stated, the learned Govt. Pleader<\/p>\n
was unable to supply us information regarding the land<\/p>\n
value fixed under the Fair Value Order for properties on the<\/p>\n
Post Office Road. But we feel that the ratio between the<\/p>\n
value of properties on Pattalom Road at the relevant time<\/p>\n
should have been between 55 to 60% of the value of<\/p>\n
properties on the Post Office Road.     Relying on our own<\/p>\n
judgment in LAA. Nos. 960 and 1043 of 2000 and our<\/p>\n
findings rendered herein above regarding the market value<\/p>\n
of the properties on Post Office Road and Pattalom Road we<\/p>\n
are of the view that the correct market value of the acquired<\/p>\n
properties at the relevant time can be fairly and reasonably<\/p>\n
fixed at Rs.1,97,600\/- per cent.\n<\/p>\n
     10. Accordingly we set aside the judgments and<\/p>\n
decrees under appeals and fix the value of the properties<\/p>\n
under acquisition at Rs.1,97,600\/- per cent. It is needless<\/p>\n
to mention that the claimants will be entitled to all statutory<\/p>\n
benefits admissible to them under Sections 23(1A), 23(2)<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                             -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
and 28 of the L.A. Act including interest on solatium. The<\/p>\n
appeals filed by the claimants are allowed. The appeals filed<\/p>\n
by the requisitioning authority are dismissed.    But in the<\/p>\n
circumstances both sides are directed to suffer their costs.<\/p>\n
                      (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                      (P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE)
\nksv\/-\n<\/p>\n
LAA. N0s. 976\/02 etc.
\n                         -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
                              PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
\n                              P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                             LAA. Nos. 976 & 1751 of
\n                             2002, 524, 527 & 573 of
\n                             2006<\/span><\/p>\n
                                J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                              25th June, 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM LA.App..No. 976 of 2002(D) 1. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, … Petitioner Vs 1. SYED HUSSAIN SHAH, S\/O. SYEDAMMU, … Respondent 2. SYED MUHAMMED SHAH, S\/O. SYEDAMMU, 3. SYED YOOSAF SHAH, S\/O. SYEDAMMU, 4. THE […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 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\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-18T10:57:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-18T10:57:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2512,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009\",\"name\":\"The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-18T10:57:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 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":"The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 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\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-18T10:57:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-18T10:57:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009"},"wordCount":2512,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009","name":"The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-18T10:57:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-syed-hussain-shah-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Secretary vs Syed Hussain Shah on 25 June, 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\/88936","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=88936"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88936\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88936"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}