{"id":962,"date":"2010-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-04-23T17:05:53","modified_gmt":"2014-04-23T11:35:53","slug":"e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MrS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\nW.P.(MD) No.12697 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010\n\nE.S.Raja Gopal.\t\t\t\t... Petitioner.\n\nvs.\n\nThe District Collector,\nCollectorate,\nMadurai,\nMadurai Distrct.\t\t\t\t... Respondent.\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying\nto issue Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, or order, or direction, in the\nnature of a Writ, to call for the records and quash the impugned order passed by\nthe Respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.241\/2010 Mines dated 02.09.2010 which\nwas published in Madurai Gazette dated 03.09.2010 (issue No.34).\n\n!For Petitioner ...   Mr.C.Selvaraj\n^For Respondents...   Mr.V.Rajasekaran\n\t\t      Spl. Government Pleader\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
R.BANUMATHI,J<\/p>\n
\tPetitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash the Proceedings of the
\nRespondent in Na.Ka.No.241\/2010 Mines dated 02.09.2010 which was published in
\nnotification No.34 [Madurai Gazette] dated 03.09.2010 inviting application for
\ngrant of quarry lease in S.F.No.1\/1 (Part) Paliyan Karadu, Ramagoundanpatti
\nvillage, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. According to Petitioner, S.F.No.1\/1 is a forest land and continuation
\nof Sirumalai hills and the hill is situated amidst the forest, natural herbals,
\nplants and trees.  Further according to the Petitioner, Respondent-District
\nCollector requested the District Forest Officer, Madurai Forest Division to
\ndeclare S.F.No.1\/1 of Ramagoundanpatti village under the category of “Reserve
\nForest”.  While so, certain persons are endeavouring to get quarry licence to
\nquarry stones in Paliyan Karadu.   The grievance of the Petitioner is that
\nRespondent himself has taken steps to declare S.F.No.1\/1 of Ramagoundanpatti
\nvillage as “Reserve Forest” and is not entitled to act contrary to his own
\ndecision by calling tender to lease out the quarry and stone quarrying operation
\nwould affect the hill, natural herbals and plants.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Respondent-District Collector has filed counter contending that
\nS.F.No.1\/1 “Karadu’ over an extent of 2.00.0 Hectares of Ramagoundanpatti
\nvillage has not been leased out previously and it is treated as “Virgin Quarry’.
\nIt is further averred that as per Rule 8(8) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral
\nConcession Rules, 1959, it was recommended to lease out the quarry for a period
\nof ten years and after following the rules and in compliance with the Tamil Nadu
\nMinor Mineral Concession Rules, notification was published inviting applications
\nfor grant of rough stone quarry leases and accordingly, the Respondent proposed
\nthe area situated 16 metres away from the forest boundary and 300 metres away
\nfrom inhabited site and it satisfies the rule and provision and accordingly
\naction has been taken to lease out the quarry.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. We have heard Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the
\nAppellant.  We have also heard Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government
\nPleader for Respondent and perused the relevant documents.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Learned Special Government Pleader contended that S.F.No.1\/1 over an
\nextent of 2.00.0 Hectares was classified as “karadu” as per the technical report
\nof the Assistant Geologist and the rock noticed in the proposed area is suitable
\nfor quarrying for construction purposes.  After complying with the Tamil Nadu
\nMinor Mineral Concession Rules, notification was published inviting applications
\nfor the grant of rough stone quarry leases.  Even though the Respondent contends
\nthat S.F.No.1\/1 of Ramagoundanpatti village was classified as ‘karadu’ from the
\nreport of District Forest Officer, it is seen that in the District Afforestation
\nMeeting held on 28.05.2010, representation of Ramagoundanpatti villagers was
\nconsidered.  In the letter Na.K.No.5522\/2010\/V1 dated 19.07.2010 addressed to
\nthe District Revenue Officer, Madurai, the District Forest Officer, Madurai
\nForest Division requested copy of plan, adangal and ‘A’ register to enable him
\nto take further steps in sending recommendation to classify S.F.No.1\/1 as
\n“Reserve Forest”.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. In continuation of the above said letter, in his letter
\nNo.Na.Ka.No.5522\/2010\/V1 dated 03.08.2010, the District Forest Officer has
\nclearly stated that Paliyan karadu is in continuation of Sirumalai hills and
\nthat there are wild animals, natural herbals, plants and trees and it has got
\ndents forest and further opined that any quarrying operation would adversely
\naffect ecology and would be hindrance to the wild animals.  The said letter of
\nthe District Forest Officer [Na.Ka.No.5522\/2010\/V1 dated 03.08.2010] reads as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
\t,g;gspad;fuL rpW kiyapd; bjhlh;r;rpahFk;\/  tdtpy’;Ffspd; elkhl;lk; cs;s
\ngFjpahFk;\/  ,aw;if K:ypiffSk; ku’;fSk; mlh;e;j tdg;gFjpahFk;\/  vdnt
\n,t;tpl’;fspy; fy;Fthhpfs; mikj;jhy; ,aw;if jhtu’;fs; K:ypiffs; khRgLtnjhL
\ntdtpy’;Ffs; elkhl;lj;jpw;Fk; kpft[k; ,ila{whf ,Uf;Fk;\/
\n\tvdnt gspad;fuL tUtha; epyj;jpid ghJfhg;g[ tdkhf mwptpf;if bra;a eltof;if
\nnkw;bfhz;Ls;sjhYk;. Fthhp miktjhy; tdtpy’;Ffs; ,aw;if jhtu’;fs; ghjpf;fg;gLk;
\nvd;gjhYk;. ,g;gFjpfspy; muR fdpktsk; kw;Wk; Ru’;fj;Jiw K:yk; fy;Fthhpfs;
\nmikg;gjw;F vt;tpj mDkjpa[k; tH’;fpl eltof;if nkw;bfhs;s ntz;lhk; vd md;g[ld;
\nnfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;\/@<\/p>\n
\t7. Inspite of such clear assertion by the District Forest Officer, the
\nimpugned notification was published inviting applications for grant of quarry
\nlease.  The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the proposed area
\nis not the “forest land” as per the revenue records and that the same stands
\nclassified as “un-assessed waste – karadu” and so far no proposal has been sent
\nto the Government to change the classification into forest land.  By perusal of
\nrecords, it appears that in the meeting held on 28.05.2010, the Respondent
\nhimself felt that the proposed area could be reserved as forest land.
\nThereafter, examining the matter the District Forest Officer recommended for
\nclassification of the area as “Reserve Forest”.  In our considered view,
\nRespondent ought to have kept in view the opinion of the District Forest Officer
\nand forwarded the recommendation of the District Forest Officer to the
\nGovernment rather than proceed to publishing the notification.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that earlier, Panchayat has
\npassed a Resolution No.27 dated 28.03.2007 to the effect that no licence shall
\nbe granted for stone quarrying in S.F.No.1\/1 of Ramagoundanpatti village.
\nOnbehalf of Respondent, it was contended that in Ramagoundanpatti village there
\nis acute drinking water scarcity and to earn income for the Panchayat, Panchayat
\nhas passed a Resolution No.51 dated 29.07.2010 consenting and recommending to
\nlet S.F.No.1\/1 of Paliyan karadu for stone quarrying under tender-cum-auction.
\nMere statement that Panchayat is to augment its income cannot stand.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Article 48-A of the Constitution of India mandates that the State shall
\nendeavour to protect and improve the environment to safeguard the forests and
\nwild life of the country.  Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, enjoins
\nthat it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and
\nimprove national environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life and to
\nhave compassion for living creatures.  These two Articles are not only
\nfundamental in the governance of the country but also it shall be the duty of
\nthe State to apply these principles in making laws and further these two
\narticles are to be kept in mind in understanding the scope and purport of the
\nfundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 by the Constitution including
\nArticles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the various laws
\nenacted by the Parliament and the State Legislature in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In (1996) 5 SCC 647 [Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of
\nIndia<\/a>] and (2002) 4 SCC 356 [M.C.Mehta v. Union of India<\/a>], it was observed that
\nthe balance between environmental protection and developmental activities could
\nonly be maintained by strictly following the principle of “sustainable
\ndevelopment”.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In 2004 (2) SCC 392 [Essar Oil v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti<\/a>], the Supreme
\nCourt held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“This, therefore, is the sole aim, namely, to balance economic and social
\nneeds on the one hand with environmental considerations on the other.  But in a
\nsense all development is an environmental threat.  Indeed, the very existence of
\nhumanity and the rapid increase in population together with the consequential
\ndemands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands,
\ncutting down of forests, filling up of lakes and the pollution of water
\nresources and the very air that we breathe.  However there need not necessarily
\nbe a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the
\nother.  The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony
\nbetween the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in 1996 (5) SCC 281
\n[Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India<\/a>] wherein it has been
\nheld as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of
\necology or by causing widespread environmental destruction and violation; at the
\nsame time the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper
\neconomic and other developments.  Both development and environment should go
\nhand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of
\nenvironment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due
\ncare and ensuring the protection of the environment.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The concept of “sustainable development” also finds support in the
\ndecisions of the Supreme Court in 1997 (2) SCC 653 [M.C.Mehta v. Union of
\nIndia<\/a>]; 1995 (3) SCC 363 [State of Himalchal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products<\/a>]
\nand 2002 (1)) SCC 664 [Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India<\/a>].\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In various decisions, the Supreme Court also incorporated Doctrine of
\nPublic Trust.  In 1997 (2) SCC 653 [M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath<\/a>] and 1999 (6) SCC
\n464 [M.I.Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu<\/a>], it was held that our legal system
\nincludes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence.  The State is
\nthe trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use
\nand enjoyment.  The State as a trustee is under the legal duty to protect the
\nnatural resources.   In this regard, we may also refer to the decision of the
\nSupreme Court in (2006) 1 SCC 1 [T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India
\nand others<\/a>] wherein the Supreme Court  has considered the importance of
\nmaintaining the forest and also going for afforestation while deforestation
\ntakes simultaneously.  In Paragraph (85), the Supreme Court held as follows:-
\n\t“85. The importance of conserving and managing existing natural forests
\nand forest soils, which are very large stores of carbon, has been emphasised as
\nit will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To develop and protect
\nforests, a scientific management is necessary so as to enhance productivity,
\ndensity and health.  Forestry projects have to lay emphasis on management and
\nrejuvenation of natural forests.  The fragile ecosystems should be properly
\nmanaged in order to safeguard the livelihood of millions of people.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15. After examining the matter, the District Forest Officer took the view
\nthat Paliyan karadu is in continuation of Sirumalai hills and that there are
\nwild animals, natural herbals, plants and trees and it has got dense forest. We
\nare of the view that to protect the environment, the same has to be maintained.
\nQuarrying would affect not only ecology but also the wild animals thereon.
\nHaving regard to the recommendation of the District Forest Officer, the impugned
\nnotification No.34 dated 03.09.2010 is liable to be quashed in so far as
\nS.F.No.1\/1 (Part) to an extent of 2.00.0 Hectares of Paliyan karadu,
\nRamagoundanpatti village.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. In the result, the impugned notification No.34 dated 03.09.2010 is
\nquashed in so far as S.F.No.1\/1 (Part) to an extent of 2.00.0 Hectares of
\nPaliyan karadu, Ramagoundanpatti village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District and
\nthe Writ Petition is allowed.  Respondent-District Collector, Madurai is
\ndirected to forward the recommendation of the District Forest Officer, Madurai
\nForest Division e\/f\/vz;\/5222-2010 dated 03\/08\/2010 addressed to the District
\nRevenue Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
\nthis order.  On receipt of such proposal, Government shall consider the same in
\nthe light of the above cited decisions of the Supreme Court and pass appropriate
\norders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendation.
\nConsequently, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
bbr<\/p>\n
To
\nThe District Collector,
\nMadurai District,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/10\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MrS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.(MD) No.12697 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 E.S.Raja Gopal. … Petitioner. vs. The District Collector, Collectorate, Madurai, Madurai Distrct. … Respondent. […]<\/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-962","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nE.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010 - 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\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-23T11:35:53+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\\\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-23T11:35:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1901,\"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\\\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010\",\"name\":\"E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-23T11:35:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010 - 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\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-23T11:35:53+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\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-23T11:35:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010"},"wordCount":1901,"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\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010","name":"E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-23T11:35:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-raja-gopal-vs-the-district-collector-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E.S.Raja Gopal vs The District Collector on 29 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/962","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=962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}