{"id":96856,"date":"2007-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007"},"modified":"2017-06-14T17:41:20","modified_gmt":"2017-06-14T12:11:20","slug":"y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development … on 6 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development … on 6 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS No. 570 of 1993(C)\n\n\n\n1. Y.C.GEORGE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.JOSEPH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR\n\n Dated :06\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                           K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J.\n                      -------------------------------------------------\n                                  A.S.No.570 of 1993\n                      -------------------------------------------------\n                   Dated, this the 6th day of September, 2007\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       This appeal is filed by the deceased original plaintiff in O.S.No.753\/1991<\/p>\n
on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. During the pendency of<\/p>\n
this appeal the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives are impleaded as<\/p>\n
addtional appellants. Appeal arises from a decree and judgment passed by the<\/p>\n
court below dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for a decree of permanent<\/p>\n
prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from recovering any additional<\/p>\n
amount from the appellants. The suit filed by the appellant and three other suits<\/p>\n
were consolidated and jointly tried. All the three suits were dismissed.          The<\/p>\n
plaintiff was an     allottee of plots owned by the respondent Greater Cochin<\/p>\n
Development Authority in Kaloor Town Planning Scheme. Respondent requested<\/p>\n
the Government to acquire the property by invoking the provisions of the Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition Act. Plots belonging to various persons were acquired and after<\/p>\n
making them developed house plots the defendant offered the same for sale by<\/p>\n
tender. Plaintiff was the successful bidder of plot No.7 having an extent of 8.945<\/p>\n
cents. He purchased the property for a price of Rs.8,700\/- per cent. Total bid<\/p>\n
amount was Rs.77,821.50 ps. Amount was paid and plot was allotted to him.<\/p>\n
Sale was confirmed. Subsequently the plaintiff was asked to remit additional<\/p>\n
AS No.570\/1993                         -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
land value at the rate of Rs.7,367\/- per cent. Challenging that demand the plaintiff<\/p>\n
filed the suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction.\n<\/p>\n
       2.      The main contention raised was that the provisions of amended<\/p>\n
Land Acquisition Act         have no retrospective operation and the land involved<\/p>\n
in this case was acquired long prior to the commencement of the amendment Act<\/p>\n
and there was no question of paying any enhanced compensation or additional land<\/p>\n
value. It was averred that owner of the land purchased by the plaintiff never made<\/p>\n
any claim for enhancement and so that the defendant did not incur any additional<\/p>\n
land value in respect of the plot allotted to the plaintiff. It was also averred that<\/p>\n
the purchase price paid by the plaintiff was inclusive of all kinds of developmental<\/p>\n
charges and defendant was not entitled to claim any further amount on that count.<\/p>\n
In short the contention raised was that the land allotted to the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
acquired from a particular person and he was paid compensation and that amount<\/p>\n
was taken into account while fixing the sale price and since the plaintiff paid the<\/p>\n
entire amount and the defendant did not pay any additional land value in respect<\/p>\n
of the 8.945 cents allotted to the plaintiff, he is not liable to pay any additional<\/p>\n
compensation.\n<\/p>\n
       3.      Defendant filed separate written statements in all the four suits.<\/p>\n
The contention that the market value of the property allotted to the plaintiffs in all<\/p>\n
the suits at the time of acquisition was only Rs.1,000\/- per cent was denied.      It<\/p>\n
was contended that       the defendant spent huge amount         of money for the<\/p>\n
AS No.570\/1993                          -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
development of the plots acquired and without any profits the plots were<\/p>\n
auctioned. It was also contended that the land owners moved the court for higher<\/p>\n
compensation and due to the heavy financial burden the defendant got sanction to<\/p>\n
realise uniform excess price         from all allottees. It was contended that the<\/p>\n
land was sold subject to such a condition and all the allottees had agreed to the<\/p>\n
terms and conditions and accordingly the plaintiffs in all the suits were liable to<\/p>\n
pay additional land value which the defendant had to pay to the land owners. So<\/p>\n
the contention raised was that even if the owner of the land allotted to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
in this case did not claim any enhancement, if any additional land value was paid<\/p>\n
for any portion of land acquired for a particular scheme is to be uniformly shared<\/p>\n
by all the allottees and not by the person who actually purchased that plot in<\/p>\n
respect of which the defendant had to pay additional land value. Trial court after<\/p>\n
trial found that every allottee was bound to remit additional charge and dismissed<\/p>\n
the suit for injunction. Challenging that judgment and decree this appeal is filed.<\/p>\n
       4.      Trial court relied on Exts.A1, B1 and B2 to hold that all the allottees<\/p>\n
of a particular scheme had agreed that in respect of any additional land value the<\/p>\n
Greater Cochin Development Authority had to pay will be equally met by all the<\/p>\n
allottees. As rightly observed by the court below the plaintiff had no case that he<\/p>\n
was forced to sign the sale deed. Trial Court had observed that in the sale deed it<\/p>\n
was specifically stated that the vendee as well as the schedule property are liable<\/p>\n
to make good the excess if any owing to any increase in miscellaneous and<\/p>\n
AS No.570\/1993                          -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
development charges as well as the excess if any payable under the land<\/p>\n
acquisition award since the final cost of the work and amenities have not been<\/p>\n
finally assessed and the compensation proceedings in respect of acquisition of the<\/p>\n
lands have not been finally disposed of. There is no covenant between the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and defendant to the effect that the plaintiff need pay the enhanced land value only<\/p>\n
in case the defendant had to pay additional compensation to the owner of the land<\/p>\n
allotted to him.     In other words there is no agreement between the the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and defendant to the effect that if the former owner of the land which was allotted<\/p>\n
to the plaintiff did not make any claim he need not pay any excess amount. So<\/p>\n
going by the terms of the documents it is clear that all the allottees had agreed to<\/p>\n
contribute equally in respect of any additional charges which the defendant had to<\/p>\n
incur. In view of this agreement the plaintiff cannot be now turned round and<\/p>\n
contend that he need pay additional amount only in case the former owner of the<\/p>\n
land allotted to him makes any claim for additional compensation in respect of that<\/p>\n
particular plot.   So the reasoning of the trial court is perfectly correct. I do not<\/p>\n
find any reason to interfere with the decree and judgment passed by the court<\/p>\n
below. So the appeal is only to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       5.     The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the<\/p>\n
respondent\/defendant had claimed a huge amount by way of interest. In Central<\/p>\n
Bank of India v. Ravindra (AIR<\/a> 2001 SC 3095) a Constitution Bench of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question of interest payable under a<\/p>\n
AS No.570\/1993                          -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
decree passed by the court.       Though there is no decree passed allowing the<\/p>\n
respondent to recover the amount with interest it is only just and proper that the<\/p>\n
respondent considers why the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Central Bank of India’s case (supra) shall not apply in this case also if the<\/p>\n
appellants make a request for scaling down the interest.           It is open to the<\/p>\n
appellants to approach the respondent Greater Cochin Development Authority and<\/p>\n
file an application claiming concession regarding the rate of interest. Appellant<\/p>\n
shall file the application within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n
this judgment. If such an application is received, the respondent shall consider the<\/p>\n
same in accordance with law and quantify the amount due from the appellants<\/p>\n
within another six weeks from the date of receipt of application. Until the amount<\/p>\n
is quantified, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the appellants.<\/p>\n
       C.M.P.No.3352\/1993 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                      K. PADMANABHAN NAIR
\n                                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n
AS No.570\/1993    -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                    K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                    A.S.No.570 of 1993<\/p>\n
                    JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                    6th September, 2007.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development … on 6 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS No. 570 of 1993(C) 1. Y.C.GEORGE … Petitioner Vs 1. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.M.V.JOSEPH The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR Dated :06\/09\/2007 O […]<\/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-96856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nY.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development ... on 6 September, 2007 - 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\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development ... on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-14T12:11:20+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development … on 6 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-14T12:11:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1293,\"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\\\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development ... on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-14T12:11:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development … on 6 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development ... on 6 September, 2007 - 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\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development ... on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-14T12:11:20+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development … on 6 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-14T12:11:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007"},"wordCount":1293,"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\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007","name":"Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development ... on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-14T12:11:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-c-george-vs-the-greater-cochin-development-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Y.C.George vs The Greater Cochin Development … on 6 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/96856","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=96856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}