{"id":102587,"date":"1967-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967"},"modified":"2017-12-27T10:17:00","modified_gmt":"2017-12-27T04:47:00","slug":"shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967","title":{"rendered":"Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 494, \t\t 1968 SCR (1) 761<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHRIMANT SARDAR CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/10\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  494\t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 761\n\n\nACT:\nMadhya\tBharat Abolition of Jagirs Act (Madhya Bharat 28  of\n1951), s. 5(b)(iv)--Grove, meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nAfter  the resumption of the appellant's Jagir lands in\t the\nState  by  the enactment of the Madhya Bharat  Abolition  of\nJagirs\tAct, he claimed the mango trees, planted by  him  on\nboth sides of a long road, as constituting a \"grove\"  within\nthe  meaning  of  s.  5(b)(iv) of  the\tAct,  and  therefore\ncontinued to belong to him.\nHELD:\t  A grove irrespective of where it was situate,\t but\nbelonging  to  or held by the jagirdar was  to\tcontinue  to\nbelong\tto  or to be held by him.  To secure  the  full\t and\nproper use and enjoyment of such a grove, if it was on\tland\nother  than  that which was allowed to be retained  by\thim,\nsub-clause (iv) of s. 5(b) further provides that the land on\nwhich such a grove stood with the areas appurtenant  thereto\nalso shall be settled upon him in accordance with the M.  B.\nRevenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy\nAct Samvat 2007.  The intention of the legislature  appeared\nto be that properties which the jagirdar was in personal use\nand  possession\t of  or\t in respect of\twhich  he  had\tpaid\nvaluable  consideration were to be retained by him. [764  H;\n765 A].\nThe  language  of sec. 5(b) (iv) does not require  that\t the\ntrees  need be fruit-bearing trees nor does it require\tthat\nthey  should  have been planted by human labour\t or  agency.\nBut  they must be sufficient in number and so standing in  a\ngroup as to give them the character of a grove and to retain\nthat character the trees would or when fully grown  preclude\nthe land on which they stand from being primarily used for a\npurpose\t other than that of a grove-land.  Cultivation of  a\npatch  here and a patch there would have no significance  to\ndeprive\t it of its character as a grove.   Therefore,  trees\nstanding  in  a file on the road side  intended\t to  furnish\nshade  to  the road would not fulfil the requirements  of  a\ngrove even as understood in ordinary parlance. [766 C-E].\nDaropadi v. Mannu Lal, A.I.R. 1929 All. 557.  Kashi v. Jagoo\nBai.  A.I.R, 1934 All. 290, Shiv Sahai v. Hari Nandan, A.I.R\n1963 All. 413, Hasan v. State of Bombay, 62 Bom.  L.R.\t617,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1965.
\nAppeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and\tOrder  dated
\nthe  December  7,  1961 of the\tMadhya\tPradesh\t High  Court
\n(Gwalior Bench) in Civil Misc.\tPetition No. 77 of 1959.
\nA.   K. Sen, B. D. Gupta, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder
\nNarain,\t  for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
I.   N. Shroff, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
762<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShelat,\t J.  The  appellant is the  ex-jagirdar\t of  certain
\nvillages called Jagir Nevri Bhorasa.  It appears that  while
\nthe jagir was in his possession he had constructed roads one
\nof  which  is the road connecting Bhorasa with\tDewas  Astha
\nRoad.\tThe  road about 1 1\/2 miles in length was  lined  on
\nboth  sides  with mango trees.\tIn 1951\t the  Madhya  Bharat
\nAbolition of Jagirs Act, 28 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to
\nas the Act) was passed for resumption of jagir lands in\t the
\nState.\tUnder that Act, the right, title and interest of the
\nappellant in his said jagir were extinguished and the  jagir
\nlands  vested in the State.  In 1955, the Tehsildar  put  up
\nthe mangoes grown on the said trees for public auction.\t  By
\nhis  application  dated\t February  8,  1955  the   appellant
\nobjected  to the said auction claiming that the\t said  trees
\nwere  planted  and reared by him, that\tthey  constituted  a
\n“grove”\t within\t the meaning of s. 5(b)(iv) of the  Act\t and
\ntherefore  continued  to  belong  to  him.   The   Tehsildar
\nrejected  the  application.   The  appellant’s\tappeal\t and
\nthereafter a revision before the Board of Revenue were\talso
\nlikewise rejected.  The appellant then filed a writ petition
\nin  the\t High  Court of Madhya Pradesh\tbut  that  also\t was
\ndismissed  on  the ground that the said trees could  not  be
\nsaid to constitute a “grove”.  The appellant has filed\tthis
\nappeal after obtaining special leave.\n<\/p>\n
The only question arising in this appeal is whether the said
\ntrees standing on the two sides of the said road can be said
\nto be a “grove” within the meaning of sec. 5(b)(iv).
\nThe  Act  was passed for resumption of\tjagir-lands  in\t the
\nState  and  to carry out certain land reforms in  the  jagir
\nareas.\t Section 3 provides for the date of  resumption\t and
\nsec.  4(1) lays down the consequences of resumption.   Under
\nsub-section  (1)  of  that section,  the  right,  title\t and
\ninterest of a jagirdar in his jagir lands including forests,
\ntrees,\tfisheries, tanks, wells, ponds, etc., stand  resumed
\nto  the State as from the date of resumption.\tThe  section
\nalso  provides\tfor  resumption\t of  the  right,  title\t and
\ninterest  of  the jagirdar in all buildings on\tjagir  lands
\nused  for  schools,  hospitals and  other  public  purposes.
\nSection\t 5, however, provides that notwithstanding  anything
\ncontained in sec. 4 the jagirdar shall continue to remain in
\npossession  of\tland cultivated personally by him;  of\topen
\nenclosures used for agricultural or domestic purposes and in
\ncontinuous  possession for twelve years\t immediately  before
\nthe  date of resumption, all open house-sites purchased\t for
\nvaluable  consideration,  all private buildings,  places  of
\nworship, and wells situated in, and trees standing on  lands
\nincluded in the aforesaid enclosures and house sites and \/or
\nland  appertaining  of such buildings or places\t of  worship
\nwithin the limits of village sites.  Sub-cl. (iv) of sec. 5\n<\/p>\n
(b)  reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “all  groves wherever situate belonging to  or
\n\t      held  by\tthe Jagirdar or\t any  other  person,
\n\t      shall continue to belong to or be held by such
\n\t      Jagirdar or other person, as the case
\n\t\t\t\t   763<\/span>
\n\t      may  be, and the land thereof with  the  areas
\n\t      appurtenant thereto shall be settled on him by
\n\t      the Government according to the provisions  of
\n\t      the  Madhya Bharat Revenue Administration\t and
\n\t      Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act,  Samvat
\n\t      2007.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under  cl. (c) also the jagirdar is allowed to\tcontinue  to
\nremain\tin  possession\tof  all\t tanks,\t trees,\t wells\t and
\nbuildings in or on occupied land belonging to or held by the
\njagirdar or any other person.\n<\/p>\n
These provisions show clearly that the legislature has\tused
\nthe  word  “trees”  at\tthree  places  in  three   different
\ncontexts,  in  secs.  4(a), 5(b) and  5(c)  apart  from\t the
\nexpression “all groves wherever situate” in sub-cl. (iv)  of
\nsec. 5(b).  Whereas under sec. 4(a) the trees are to vest in
\nthe State Government along with the forests, fisheries etc.,
\nthe trees mentioned in sec. 5(b)(iii) and (c) are allowed to
\ncontinue  to  belong  to  and  be  held\t by  the   jagirdar.
\nObviously, the word “trees” in these provisions has not been
\nused in any uniform sense and therefore has to be  construed
\nin the context in which it is used.  For instance, the\tword
\n‘trees’ in sec. 5(b)(iii) and (c) is placed in juxtaposition
\nwith  other properties such as private buildings, places  of
\nworship,  wells\t situated  in lands  included  in  the\tsaid
\nenclosures  and house sites referred to in sub-cls. (i)\t and\n<\/p>\n
(ii).\tIt  appears that the policy of the  legislature\t was
\nthat  jagir lands including forests, trees in such  forests,
\nfisheries,  wells, tanks, ponds, ferries, pathways,  village
\nsites etc., which were used by, the public and in which\t the
\nmembers of the public were interested were resumed while the
\nland  in  personal cultivation of the  jagirdar,  enclosures
\nused  for  agricultural and domestic purposes,\thouse  sites
\npurchased  for\tvaluable consideration,\t private  buildings,
\nplaces\tof worship, wells, trees standing on lands  in\tsuch
\nenclosures  and house sites and tanks, trees, private  wells
\nand buildings in or on occupied land belonging to or held by
\nthe  jagirdar were allowed to continue to belong to  and  be
\nheld by him.  It will be seen that groves in sub-cl. (iv) of
\nsec. (b) are included amongst properties allowed to continue
\nto  belong to and be held by the jagirdar.   Subclause\t(iv)
\nalso  shows that such groves need not be of fruit trees\t nor
\nneed  the trees thereof have been planted by  the  jagirdar.
\nThe  words  “wherever  situate”\t indicate  that\t it  is\t not
\nnecessary that they should be on lands or properties allowed
\nto  be\tretained  by the jagirdar under s.  5.\tIf  a  grove
\nbelonged to or was held by him, whether planted by him or of
\nnatural\t growth\t and  wherever\tsituate\t it  is\t allowed  to
\ncontinue to belong to him and be held by him.  The intention
\nof  the legislature appears therefore to be that  properties
\nwhich the jagirdar was in personal use and possession of  or
\nin  respect of which he had paid valuable consideration\t are
\nto be retained by him.\tIt is in this context that we should
\nconstrue subcl. (iv) of sec. 5(b).  A grove irrespective  of
\nwhere  it  is  situate,\t but belonging to  or  held  by\t the
\njagirdar  is to continue to belong to or to be held by\thim.
\nTo  secure the full and proper use and, enjoyment of such  a
\ngrove, if it is on land other than that which is
\n764<\/span>
\nallowed\t to  be\t retained by him,  sub-clause  (iv)  further
\nprovides that the land on which such a grove stands with the
\nareas appurtenant thereto also shall be settled upon him  in
\naccordance with the M.B. Revenue Administration and Ryotwari
\nLand Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007.\n<\/p>\n
What  then  is the meaning of the word\t“grove”\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of  sec.  5(b)(iv)9  Though  the  Act\tcontains   a
\ndefinition section the legislature has not chosen to include
\ntherein any definition of a “grove”.  It intended  therefore
\nthat  it  should be understood in  its\tordinary  dictionary
\nsense.\t In Webster’s New World Dictionary, p. 641, a  grove
\nhas  been defined as a small wood; groups of trees  standing
\ntogether  without undergrowth.\tThe Shorter  Oxford  English
\nDictionary,  Vol. 1, 838 also defines it as a small wood,  a
\ngroup of trees affording shade or forming avenues or  walks.
\nIn Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 98, p. 688 a grove is defined
\nto mean a cluster of trees not sufficiently extensive to  be
\ncalled a wood; a group of trees of indefinite extent but not
\nlarge enough to constitute a forest; especially such a group
\nconsidered  as\tfurnishing  shade  for\tavenues\t and  walks.
\nThough a grove in this sense may consist of a group of trees
\nof indefinite extent it cannot be divorced from the idea  of
\na  homogeneous or at any rate. a  substantially\t homogeneous
\nunit  consisting of a cluster of trees close to each,  other
\nso  as to serve as a shade to walks or avenues.\t Apart\tfrom
\nthe meaning that the dictionaries offer the word “grove” has
\nalso been the subject-matter of a number of decisions.\t The
\ncase  of Daropadi v. Mannu Lal(1) was, of course an  extreme
\ncase  of only 4 fruit trees in an area of 3 bighas and\tthat
\ntoo  on the boundaries.\t Ashworth J. could therefore  easily
\ndiscard the contention that the said trees formed a grove or
\nthat  the land on which they stood was a grove\tland  within
\nthe  meaning of sec. 3 of the Agra Tenancy Act,\t 1926  which
\nprovided that so long as any considerable portion of a\tplot
\nhad  a sufficient number of trees to prevent that plot\tfrom
\nbeing  cultivated, assuming the trees to have reached  their
\nfull  size,  the entire plot would retain the  character  of
\ngrove  but not otherwise.  It is true that when the  learned
\nJudge  made, this observation he had in mind the  definition
\nof grove in s. 3 of that Act, but he also observed that that
\nwas  the  sense\t in which a “grove”  and  “grove  land”‘were
\nordinarily  understood and that the definition did  no\tmore
\nthan  to  bring\t out the sense in  which  these\t terms\twere
\ngenerally understood.  In Kashi v. Jagoo Bai(2) also, Bennet
\nJ.  held that isolated trees cannot be said to constitute  a
\ngrove.\t But unlike these two cases, the land in Shiv  Sahai
\nv.  Hari  Nandan(3) had 13 mango trees fully grown,  big  in
\nsize and covering a major part of it.  It was held that\t the
\nland was a grove-land within the meaning of sec. 3(5) of the
\nU. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, in spite of the fact that there was
\nsome cultivation on the land.  The Court there observed that
\nthe definition merely
\n(1) A.I.R. 1929 All 557\t      (2) A.I.R. 1934 All 290.
\n(3) A.I.R. 1963 All 413.\n<\/p>\n
765<\/span><\/p>\n
required that the trees must be in sufficiently large number
\nto preclude the land from being used primarily for a purpose
\nother  than as grove-land.  In Hasan v. State  of  Bombay(1)
\nthe  High  Court was concerned with s. 5(h)  of\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh\t Abolition of Proprietory Rights  (Estates,  Mahals,
\nAlienated Lands) Act, 1 of 1951 which is in almost identical
\nterms  as  S.  5(b)(iv)\t of  the  present  Act.\t  The  Court
\ninterpreted  the word “grove” to mean an area covered  by  a
\ncluster\t of trees specially planted by human agency but\t not
\nlarge enough to constitute a forest.\n<\/p>\n
It  would seem therefore that the word “grove” conveys\tcom-
\npactness  or  at  any rate  substantial\t compactness  to  be
\nrecognized as a unit by itself which must consist of a group
\nof trees in sufficient number to preclude the land on  which
\nthey stand from being primarily used for a purpose, such  as
\ncultivation,  other than as a grove-land.  The\tlanguage  of
\nsec. 5(b)(iv) does not require however that the trees  needs
\nbe fruit bearing trees nor does it require that they  should
\nhave been planted by human labour or agency.  But they\tmust
\nbe  sufficient\tin number and so standing in a group  as  to
\ngive  them  the\t character of a grove  and  to\tretain\tthat
\ncharacter  the trees would or when fully grown preclude\t the
\nland  on  which they stand from being primarily used  for  a
\npurpose\t other than that of a grove-land.  Cultivation of  a
\npatch  here and a patch there would have no significance  to
\ndeprive\t it of its character as a grove.   Therefore,  trees
\nstanding  in  a file on the road sidle intended\t to  furnish
\nshade  to  the road would not fulfil the requirements  of  a
\ngrove even as understood in ordinary parlance.
\nCounsel, however, contended that although the trees in ques-
\ntion are situate on the road sides along the said road there
\nmay   at  some\tplaces\tbe  a  group  or  groups  of   trees
\nsufficiently  large in number and closely standing  together
\nto  preclude  that  particular\tarea  from  being  used\t for
\ncultivation  or\t for any other purpose.\t In  that  case,  be
\nargued,\t there was nothing in subcl. (iv) to prevent such  a
\ncluster\t of trees from being regarded as a grove.  We  think
\nthere  is  some\t force\tin  this  argument  which   requires
\nconsideration.\tNeither the revenue authorities nor the High
\nCourt approached the question from this point of view and no
\ninquiry\t at any stage seems to have been made whether  there
\nare at any place or places such group or groups of trees  to
\nconstitute  a grove or groves.\tAll of them appear  to\thave
\ndismissed  the\tappellant’s claim only because of  the\tfact
\nthat the trees stand along the two sides of the road.  It is
\npossible  that the road might have been constructed in\tthis
\nparticular  area  because of a number of trees\tstanding  on
\nboth sides of it which would provide shade over it and\tform
\nan  avenue.   In  fairness to the  appellant,  we  think  it
\nnecessary  that he should have an opportunity  to  establish
\nthat  at some place or places along the said road there\t are
\ntrees  sufficient  in number and proximity to  constitute  a
\ngrove or groves.\n<\/p>\n
(1) 62 Bom.  L.R. 617
\n766<\/span>
\nThe  appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  are  set aside and the case is remanded to  the\tHigh
\nCourt  to  decide  the writ petition in\t the  light  of\t the
\nobservations  hereinabove made after calling a finding\tfrom
\nthe Board of Revenue on the question whether there are trees
\nat  any\t place or places along the said road  sufficient  in
\nnumber\tand proximity to constitute a grove or groves.\t The
\nBoard will give an opportunity to the parties  to adduce  on
\nthe  aforesaid question such further evidence, as  they\t may
\nthink  necessary.   In the circumstances, there will  be  no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n767<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 494, 1968 SCR (1) 761 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: SHRIMANT SARDAR CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/10\/1967 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. SHAH, J.C. CITATION: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShrimant Sardar Chandrojirao ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967 - 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\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-27T04:47:00+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-27T04:47:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2341,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967\",\"name\":\"Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-27T04:47:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967 - 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\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-27T04:47:00+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967","datePublished":"1967-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-27T04:47:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967"},"wordCount":2341,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967","name":"Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-27T04:47:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrimant-sardar-chandrojirao-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1967"}]},{"@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\/102587","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=102587"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102587\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102587"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102587"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}