{"id":103642,"date":"1964-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964"},"modified":"2018-12-17T04:31:58","modified_gmt":"2018-12-16T23:01:58","slug":"bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964","title":{"rendered":"Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement &#8230; on 12 March, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement &#8230; on 12 March, 1964<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR  134, \t\t  1964 SCR  (7) 192<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBIHARI LAL BATRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER &amp; ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/03\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR  134\t\t  1964 SCR  (7) 192\n\n\nACT:\nEvacuee\t property-Land allotted to a refugee in urban  area-\nAllotment  is  invalid\tunder  the  rules-Displaced  Persons\nCompensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955, Rule 2(h).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe father of the appellant owned considerable\tagricultural\nproperty  in Pakistan and he with the members of his  family\nmoved  over to India on partition.  The\t appellant's  father\nhad some unsatisfied claim for allotment and on December 29.\n1955  he  was  allotted some plots in Urban  area  within  a\ncertain\t municipality.\tThe appellant's father died in\t1952\nand the allotment made was actually to the appellant in lieu\nof the claim of his father.  On the allotment being made,  a\nsanad  was issued to the appellant by the Managing  Officer.\nWhen the appellant tried to take possession of these  lands,\ndisputes  were\traised by respondents Nos. 4  and  5.  These\nrespondents moved the Assistant Settlement Commissioner\t for\ncancellation  of  the  allotment on the\t ground\t that  these\ndisputed  plots\t were  within an  \"urban  area\"\t within\t the\nmeaning\t of r. 2(h) of the Displaced  Persons,\tCompensation\nand Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 and, therefore, the allotment\nto  the\t appellant  was\t contrary  to  law.   The  Assistant\nSettlement Commissioner accepted the contention of the\tres-\npondents and allowed the appeal and cancelled the allotment.\nThe  appellant\tthen applied to the  Chief  Settlement\tCom-\nmissioner in revision.\tHe rejected the petition.  Then\t the\nappellant  moved a petition under Arts. 226 and 227  of\t the\nConstitution before the High Court.  This petition was\talso\ndismissed.  the\t High Court granted certificate\t of  fitness\nunder Art. 133 of the Constitution and hence the appeal.\nHeld:(i) Where an order making an allotment was set aside by\nthe  Assistant Commissioner or Settlement  Commissioner\t the\ntitle which was obtained on the basis of the continuance  of\nthat sanad or order also fell with it.\n<a href=\"\/doc\/664831\/\">Shri Mithoo Shahani v. Union of India,<\/a> [1964] 7 S.C.R.\t103,\nrelied on.\n(ii)The\t contention  of the appellant that r.  2(h)  of\t the\nDisplaced  Persons  Compensation and  Rehabilitation  Rules,\n1955,  was unconstitutional as contravening Art. 14  of\t the\nConstitution  must  fail.  This contention is based  on\t the\nbasis  of  the proviso to Rule 2(h).  Rule 2(h)\t was  framed\nunder  s. 40 of the Act.  This rule along with\tother  rules\ncame into force on May 21, 1955.  The allotment was made  to\nthe appellant on December 29, 1955 and the Sanad was  issued\ntwo  days later.  In other words the allotment in favour  of\nthe appellant was after the rule came into force and was not\none  \"already  made\" as stated in the proviso  to  r.  2(h).\nTherefore,  if on the date of the allotment the land was  in\nan  urban area, the allotment would be governed by the\tmain\npara of the definition and the proviso, had no application.\n193\nThe  discrimination  is said to consist in the\trule  having\ndrawn  a dividing line at the date when it came into  force,\nfor  determining  whether the allotment was  valid  or\tnot.\nSuch a contention is patently self-contradictory.  Every law\nmust have a beginning or time from which it operates, and no\nrule  which seeks to change the law can be held invalid\t for\nthe  mere reason that it effects an alternation in the\tlaw.\nIt is sometimes possible to plead injustice in a rule  which\nis  made  to operate with retrospective effect, but  to\t say\nthat a rule which operates prospectively is invalid  because\nthereby\t a  difference\tis made between\t the  past  and\t the\nfuture, is one which cannot be accepted.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 543 of  1962.<br \/>\nAppeal from the judgement and order dated November 26,\t1959<br \/>\nof the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 678 1957.<br \/>\nBishan Narain and N. N. Keswani, for the appellant.<br \/>\nB.   K.\t Khanna and B. R.  G. K. Achar, for respondent\tNos.<br \/>\n1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>D.   N. Mukherjee, for respondent No. 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.   V. S. Mani and T. R. V. Sastri, for respondent No.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.<br \/>\nMarch 12, 1964.\t The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-<br \/>\nAYYANGAR,  J.-This is an appeal on a certificate of  fitness<br \/>\ngranted\t under Art. 133 by the High Court of Punjab  against<br \/>\nthe order of that Court dismissing the appellant&#8217;s  petition<br \/>\nto it under Art. 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  point in controversy lies within a narrow\tcompass\t and<br \/>\nhence  of  the voluminous facts we propose to set  out\tonly<br \/>\nthose  which are relevant for appreciating  the\t contentions<br \/>\nurged  before  us.  The father of the appellant\t owned\tcon-<br \/>\nsiderable agricultural property in Pakistan and he with\t the<br \/>\nmembers of his family moved over to India on partition.\t The<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s  father  was allotted a considerable  extent  of<br \/>\nland  in  village Kharar, District Ambala, but\twe  are\t not<br \/>\nconcerned  with that.  He had still some  unsatisfied  claim<br \/>\nfor  allotment and on December 29, 1955 he was\tallotted  by<br \/>\nthe  Managing Officer on quasi-permanent tenure Khasra\tNos.<br \/>\n880,  881  and 882 which were within the municipal  area  of<br \/>\nKharar\twith  the regularity of which allotment\t alone\tthis<br \/>\nappeal\t is  concerned.\t  It  may  be  mentioned  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s  father had died in 1952 and the allotment\tmade<br \/>\nwas  actually to the appellant in lieu of the claim  of\t his<br \/>\nfather.\t On the allotment being made, a sanad was issued  to<br \/>\nthe appellant on December 31, 1955 by the Managing  Officer.<br \/>\nWhen the appellant tried to take possession of these  lands,<br \/>\ndisputes were raised by respondent&amp;<br \/>\nL\/P (D) ISCI-7 &#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">194<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Nos.  4\t and  5. They were not displaced  persons  but\tthey<br \/>\nclaimed\t that they had been in possession of  this  property<br \/>\nfrom  a\t long  anterior date from which they  could  not  be<br \/>\ndisturbed  and\talso  that the property\t could\tnot  be\t the<br \/>\nsubject\t of a valid allotment.\tThese respondents moved\t the<br \/>\nAssistant  Settlement Commissioner for cancellation  of\t the<br \/>\nallotment  and\tthis appeal was allowed by the\tofficer\t who<br \/>\nfound that the land comprised in these three khasra  numbers<br \/>\nwere within an &#8221;    urban  area&#8221;  within the meaning  of  r.<br \/>\n2(h)\tof   the   Displaced   Persons\t Compensation\t and<br \/>\nRehabilitation\t Rules,\t 1955  and  consequently  that\t the<br \/>\nallotment  to  the  appellant  was  contrary  to  law.\t He,<br \/>\ntherefore,   cancelled\t the   allotment.    The   appellant<br \/>\nthereafter  applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner  in<br \/>\nrevision and not being successful there moved the High Court<br \/>\nby a, petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution..<br \/>\nAs stated earlier, this petition was dismissed and it is the<br \/>\ncorrectness  of\t this dismissal that is\t challenged  in\t the<br \/>\nappeal before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.  Bishan Narain, learned Counsel for the appellant  urged<br \/>\nin  the main two contentions in support of the appeal.\t The<br \/>\nfirst  was  (1) that after the Managing\t Officer  granted  a<br \/>\nsanad  on December 31, 1955 in the name of the President  of<br \/>\nIndia,\tthe appellant obtained an indefeasible title to\t the<br \/>\nproperty  and that this title could not be displaced  except<br \/>\non  grounds contained in the sanad itself even in the  event<br \/>\nof  the\t order\tof allotment being set aside  on  appeal  or<br \/>\nrevision.   We\thave considered this point  in\t<a href=\"\/doc\/664831\/\">Shri  Mithoo<br \/>\nShahani and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors.<\/a>(1) which was<br \/>\npronounced  on\tMarch  10, 1964 and for\t the  reasons  there<br \/>\nstated this submission has to be rejected.<br \/>\nThe second point that he urged was, and this was in fact the<br \/>\nmain contention raised before the High Court, that rule 2(h)<br \/>\nof  the\t Displaced Persons Compensation\t and  Rehabilitation<br \/>\nRules, 1955 was unconstitutional as contravening Art. 14  of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution  and\tso the\toriginal  allotment  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant must be held to be lawful.  We consider that there<br \/>\nis no substance in this argument.  In fact, we are unable to<br \/>\nappreciate  the\t ground\t on which the  contention  is  being<br \/>\nurged.\t Section 40 of the Displaced  Persons  (Compensation<br \/>\nand Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 enables the Central Government<br \/>\nby  Notification  in the Official Gazette to make  rules  to<br \/>\ncarry  out the purposes of the Act, and in particular on  an<br \/>\nelaborately   enumerated  list\tof  matters.   It  was\t not<br \/>\nsuggested  that the rules of 1955 were not competently\tmade<br \/>\nunder  s.  40.\tThese rules were published on May  21,\t1955<br \/>\nwhen they came into force.  Rule 2(h) the validity of  which<br \/>\nis  impugned in these proceedings is a rule  containing\t the<br \/>\ndefinitions.  Rule 2(h) reads, to extract what is material:<br \/>\n(1)  [1964] 7 S.C.R. 103.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">195<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;2.   In\tthese  rules,  unless  the   context<br \/>\n\t      otherwise requires-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a) to (g)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t      (h)   &#8216;Urban  area&#8217; means any area within\t the<br \/>\n\t      limits   of   a\tcorporation,   a   municipal<br \/>\n\t\t\t    committee,\ta notified area committee,<br \/>\n  a  town<br \/>\n\t      area  committee,\ta small\t town  committee,  a<br \/>\n\t      cantonment or any other area notified as\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      by the Central Government from time to time;<br \/>\n\t      Provided that in the case of the\tquasi-perma-<br \/>\n\t      nent  allotment  of rural\t agricultural  lands<br \/>\n\t      already  made  in\t the States  of\t Punjab\t and<br \/>\n\t      Patiala  and  East Punjab\t States\t Union,\t the<br \/>\n\t      limits  of  an  urban area shall\tbe  as\tthey<br \/>\n\t      existed on the 15th August, 1947.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  words  &#8216;of rural agricultural lands&#8217; occurring  in\t the<br \/>\nproviso to this rule were replaced by an amending  Notifica-<br \/>\ntion  of  1957\tby  the words  &#8216;in  rural  area&#8217;,  but\tthis<br \/>\namendment is obviously of no significance.  &#8220;Rural area&#8221;  is<br \/>\ndefined by rule 2(f) to mean &#8216;any area which is not an urban<br \/>\narea&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Pausing here, it would be useful to state two matters  which<br \/>\nare not in dispute: (1) that the allotment to the  appellant<br \/>\nwas  made on December 29, 1955, the sanad being\t issued\t two<br \/>\ndays  later.  It was therefore an allotment which  was\tmade<br \/>\nafter  May 21, 1955 when the rules came into force; (2)\t the<br \/>\nother  matter  is  that Khasra Nos. 880, 881  and  882\twere<br \/>\nincluded  in  urban  limits  on February  10,  1951  by\t the<br \/>\nmunicipal  area\t of  Kharar being extended  to\tcover  these<br \/>\nplots.\t It  would, therefore, be obvious that on  the\tdate<br \/>\nwhen  the  allotment was made, the allotted land was  in  an<br \/>\n&#8220;urban\tarea&#8221; and therefore it could not have  been  validly<br \/>\nallotted.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  must confess our inability to comprehend what  precisely<br \/>\nwas the discrimination which the rule enacted which rendered<br \/>\nit  unconstitutional as violative of Art. 14.  So far as  we<br \/>\ncould  understand the submission, the  unreasonable  discri-<br \/>\nmination  was said to exist because of the operation of\t the<br \/>\nproviso.   Under  the proviso in  regard  to  quasipermanent<br \/>\nallotments  &#8216;already made, i.e. made before May 21, 1955  in<br \/>\nthe  States of Punjab and PEPSU, the test of what was to  be<br \/>\nconsidered an &#8220;urban area&#8221; was to be determined on the basis<br \/>\nof the state of circumstances which obtained on 15th August,<br \/>\n1947.\tThe allotment in favour of the appellant  was  after<br \/>\nthe  rules came into force and was not one  &#8220;already  made&#8221;.<br \/>\nTherefore if on the date of the allotment the land was in an<br \/>\nurban area, the allotment would be governed by the main para<br \/>\nof  the definition and so could not have been  validly\tmade<br \/>\nand that was the reason why it was set<br \/>\nL, P(D) 1 SCI-, (a)..\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">196<\/span><\/p>\n<p>aside.\tThe  discrimination is said to consist in  the\trule<br \/>\nhaving\tdrawn a dividing line at the date when it came\tinto<br \/>\nforce,\tor  determining whether the allotment was  valid  or<br \/>\nnot.   It is the discrimination that is said to be  involved<br \/>\nin  this prospective operation of the rule that we  find  it<br \/>\ndifficult  to  appreciate.  It is possible that\t before\t the<br \/>\nrules  were framed the land now in dispute could  have\tbeen<br \/>\nallotted, but because of this it is not possible to  suggest<br \/>\nthat  the  rule altering the law in this  respect  which  ex<br \/>\nconcessis is within the rule-making power under the Act,  is<br \/>\ninvalid.  Such a contention is patently\t self-contradictory.<br \/>\nEvery  law  must  have a beginning or  time  from  which  it<br \/>\noperates,  and no rule which seeks to change the law can  be<br \/>\nheld  invalid  for  the\t mere  reason  that  it\t effects  an<br \/>\nalteration  An the law.\t It is sometimes possible  to  plead<br \/>\ninjustice  it&#8217;,\t a  rule  which\t is  made  to  operate\twith<br \/>\nretrospective effect, but to say that a rule which  operates<br \/>\nprospectively  is  invalid because thereby a  difference  is<br \/>\nmade  between the past and the future, is one which  we\t are<br \/>\nunable to follow.\n<\/p>\n<p>There  are no merits in this appeal which fails and is\tdis-<br \/>\nmissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">197<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement &#8230; on 12 March, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 134, 1964 SCR (7) 192 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: BIHARI LAL BATRA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER &amp; ORS DATE [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement ... on 12 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement ... on 12 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-16T23:01:58+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\\\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement &#8230; on 12 March, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-16T23:01:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964\"},\"wordCount\":1438,\"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\\\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964\",\"name\":\"Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement ... on 12 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-16T23:01:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement &#8230; on 12 March, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement ... on 12 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement ... on 12 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-16T23:01:58+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\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement &#8230; on 12 March, 1964","datePublished":"1964-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-16T23:01:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964"},"wordCount":1438,"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\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964","name":"Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement ... on 12 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-16T23:01:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihari-lal-batra-vs-the-chief-settlement-on-12-march-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bihari Lal Batra vs The Chief Settlement &#8230; on 12 March, 1964"}]},{"@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\/103642","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=103642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}