{"id":110162,"date":"1994-01-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-01-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994"},"modified":"2018-01-03T06:12:26","modified_gmt":"2018-01-03T00:42:26","slug":"inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994","title":{"rendered":"Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC  (5) 239, \t  1994 SCALE  (2)553<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nINDER PRASHAD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/01\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (5) 239\t  1994 SCALE  (2)553\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t   ORDER\n<\/p>\n<p>1.   The  appellant  admittedly was a lessee of\t Nazul\tland<br \/>\nadmeasuring  3.1 acres or thereabout situated at  Block\t No.<br \/>\n160 in Delhi having had perpetual lease from the  Government<br \/>\nof India on June 14, 1934 on payment of premium of Rs 10,850<br \/>\nand  annual  rent with stipulations that &#8220;and  of  the\tland<br \/>\nhereinafter reserved and of the covenants on the part of the<br \/>\nlessee hereinafter contained, the lessor doth hereby  demise<br \/>\nunto the lessee all the plot of land containing&#8230;&#8230; He was<br \/>\nalso  entitled\tto  retain the\tdemise\tland  in  perpetuity<br \/>\nsubject\t to the right of the lessor to enhance the rent\t and<br \/>\nthe right to re-entry upon the demised land on breach of the<br \/>\ncovenants.   The  appellant with permission  of\t the  lessor<br \/>\nconstructed  a building on the demised land and was  in\t its<br \/>\nquiet  enjoyment,  complying  with  the\t covenants.   By   a<br \/>\nnotification  dated March 5, 1967 published in\tthe  Gazette<br \/>\nunder  Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894,\t for<br \/>\nshort  &#8216;the  Act&#8217;,  the\t demised  land\ttogether  with\t the<br \/>\nbuilding,  along with other lands was acquired for a  public<br \/>\npurpose.   The Land Acquisition Collector by an award  dated<br \/>\nMarch  26,  1973  awarded compensation\twith  the  following<br \/>\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Thus   the  land\t under\tacquisition   is   a<br \/>\n\t      leasehold\t held  at present on  lease  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      claimant\tShri  Inder Parshad.   The  land  is<br \/>\n\t      Nazul which was given on a perpetual lease  by<br \/>\n\t      Chief Commissioner, Delhi on an yearly rent of<br \/>\n\t      Rs 542\/8\/- (Rs 542 and 8 annas, i.e. Rs 542.50<br \/>\n\t      P) per annum.  The perpetual lease is  subject<br \/>\n\t      to   the\tperformance  of\t certain   covenants<br \/>\n\t      including\t prior permission of the  lessor  to<br \/>\n\t      assign the land to third parties&#8230;.<br \/>\n\t      All  urbanisable land in Delhi is\t covered  by<br \/>\n\t      the  master  plan which was framed  under\t the<br \/>\n\t      Delhi   Development  Act,\t 1957.\t The   total<br \/>\n\t      compensation payable in respect of interest of<br \/>\n\t      lessor and lessee is not, however, arrived  at<br \/>\n\t      by separately calculating the interest of\t the<br \/>\n\t      lessor  and the lessee.  It is necessary\tthat<br \/>\n\t      the  amount should be divided between them  in<br \/>\n\t      such  proportion\tas represents the  value  of<br \/>\n\t      their respective shares.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>2.   After  determining the compensation the Collector,\t who<br \/>\nwas not able to decide at what proportion the appellant\t and<br \/>\nthe  Government were entitled to receive  the  compensation,<br \/>\nmade a reference under Section 30 of the Act to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">241<\/span><br \/>\nthe  civil  court.   The District Court\t by  judgment  dated<br \/>\nNovember 15, 1976 held that the Government and the appellant<br \/>\nwere  entitled to compensation at the proportion of 33%\t and<br \/>\n67% respectively.  On further appeal by the appellant, while<br \/>\nupholding  the title to the compensation by  the  Government<br \/>\nand the appellant, the High Court altered the proportion  to<br \/>\n75%  and  25%  between\tthe  appellant\tand  the  Government<br \/>\nrespectively.\tThe  Government did not\t question  the\tsaid<br \/>\nproportion  at\twhich the compensation was  payable  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant and the respondent.  The appellant being aggrieved<br \/>\nfor  apportionment of 25% of the compensation in  favour  of<br \/>\nGovernment filed this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Sri Kailash Vasudev, learned counsel for the appellant,<br \/>\ncontended  that the Government being the owner of  the\tland<br \/>\ncannot acquire its own interest therein.  What was  acquired<br \/>\nis  only of the sum total of the right and interest held  by<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tin the perpetual lease and,  therefore,\t the<br \/>\nappellant  is entitled to the total compensation  determined<br \/>\nby  the\t award.\t In support thereof he\tplaced\treliance  on<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1214175\/\">Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri<\/a> 1.\tWith<br \/>\na  view to appreciate the contention it is necessary to\t see<br \/>\nthe relevant provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   It is seen that after making the award under Section 11<br \/>\nand  deposit  of  the  compensation,  the  Land\t Acquisition<br \/>\nCollector  is entitled under Section 16 of the Act  to\ttake<br \/>\npossession  of\tthe land for that provision says  that\t&#8220;the<br \/>\nland shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government\tfree<br \/>\nfrom  all encumbrances&#8221;.  Thus by exercise of the  power  of<br \/>\neminent\t domain\t Government has\t divested  the\tpre-existing<br \/>\nright,\ttitle  and interest held by the lessee of  the\tland<br \/>\nwhich  stood vested absolutely in the Government  free\tfrom<br \/>\nall  encumbrances  thereafter.\tBut,  the  Land\t Acquisition<br \/>\nOfficer\t in  his  award\t under\tSection\t 11  has  fixed\t the<br \/>\ncompensation  payable not only for the\tpre-existing  right,<br \/>\ntitle and interest of the lessee but also of the lessor\t the<br \/>\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   In this case admittedly the Government being the  owner<br \/>\nof  the land, the appellant held the demised land as  lessee<br \/>\nwith superstructure built thereon and was in possession\t and<br \/>\nenjoyment  of  the  same on the date  of  acquisition.\t The<br \/>\ncontents   of  the  award  extracted  hereinbefore   clearly<br \/>\nindicate  that\tthe  Land Acquisition  Collector  could\t not<br \/>\ndetermine   compensation  payable  towards   the   leasehold<br \/>\ninterest  held\tby  the\t appellant.   Being  an\t owner\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  is not enjoined to acquire its own\tinterest  in<br \/>\nthe land or land alone for public purpose.  When its land is<br \/>\ngranted\t on lease in favour of a lessee its power to  resume<br \/>\nthe  land  is  subject to non-fulfilment of  the  terms\t and<br \/>\nconditions  of\tthe  lease by the lessee.  So  long  as\t the<br \/>\nlessee acts and complies with the covenants contained in the<br \/>\nlease or the grant, the right to resumption in terms of\t the<br \/>\nlease  or  grant  would not arise.  But\t when  the  land  is<br \/>\nrequired  for  public  purpose, the  Government\t should\t get<br \/>\nabsolute   title   thereof  free  from\t all   encumbrances.<br \/>\nCompensation  becomes  payable for the\tleasehold  right  or<br \/>\ninterest held by the lessee or grantee when the land is<br \/>\n1 (1955) 1 SCR 1311 : AIR 1955 SC 298<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">242<\/span><br \/>\nacquired.   The\t point\tbecomes\t clear\tfrom  the  following<br \/>\nillustrations.\t Take  a case where the\t Government  granted<br \/>\nlease  of  agricultural land on the annual payment  of\trent<br \/>\nwith  a covenant that the Government is entitled  to  resume<br \/>\nthe  land  when\t needed for public purpose or  as  when\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  finds  that\t the land  is  required\t for  public<br \/>\npurpose.   In  terms  of the covenants,\t the  Government  is<br \/>\nentitled  to  exercise\tits option to  determine  the  lease<br \/>\nthough\tthe lessee has been complying with the condition  of<br \/>\npayment\t of  annual premium or rent and resume the  land  in<br \/>\naccordance with terms of the grant.  In that event the\tneed<br \/>\nto  take  recourse to acquisition and to  make\tcompensation<br \/>\ndoes  not arise.  Take a case where the\t Government  granted<br \/>\nthe lease of the open land with, permission to the lessee to<br \/>\nconstruct   a\tbuilding  for  his  quiet   enjoyment\twith<br \/>\nappropriate   covenants\t and  the  lessee  with\t  permission<br \/>\nconstructed the building and by complying with the covenants<br \/>\nof  the\t lease\twas  in\t quiet\tenjoyment.   The  self\tsame<br \/>\nproperty,  when required for public purpose, the  Government<br \/>\ncannot\tunilaterally determine the lease and call  upon\t the<br \/>\nlessee to deliver the possession.  Therefore, the Government<br \/>\nis  required  to  exercise the power of\t eminent  domain  by<br \/>\ninvoking  the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act\t for<br \/>\ngetting\t such land.  The Collector shall have  to  determine<br \/>\nthe compensation towards the leasehold interest held by\t the<br \/>\nlessee,\t  if   assessable  separately  and   determine\t the<br \/>\ncompensation.\t The   lessee  being  the   owner   of\t the<br \/>\nsuperstructure\tand  the Government being the owner  of\t the<br \/>\nland, if compensation is determined for both the components,<br \/>\nthen  the same has to be apportioned between them.  At\twhat<br \/>\nproportion the lessor and the lessee are entitled to receive<br \/>\nthe  compensation has to be determined.\t In the\t absence  of<br \/>\nany covenant in the lease for payment and in the absence  of<br \/>\nany  specific  data available to him, the Collector  has  to<br \/>\ndetermine the respective shares at which the compensation is<br \/>\nto be apportioned between the Government and the lessee, the<br \/>\ncourse\topen  to  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  is\t  to<br \/>\ndetermine  the total compensation, make an award and make  a<br \/>\nreference  to the civil court under Section 30 for  decision<br \/>\non appointment.\t Exactly that is the situation on the  facts<br \/>\nof  this case.\tTake another illustration.   The  Government<br \/>\ngrants\ta  patta  of its land subject  to  payment  of\tland<br \/>\nrevenue.   Later, the land is required for  public  purpose.<br \/>\nThe  payment of land revenue is at par with the\t payment  of<br \/>\nland  revenue payable by a private owner to the\t State.\t  By<br \/>\ngrant  of patta, the title has been vested in  the  grantee.<br \/>\nTherefore, the grantee is entitled to the full\tcompensation<br \/>\nof the acquired land.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   The   Land\t  Acquisition\tCollector   determined\t the<br \/>\ncompensation  for  the\tsum total of the  right,  title\t and<br \/>\ninterest held by the lessor and the lessee together and made<br \/>\na reference to the civil court under Section 30 to determine<br \/>\nthe  proportion\t in  which the lessor  and  the\t lessee\t are<br \/>\nentitled to receive the compensation.  In a given case where<br \/>\nit is possible to determine the compensation payable towards<br \/>\nleasehold   interest,  it  could  also\tbe  done   and\t the<br \/>\ncompensation payable towards the interest held by the lessee<br \/>\ncould  be  deposited in the Court and paid  subject  to\t the<br \/>\nprovision in the Act.  Since the Land Acquisition  Collector<br \/>\nwas not in a position to determine the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">243<\/span><br \/>\nproportion in which the said compensation had to be paid  to<br \/>\nthe appellant and the lessor-Government, he made a reference<br \/>\nto the civil court under Section 30.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   In\t Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri case&#8217; the facts are  as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   In\t the island of Bombay certain lands were held  on  a<br \/>\ntenure\tknown as &#8220;Foras&#8221;.  Under Section 2 of Bombay Act  VI<br \/>\nof  1851  the  occupants were entitled\tto  hold  the  lands<br \/>\nsubject\t only  to  the\tpayment\t of  revenue  then  payable.<br \/>\nBetween 1864 and 1867 the Government of India acquired these<br \/>\nlands  under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act\t (VI<br \/>\nof  1857).  On November 22, 1938 the  Governor-General\tsold<br \/>\nthem  to certain persons under whom the present\t respondents<br \/>\nclaimed.   In  April  1942 the appellant  acting  under\t the<br \/>\nBombay City Land Revenue Act (Bombay Act 11 of 1876)  issued<br \/>\nnotices\t to the respondents proposing to levy assessment  on<br \/>\nthe  lands at the rates mentioned therein.  The\t respondents<br \/>\nthereupon  instituted two suits disputing the right  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  to assess the lands to revenue.   They  contended<br \/>\nthat under the Foras Land Act the occupants had acquired the<br \/>\nright to hold the lands on payment of revenue not  exceeding<br \/>\nwhat  was  then payable, that the right to  levy  even\tthat<br \/>\nassessment was extinguished when the Government acquired the<br \/>\nlands  under  the Land Acquisition Act, that  the  Governor-<br \/>\nGeneral having conveyed the lands absolutely under the\tsale<br \/>\ndeed  dated November 22, 1938 the respondents were  entitled<br \/>\nto  hold  them\trevenue free and that even  if\trevenue\t was<br \/>\npayable it could not exceed what was payable under the Foras<br \/>\nLand  Act.   On\t those facts this Court\t held  that  if\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  has itself an interest in the land, it has\tonly<br \/>\nto acquire the other interests outstanding therein, so\tthat<br \/>\nit  might  be  in a position to pass it\t on  absolutely\t for<br \/>\npublic\tuser.\tAnd  the  Act  primarily  contemplates\t all<br \/>\ninterests  as held outside Government and directs  that\t the<br \/>\nentire compensation based upon the market value of the whole<br \/>\nland  must  be distributed among the  claimants.   When\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  possessed  an  interest in\tland  which  is\t the<br \/>\nsubject-matter\tof acquisition under the Act, that  interest<br \/>\nis itself outside such acquisition, because there can be  no<br \/>\nquestion  of  Government  acquiring  what  is  its  own,  an<br \/>\ninvestigation  into  the nature and value of  that  interest<br \/>\nwill no doubt be necessary for determining the\tcompensation<br \/>\npayable\t for the interest outstanding in the  claimants\t but<br \/>\nthat would not make it the subject of acquisition.  In\tthat<br \/>\ncase  since  the  claimants are entitled to  pay  only\tland<br \/>\nrevenue and thereafter since sale of the land was made,\t the<br \/>\npre-existing  right  in the land which\tthe  Government\t had<br \/>\nceased\tand claimants became owners.  Therefore it was\theld<br \/>\nthat   the  claimants  alone  were  entitled  to  the\tfull<br \/>\ncompensation.\tBut  on the facts in this case, it  is\tseen<br \/>\nthat since the Land Acquisition Collector had determined the<br \/>\ncompensation  of the sum total of the interests held by\t the<br \/>\nlessor\tand  the lessee in the land  under  acquisition\t but<br \/>\nbeing  not  able  to decide on\tthe  apportionment  of\tsuch<br \/>\ncompensation between Government and the appellant  reference<br \/>\nwas made to the civil court to determine the  apportionment.<br \/>\nThe  civil court decided by its award that apportionment  of<br \/>\ncompensation  fixed  in the award of  the  Land\t Acquisition<br \/>\nCollector  between the lessee-claimant and  the\t Government-<br \/>\nlandlord shall be<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">244<\/span><br \/>\nin order of 67 per cent and 33 per cent.  The High Court  by<br \/>\nits  judgment  and  decree  under  the\tpresent\t appeal\t has<br \/>\nmodified the apportionment of compensation payable for\tland<br \/>\nas  75\tper  cent for the lessee and 25\t per  cent  for\t the<br \/>\nlessor.\t  Under these circumstances it cannot be  said\tthat<br \/>\nthe   Land   Acquisition  Collector   had   determined\t the<br \/>\ncompensation only towards the leasehold interest held by the<br \/>\nappellant and that, therefore, the appellant is entitled  to<br \/>\nthe   entire  compensation  determined\tby  the\t  Collector.<br \/>\nTherefore,  the\t judgment and decree under appeal  does\t not<br \/>\ncall  for  interference\t and  the  appeal  is,\t accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed.   But  in  the  circumstances,  the\tparties\t are<br \/>\ndirected to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">246<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (5) 239, 1994 SCALE (2)553 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: INDER PRASHAD Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/01\/1994 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC (5) 239 1994 [&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-110162","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>Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994 - 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\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-03T00:42:26+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-03T00:42:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994\"},\"wordCount\":2125,\"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\\\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994\",\"name\":\"Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-03T00:42:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994 - 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\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-03T00:42:26+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994","datePublished":"1994-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-03T00:42:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994"},"wordCount":2125,"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\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994","name":"Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-03T00:42:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-prashad-vs-union-of-india-on-13-january-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Inder Prashad vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1994"}]},{"@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\/110162","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=110162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}