{"id":131596,"date":"2004-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004"},"modified":"2016-10-19T23:55:30","modified_gmt":"2016-10-19T18:25:30","slug":"r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: G Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Dr. Ar Lakshmanan, G.P. Mathur.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5515 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nR.L. Jain (D) by LRs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDDA & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/03\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nS. Rajendra Babu , Dr. AR Lakshmanan & G.P. Mathur.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
G.P. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of conflict of opinion in two decisions of this Court, namely,
\nShri Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills v. State of Gujarat<\/a> 1991(1) SCC 262 and
\nUnion of India v. Budh Singh & Ors.<\/a> 1995 (9) SCC 233, the appeal has been
\nplaced for hearing before this larger Bench and the question in issue is
\nwhether in a case where possession is taken before the issuance of
\nnotification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,  the claimant
\n(owner of land) is entitled to interest for such anterior period  in accordance
\nwith Section 34 of  the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe relevant facts may be noticed in brief.   The Chief Commissioner,
\nDelhi, on behalf of the Delhi Administration, issued a preliminary
\nnotification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter
\nreferred to as “the Act”) on 13.11.1959 for acquisition of a large area of
\n34070 acres of land including 1 bigha 11 biswa area in khasra no.223 of
\nvillage Kharera for the planned development of Delhi.   This was followed
\nby a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in the
\nGazette on 11.10.1961.   The dispute in the present appeal relates to
\naforesaid plot bearing khasra no.223.  Being an evacuee property,  the said
\nplot was notified for being sold in public auction by the Ministry of
\nRehabilitation and it appears that in the auction notice it was mentioned that
\nthe same shall be out of the purview of the notification issued on 13.11.1959
\nunder Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of the land.  The original
\nappellant R.L. Jain purchased the said plot in the auction held on 8.4.1960
\nand a sale certificate was  issued in his favour on 31.8.1961.   In pursuance
\nof the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, the
\npossession of plot no.223 was taken over by the Collector on 10.11.1961 and
\nwas  handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (for short “the
\nDDA”).   The plot was  included in Award No.1245 made by the Collector
\non 30.12.1961 and compensation amount was determined.    R.L. Jain
\nreceived the compensation amount  under protest and sought reference to the
\nCourt  since he was dissatisfied with the amount of the compensation offered
\nand paid to him.   The Collector thereafter made a reference to the Court
\nunder Section 18 of the Act..\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAfter considerable period of time,  R.L. Jain filed Suit No.154 of 1965
\nimpleading Union of India as the sole defendant seeking a declaration that
\nthe proceedings taken for acquisition of plot bearing no.223 of village
\nKharera, which had been purchased by him in public auction, were illegal as
\nit was  stipulated in the auction notice that the said plot was not included in
\nthe preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act which was
\npublished on 13.11.1959.   After contest, the Sub-Judge First Class, Delhi
\npassed a decree on 12.4.1967 that the acquisition proceedings including
\nnotification dated 11.10.1961 issued under Section 6 of the Act with regard
\nto the  plot in dispute are null and void.  The  Union of India preferred an
\nappeal being RCA No.59 of 1968 but the same was dismissed by Senior
\nSubordinate Judge, Delhi (with enhanced appellate powers) on 13.1.1969
\nand the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1967 of the Subordinate Judge was
\naffirmed.   The matter rested there as it  was not carried in second appeal
\nbefore the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAs mentioned earlier in pursuance of the notifications issued under
\nSections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, the possession of the plot in dispute had been
\ntaken over by the Collector on 10.11.1961 and was handed over to the  DDA
\nwhich  commenced construction on the acquired  land.  R.L. Jain then filed
\nSuit No.421 of 1967 against Union of India and DDA for permanent
\ninjunction restraining them from making any construction over the disputed
\nplot and from disposing of the same in any manner.   During the pendency of
\nthe suit an undertaking was given by the  DDA that no construction would
\nbe raised on the plot in dispute.   However, the DDA proceeded with the
\nconstructions and consequently the plaint was amended and relief of
\nmandatory injunction for removal of the construction was sought.   The Sub-
\nJudge, Delhi decided the suit on  19.1.1980 and passed a decree for
\ndemolition of the construction and the possession.   The appeal (RCA
\nNo.465 of 1980) preferred against the said judgment and decree was
\ndismissed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 18.3.1989 and the
\ndecree for demolition and removal of the construction was affirmed.  The
\nDDA preferred a second appeal (RSA No.71 of 1989) in Delhi High Court
\nwhich was summarily dismissed on 14.8.1991 and then Special Leave
\nPetition  was filed in this Court.  In order to save the demolition of the
\nbuilding constructed over the plot in dispute, the appropriate authority issued
\nfresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of the plot in
\ndispute on 9.9.1992 and the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act
\nwas published on 8.9.1993.   After noticing that the  notifications under
\nSections 4 and 6 had already been issued, the Special Leave Petition filed by
\nDDA was disposed of on 13.12.1993 with the following directions :
\n“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and
\nto do complete justice between the parties we are of the view
\nthat it would not be appropriate to permit the demolition of the
\nflats which have already been constructed on the land in
\ndispute.   We, therefore, direct that the compensation which
\nshall be determined under the land acquisition proceedings in
\nrespect of the land in dispute shall be payable and paid to the
\nrespondent  R.L. Jain or his nominee.   Needless to say that
\nall offers and counter offers for settling the dispute which were
\nmade before this Court, shall stand withdrawn and ineffective.
\nWe direct that the land acquisition proceedings be expedited
\nand be completed preferably within six months from today.
\nWe allow the appeal in the above terms.  No costs.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Collector thereafter  made an award on 11.6.1994 for the plot in
\ndispute determining its market value  as Rs.16,54,175\/-  and  solatium at the
\nrate of 30% on the said amount as Rs.4,96,252\/-.    The Collector  also
\nawarded interest from 10.11.1961 to 9.11.1962 at the rate of 9% amounting
\nto Rs.1,93,538\/- and 10.11.1962 to  10.6.1994 (from the date of
\ndispossession till the date of the award) at the rate of 15% amounting to
\nRs.1,01,86,839\/-.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe award of the Collector was  challenged by the DDA by filing
\nWrit Petition No.292 of 1995 which has been partly allowed by the High
\nCourt by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.1997.   The High
\nCourt has held that the award of interest under Section 34 of the Act at the
\nrate of 9% p.a. w.e.f. 10.11.1961 to 9.12.1962 and then at the rate of 15%
\np.a. from 10.11.1962 to 10.6.1994 is without jurisdiction and to that extent
\nthe award has been set aside.  The remaining part of the award i.e. for
\nmarket value of land and solatium has been upheld.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tShri Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat<\/a> 1991 (1) SCC
\n262 has been decided by a Bench of two Judges.  In this case the possession
\nof the land was taken over by the government on 19.11.1949 under an
\narrangement that suitable land of equal value will be given to the owner.
\nBut, the government did not give any other alternative land and acquisition
\nproceedings were initiated whereunder the notification under Section 6(1) of
\nthe Act was issued on 1.2.1955.  The claimant was not satisfied with the
\naward made by the Collector and accordingly asked for a reference under
\nSection 18 of the Act.  The District Judge determined the amount of
\ncompensation for the acquired land but did not award any interest.  The
\nowner of the land did not prefer any appeal against the award of the District
\nJudge before the High Court, but the State preferred an appeal challenging
\nenhancement in compensation.   The claimant, then filed time barred cross
\nobjection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC along with an  application for
\ncondonation of delay.  The application for condonation of delay was
\ndismissed  with the result, the cross objection stood rejected as time barred.
\nIt was contended on behalf of the claimant (owner of the land) that he was
\nentitled to interest with effect from 19.11.1949.  The High Court took the
\nview that as the District Judge had not awarded interest for the period
\nclaimed by the claimant and his cross objection having been rejected as time
\nbarred, the claimant had no right to claim interest in the appeal preferred by
\nthe State Government.  The claimant then preferred an appeal in this Court
\nwhich modified the decree of the High Court by awarding interest.  Paras 16
\nand 17 of the Report wherein the matter was dealt with read as under:
\n“16.  ..The interest to be paid under Section 34 and
\nalso under Section 28 is of different character than the
\ncompensation amount under Section 23(1) of the Act.  Whereas
\nthe interest, if payable under the Act, can be claimed at any
\nstage of the proceedings under the Act, the amount of
\ncompensation under Section 23(1) which is an award-decree
\nunder Section 26 is subject to the rules of Procedure and
\nLimitation.  The rules of procedure  are hand-maiden of justice.
\nThe procedural hassle cannot come in the way of substantive
\nrights of citizens under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tWe do not, therefore, agree with the reasoning and the
\nfindings reached by the High Court.  We are of the opinion that
\nit was not necessary for the appellant-claimant to have filed
\nseparate appeal\/cross objections before the High Court for the
\npurposes of claiming interest under Section 28 or Section 34 of
\nthe Act.  He could claim the interest in the State appeal.  The
\nfact that he filed cross-objections which were dismissed as time
\nbarred, is wholly irrelevant.”\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe appeal preferred by the claimant was accordingly allowed and it
\nwas held that he was entitled to interest on the compensation amount for the
\nperiod 19.11.1949 to 1.2.1955 in accordance with the provisions of the Act,
\nas they stood prior to amendment made by  Act No. 68 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn Union of India v. Budh Singh & Ors.<\/a>  (1995) 6 SCC 233 which has
\nalso been decided by a Bench of two Judges, the possession of land was
\ntaken on 15.3.1963 and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
\npublished on 16.11.1984.  The award decree passed by the reference Court
\nattained finally.   In execution proceedings the High Court passed an order
\nthat in the event of default in payment of the amount within the stipulated
\ntime, interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of taking
\npossession shall be paid.  In appeal before this Court the only question raised
\nwas whether the owners of the land were entitled to interest at the rate of 18
\nper cent per annum from 15.3.1963, the date on which the possession was
\ntaken, till 15.11.1984, preceding the date on which the notification under
\nSection 4(1) had been published.   After analysis of the provisions of the Act
\nit was held that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code covering the
\nentire field of operation of the liability of the State to make payment of
\ninterest and entitlement thereof by the owner when the land is taken over.
\nThe  court has no power to impose any condition to pay interest in excess of
\nthe rate and the manner prescribed by the statute as well as for a period
\nanterior to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.  It
\nwas also held that the parameter for initiation of proceedings is the
\npublication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act which would
\ngive legitimacy to the State to take possession of the land in accordance with
\nthe provisions of the Act and further any possession taken otherwise would
\nnot be considered to be  possession taken under the Act.  The Bench went on
\nto hold that the Act being  a self-contained code, the common law principles
\nof justice, equity and good conscience cannot be extended in awarding
\ninterest, contrary to the provisions of the statute.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tShri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellant has
\nsubmitted that in Suit No. 154 of 1965 filed by the original appellant R.L.
\nJain, a decree had been passed that the notification issued under Section 6 of
\nthe Act on 11.10.1961 was null and void and the proceedings for acquisition
\nof land with regard to plot No. 223 of village Kharera were illegal and the
\nsaid decree became final in view of the dismissal of the appeal preferred by
\nUnion of India.  The earlier notifications issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of
\nthe Act, therefore,  became non est in the eyes of law but the possession of
\nthe plot in dispute had been taken over by Union of India on 10.11.1961.
\nThe fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 9.9.1992.
\nSection 34 clearly lays down that when the amount of compensation is not
\npaid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector
\nshall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon from the time of so
\ntaking possession until it is paid or deposited.  The appellant was
\nconsequently entitled to interest from the date of taking possession, viz. from
\n10.11.1961 and the Collector had rightly included the interest component in
\nthe award made by him.  Learned counsel has submitted that language of
\nSection 34 and also of  Section 28 is plain and unambiguous and, therefore,
\nno other view is possible.  He has also submitted that in case it  is held that
\nthe owner of the land is not entitled to interest for the period anterior to
\nnotification under Section 4(1) of the Act, it will be highly unjust and
\ninequitable.  In support of his submission, he has  placed reliance on
\nInglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. New Brunswick Electric Power
\nCommission AIR 1928 PC 287, wherein it was held that on a contract for
\nsale and purchase of land it is the practice to require the purchaser to pay
\ninterest on his purchase money from the date when he took possession.  He
\nhas also referred to The Revenue Divisional Officer Guntur v. Vasireddy
\nRama Bhanu Bupal & Ors. AIR 1970 AP 262 (FB) wherein it was held that
\npossession taken even prior to acquisition proceedings and with the consent
\nof the owner would be possession of land  under the Act and interest is
\npayable from the date of taking possession.  Reliance has also been placed
\nupon Smt. Swarnamayi v. Land Acquisition Collector, AIR 1964 Orissa 113,
\nwhere having regard to  Chapter XXVI  Rule 3 of Land Acquisition Manual,
\nit was held that where possession was obtained in accordance with the
\nconsent of the owner thereof before acquisition proceedings started, interest
\nfrom the date of taking over possession can be granted.  Learned counsel has
\nlastly submitted that the view taken by this Court in Shri Vijay Cotton & Oil
\nMills (supra) is the  legally correct and  equitable view and applying the
\nratio of the said case, the award made by the Collector wherein the appellant
\nhad been awarded  interest from the date of taking over possession, was
\nperfectly correct and the High Court has erred in setting aside the interest
\ncomponent.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tShri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
\nfor the respondents has submitted that under the Scheme of the Act no event
\nprior to publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act can be taken
\nnote of as any proceedings under the Act can commence only after
\npublication of the said notification.  The market value of the land has to be
\ndetermined as  on the date of issuance of preliminary notification under
\nSection 4(1) and therefore, the Collector or the Court cannot travel prior to
\nthe said date. Both Sections 28 and 34 contemplate payment of interest
\nwhere possession is taken over under the Act after the notification under
\nSection 4(1) has been issued and compensation amount has not been paid
\nand not for any anterior period.  The view taken in Union of India v. Budh
\nSingh<\/a> (supra) it is submitted, represents the correct legal position which has
\nbeen reiterated in a recent decision in Smt. Lila Ghosh v. State of West
\nBengal JT 2003(9) SC 23.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t In order to decide the question whether the provisions of Section 34
\nof the Act regarding  payment of interest would be applicable to a case
\nwhere possession has been taken over prior to issuance of notification under
\nSection 4(1)  of the Act  it is necessary to have a look at the Scheme of the
\nLand Acquisition Act.   Acquisition means taking not by voluntary
\nagreement but by authority of an Act of Parliament and by virtue of the
\ncompulsory powers thereby conferred. In  case of acquisition the property is
\ntaken by the State permanently and the title to the property vests in the State.
\nThe Land Acquisition Act makes complete provision for acquiring title over
\nthe land, taking possession thereof and for payment of compensation to the
\nland owner.  Part II of the Act deals with acquisition and the heading of
\nSection 4 is “Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers
\nthereupon”.  Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides that whenever it appears
\nto the appropriate government that land in any locality is needed or is likely
\nto be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that
\neffect shall be published in the  Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers
\ncirculating in that locality and the Collector shall cause public notice of the
\nsubstance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said
\nlocality.  Sub-section (2) provides that thereupon it shall be lawful for any
\nofficer either generally or specially authorised by such Government in this
\nbehalf  and for his servants and workmen, to enter upon and survey and take
\nlevels of any land in such locality, to dig or bore in the sub-soil and to do all
\nother acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such
\npurpose etc. etc.  This provision shows that the officers and servants and
\nworkmen of the government get the lawful authority to enter upon and
\nsurvey the land and  to do other  works only after the preliminary
\nnotification under Section 4(1) has been published.  Section 5-A enables a
\nperson interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 (1) to
\nfile objection against the acquisition of the land and also for  hearing of the
\nobjection by the Collector.  If the State Government is satisfied, after
\nconsidering the report,  that any  particular land is needed for public
\npurposes or for a company, it can make a declaration to that effect under
\nSection 6 of the Act and the said declaration has to be published in the
\nOfficial Gazette and in two daily newspapers and  public notice of the
\nsubstance of such declaration has to be given in the locality.  Thereafter the
\nCollector is required to issue notice to persons interested under Section 9 (1)
\nof the Act stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land
\nand that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to
\nhim.  Section 11 provides for making of an award by the Collector of the
\ncompensation which should be allowed for the land.  Section 16 provides
\nthat when the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take
\npossession of the land which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the
\nGovernment, free from all encumbrances.  This provision shows that
\npossession of the land can be taken only after the Collector has made an
\naward under Section 11.  Section 17 is in the nature of an exception  to
\nSection 16 and it provides that in cases of  urgency, whenever the
\nappropriate Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has
\nbeen made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the  publication of
\nthe notice mentioned in Section 9 (1), take possession of any land needed for
\na public purpose  and such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the
\nGovernment, free from all encumbrances.  The urgency provision contained
\nin Section 17(1)  can be invoked and possession can be taken over only after
\npublication of notification under Section 9(1) which itself can be done after
\npublication of notification under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act. Even here in
\nview of sub-section (3-A) the Collector has to tender 80 per cent of the
\nestimated amount of compensation to the persons interested entitled thereto
\nbefore taking over possession.   The scheme of the Act does not contemplate
\ntaking over of possession prior to the issuance of notification under Section
\n4(1) of the Act and if possession is taken prior to the said notification it will
\nde hors the Act.  It is for this reason that both Sections 11(1) and 23(1)
\nenjoin the determination of the market value of the land on the date of
\npublication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for the purpose of
\ndetermining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired
\nunder the Act.  These provisions show in unmistakable terms that
\npublication of notification under Section 4(1) is the sine-qua-non for any
\nproceedings under the Act   Section 34 of the Act, on the basis whereof the
\nappellant laid claim for interest, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“34.\tPayment of Interest  When the amount of such
\ncompensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking
\npossession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount
\nawarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per
\nannum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have
\nbeen so paid or deposited.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that if such compensation or any part thereof is
\nnot paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date
\non which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per
\ncentum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of
\nthe said period of one year on the amount of compensation or
\npart thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the
\ndate of such expiry.”\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe expression “the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with
\ninterest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so
\ntaking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited” should not be
\nread in isolation divorced from its context.  The words “such possession”
\nand “so taking possession” are important and have to be given meaning  in
\nthe light of other provisions of the Act.  “Such compensation” would mean
\nthe compensation determined in accordance with other provisions of the Act,
\nnamely, Sections 11 and 15 of the Act which by virtue of Section 23(1)
\nmean market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4(1)
\nand other amounts like statutory sum under sub-section (1-A) and solatium
\nunder Sub-section (2) of Section 23. \tThe heading of Part II of the Act is
\nAcquisition  and there is a sub-heading “Taking Possession” which
\ncontains Sections 16 and 17  of the Act. The words “so taking possession”
\nwould therefore mean taking possession in accordance with Sections 16 or
\n17 of the Act.  These are the only two Sections in the Act which specifically
\ndeal with the subject of  taking possession of the acquired land.  Clearly the
\nstage for taking possession under the aforesaid provisions  would be reached
\nonly after publication of the notification under Sections 4(1) and 9(1) of the
\nAct. If possession is  taken prior to the issuance of the notification under
\nSection 4(1) it would not be in accordance with Sections 16 or 17 and  will
\nbe without any authority of law and consequently cannot be recognised for
\nthe purposes of the Act.  For the parity of reasons the words “from the date
\non which he took possession of the land” occurring in Section 28 of the Act
\nwould also mean lawful taking of possession in accordance with Sections 16
\nor 17 of the Act.  The words “so taking possession” can under no
\ncircumstances mean such dispossession of the owner of the land which has
\nbeen done prior to publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
\nwhich is de hors the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn Union of India v. Budh Singh<\/a> (supra) after analysis of the
\nprovisions of the Act the Bench arrived at the following conclusions:
\n“The parameter for initiation of the proceedings is the
\npublication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in
\nthe State Gazette or in an appropriate case in District Gazette
\nas per the local amendments.  But the condition precedent is
\npublication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the
\nappropriate gazette.  That would give legitimacy to the State to
\ntake possession of the land in accordance with the provisions
\nof the Act.  Any possession otherwise would not be considered
\nto be possession taken under the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIn Shri Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills (supra),  the precise question raised
\nhere namely whether in a case where the possession is taken prior to the
\nissuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, interest can be
\nawarded in accordance with Sections 28 or 34 of the Act was not examined
\nand the only issue examined was whether in an appeal which has been
\npreferred by the State Government challenging the quantum of
\ncompensation awarded by the District Judge it is open to the High Court to
\naward interest to the claimant even though he had not preferred any appeal
\nor cross objection for the said purpose. It is well settled that a decision as an
\nauthority for what it actually decides.  What is of the essence in a decision is
\nits ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows
\nfrom the various observations made therein. (See Krishena Kumar v. Union
\nof India, AIR 1990 SC 1782, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam
\nKaur, AIR<\/a> 1989 SC 38 and  M\/s. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. & Anr. v.
\nState of Orissa AIR 1991 SC 672).\t Shri Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills (supra)
\nis therefore not an authority for the proposition that where possession is
\ntaken before issuance of notification under Section 4(1), interest on the
\ncompensation amount could be awarded in accordance with Section 34 of
\nthe Act with effect from the date of taking of possession.\n<\/p>\n
15.     Similar view has been taken in a recent decision by a Bench of two
\nJudges in Smt. Lila Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal J.T. 2003 (9) SC 23 and
\nthe reasons given there in para 16 of the Report are being reproduced below:
\n“Even though the authority in Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills
\nLtd. appears to support the claimants, it is to be seen that apart
\nfrom mentioning sections 28 and 34, no reasons have been
\ngiven to justify the award of interest from a date prior to
\ncommencement of acquisition proceedings.  A plain reading of
\nsection 34 shows that interest is payable only if the
\ncompensation which is payable, is not paid or deposited before
\ntaking possession.  The question of payment or deposit of
\ncompensation will not arise if there is no acquisition
\nproceeding.  In case where possession is taken prior to
\nacquisition proceedings a party may have a right to claim
\ncompensation or interest.  But such a claim would not be either
\nunder section 34 or section 28.  In our view interest under these
\nsections can only start running from the date the compensation
\nis payable.  Normally this would  be from the date of the award.
\nOf course, there may be cases under section 17 where by
\ninvoking urgency clause possession has been taken before the
\nacquisition proceedings are initiated.  In such cases,
\ncompensation, under the Land  Acquisition Act, would be
\npayable by virtue of the provisions of section 17.  As in cases
\nunder section 17 compensation is payable, interest my run from
\nthe date possession was taken”\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIn this connection it will be apposite to refer to Sub-section (1A) of
\nSection 23 of the Act which enjoins payment of an amount calculated at the
\nrate of twelve per centum per annum  on such market value for  the period
\ncommencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification
\nunder Section 4(1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the
\nCollector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
\nThere are  two decisions of this Court, wherein same controversy arose
\nnamely, whether the claimant would be entitled to additional sum at the rate
\nof  twelve per centum  on the market value where possession has been taken
\nover prior to publication of notification under Section 4(1). In  Special
\nTehsildar (LA) PWD Schemes Vijaywada v. M.A. Jabbar  AIR<\/a> 1995 SC 762
\nwhich has been  decided by a Bench of two Judges (K. Ramaswamy and
\nMrs. Sujata V. Manohar, JJ) it was   held that claimant would not be entitled
\nto this additional sum for the period anterior to publication of notification
\nunder Section 4(1).  However in Assistant Commissioner, Gadag, Sub-
\nDivision, Gadag v. Mathapathi Basavanewwa & Ors. AIR<\/a> 1995 SC 2492
\nalso decided by  a two-Judge Bench (K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ)
\nit was held that even though notification under Section 4(1) was issued after
\ntaking possession of the acquired land  the owners would be entitled to
\nadditional amount at twelve per cent per annum  from the date of taking
\npossession though notification under Section 4(1) was published later. For
\nthe reasons already indicated,  we are of the opinion that the view taken in
\nSpecial Tehsildar is legally correct and the view to the contrary taken in
\nAssistant Commissioner, Gadag (supra),  is not in accordance with law and
\nis hereby overruled.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tShri Dave learned counsel for the appellant has also placed strong
\nreliance on Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh and another AIR 1961 SC 908
\nwherein the question of  payment of interest in the matter of award of
\ncompensation was considered by this Court.  In this case the initial
\nnotification was issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
\nbut the proceedings for acquisition were completed under East Punjab Act
\nNo. 48 of 1948.  The High Court negatived the claim for  interest on the
\nground that the 1948 Act made no provision for award of interest.  After
\nquoting with approval the following observations of Privy Council  in
\nInglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. vs. New Brunswick Electric Power
\nCommission AIR 1928 PC 287:\n<\/p>\n
“upon the expropriation of land under statutory power, whether
\nfor the purpose of private gain or of good to the public at large,
\nthe owner is entitled to interest upon the principal sum awarded
\nfrom the date when possession was taken, unless the statute
\nclearly shows a contrary intention.”\n<\/p>\n
the bench held as under :\n<\/p>\n
“.When a claim for payment of interest is made by a
\nperson whose immovable property has been acquired
\ncompulsorily he is not making claim for damages properly or
\ntechnically so called; he is basing his claim on the general rule
\nthat if he is deprived of his land he should be put in possession
\nof compensation immediately; if not, in lieu of possession taken
\nby compulsory acquisition interest should be paid to him on the
\nsaid amount of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe normal rule, therefore, is that if on account of acquisition of land
\na person is deprived of possession of his property he should be paid
\ncompensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith he
\nwould be entitled to interest thereon from the date  of dispossession till the
\ndate of payment thereof.  But here the land has been acquired only after the
\npreliminary notification was issued on 9.9.1992 as earlier acquisition
\nproceedings were declared to be null and void in the suit instituted by the
\nland owner himself and consequently he was not entitled to compensation or
\ninterest thereon for the anterior period<\/p>\n
18.      In a case where the land owner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of
\npreliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the government
\nmerely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest
\nwith the land owner.  It is fully open for the land owner to recover the
\npossession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings.  He is
\ntherefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the
\nperiod the government retains possession of the property.  Where possession
\nis taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion,
\nit will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or
\ndamages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while
\ndetermining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the
\nacquisition of the property.  The provision of Section 48 of the Act lend
\nsupport to such a course of action.    For delayed payment of such amount
\nappropriate interest at prevailing bank rate maybe awarded.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tThe case may be examined from the equitable consideration as well.
\nIn the earlier acquisition proceedings the notification under Section 4(1) had
\nbeen published on 13.11.1959 and the Collector had made an award for
\nRs.6301\/- for the plot in dispute  on 30.12.1961. The award was made within
\n1-1\/2 months of  dispossession which allegedly took place on 10.11.1961.
\nThis amount was paid to R.L. Jain and was  retained by him.  Learned
\ncounsel for the respondent has placed before the Court a copy of the sale
\ncertificate issued in favour of R.L. Jain on 31.8.1961 which shows that the
\nplot was purchased by him for Rs. 3200\/- only and thus he had received
\nalmost double amount of  compensation. Therefore, even on equitable
\nground he is not entitled to any amount from the date of dispossession till
\nthe date of second notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which was
\nissued in 1992.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tIn this connection, it may be noted that the only plea taken in  Suit
\nno.154 of 1965  filed by R.L. Jain was that it was given out at the time of
\nauction sale of the plot that  the  same was outside the purview of the
\npreliminary notification issued on 13.11.1959 under Section 4(1) of the Act.
\nEven assuming that it was so but that by itself  could not render the
\nacquisition proceedings invalid.   At best, he would have been entitled to
\nrefund of the sale consideration paid by him.   However, the Sub-Judge
\npassed a decree that the acquisition proceedings with regard to the plot in
\ndispute are illegal and the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act
\non 11.10.1961 is null and void. The decree having become final it is binding
\nupon the respondent, DDA.   The original appellant R.L. Jain on the one
\nhand received compensation amount in terms of the award of the Collector
\nand sought a reference to the Court on the ground of alleged inadequacy of
\ncompensation and at the same time filed the suit challenging the acquisition
\nproceedings wherein he obtained a decree that the acquisition proceedings
\nare null and void.  It was on account of this judgment and decree that he
\nsucceeded in the second suit (Suit No.421 of 1967), wherein a decree for
\ndemolition of construction made by DDA and restoration of possession in
\nhis favour was passed.  It is in such circumstances that in order to save the
\nconstruction the land acquisition proceedings were initiated again by issuing
\na notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 9.9.1992.  Under the award
\ngiven by the Collector on 11.6.1994 he has been awarded Rs.16,54,175 as
\nthe market value of the land and  Rs.4,96,252 as solatium.   The appellant
\nhas thus been more than  adequately compensated and in our opinion even
\non equitable grounds he is not entitled to any further amount.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons discussed above, there is no merit in this appeal and
\nthe same is hereby dismissed  with  costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004 Author: G Mathur Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Dr. Ar Lakshmanan, G.P. Mathur. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5515 of 1997 PETITIONER: R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. RESPONDENT: DDA & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/03\/2004 BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu , […]<\/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-131596","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nR.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004 - 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\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-19T18:25:30+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T18:25:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":5825,\"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\\\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004\",\"name\":\"R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T18:25:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004 - 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\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-19T18:25:30+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T18:25:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004"},"wordCount":5825,"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\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004","name":"R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T18:25:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-l-jain-d-by-lrs-vs-dda-ors-on-12-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs vs Dda & Ors on 12 March, 2004"}]},{"@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\/131596","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=131596"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131596\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}