{"id":140828,"date":"2004-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004"},"modified":"2015-02-19T20:19:56","modified_gmt":"2015-02-19T14:49:56","slug":"ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S V Patil<\/div>\n
Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, B.N. Srikrishna<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6276 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. Ahad Brothers\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of M.P. & Anr.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/11\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nSHIVARAJ V. PATIL & B.N. SRIKRISHNA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Shivaraj V. Patil J.\n<\/p>\n
\tPursuant to the Notification issued under Section 4(1)
\nof the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) an
\nextent of 16.81 acres of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 870,
\n871, 872, 973 and 1623\/873 was acquired.  The Land
\nAcquisition Officer, considering the appellant as the owner,
\npassed Award fixing the market value of the land acquired
\nat the rate of Rs.450\/- per acre and awarded a sum of
\nRs.15,307.58 paise as compensation.  Not being satisfied
\nwith the amount of compensation, so awarded, the
\nappellant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act
\nfor enhancement of compensation claiming a sum of
\nRs.32,91,771.50.  The Reference Court accepted the Award
\nmade by the Land Acquisition Officer holding that the
\ncompensation awarded was adequate.  Consequently, it
\nrejected the reference.  Aggrieved by the order of the
\nReference Court the appellant filed First Appeal No. 82 of
\n1969 in the High Court.  The High Court allowed the appeal,
\nset aside the order of Reference Court and remanded the
\nmatter to it to decide the reference afresh.  The learned
\nDistrict Judge (Reference Court) framed an additional issue
\nas to what was the market value of the land acquired on
\nthe date of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the
\nAct.  On the basis of the evidence recorded learned District
\nJudge recorded a finding that the market value of the land
\nwas Rs.2\/- per square foot and awarded a sum of
\nRs.14,64,480 as compensation for the land and Rs.6,600\/-
\nas compensation for the trees standing thereon with
\nsolatium and interest.  The State, aggrieved by the order of
\nthe Reference Court, filed First Appeal No. 141 of 1980 in
\nthe High Court.  The appellant also filed cross objections
\nseeking further enhancement of the compensation as per
\nthe claim.  During the pendency of the appeal State
\nGovernment made application for amendment in the written
\nstatement to the effect that the appellant was not the
\nowner of the land and was a licensee or a lessee.  The State
\nGovernment also made an application seeking permission to
\nfile additional evidence.  The High Court allowed the
\napplications made for amendment as well as for taking the
\nadditional evidence.  The High Court after allowing the said
\napplications set aside the Award made by the District Court
\nand remitted the matter again to the Additional District
\nJudge for determining the right of the appellant in the land
\nand to determine the market value of those rights on the
\ndate of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act.
\nHowever, after the remand the State Government did not
\namend its written statement as directed by the High Court.
\nBut the learned District Judge in compliance of the order of
\nthe High Court framed additional issues and took additional
\nevidence.  On the basis of the material available on record
\nthe learned District Judge recorded findings that the
\nappellant was having ownership rights in the acquired land.
\nHe determined the market value of the land acquired at
\nRs.16,64,480\/- and Rs.6,600\/- as compensation for the
\ntrees and solatium at the rate of 15% as also interest at the
\nrate of 3% per year from the date of taking possession of
\nthe land.  The State Government for the second time filed
\nappeal in the High Court questioning the validity and
\ncorrectness of the order made by the learned District Judge.
\nThe appellant also filed cross objections claiming
\nenhancement of the compensation for the land acquired at
\nthe rate of Rs.5\/- per square foot.  The High Court partly
\nallowed the appeal filed by the State and dismissed the
\ncross objections filed by the appellant by the impugned
\njudgment.  In the impugned judgment the High Court fixed
\nmarket value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.2\/- per
\nsquare yard as against the market value fixed by the
\nReference Court at the rate of Rs.2\/- per square foot.
\nFurther, the High Court held that the appellant was entitled
\nfor compensation only to the extent of lease hold interest in
\nthe acquired land and that they were not owners of the
\nland.  Hence the appellant is before this Court aggrieved by
\nthe impugned judgment and order passed by the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the appellant strongly
\ncontended that (1) the jurisdiction of the civil court in
\ndeciding reference under Section 18 of the Act is limited
\nand is of special nature; reference proceedings could not be
\nconverted into a suit for adjudication for title over the land
\nacquired; the High Court committed an error in deciding the
\nquestion of title and holding that the appellant had only
\nlease hold interest in the land acquired.  (2) The High Court
\nshould have appreciated the fact that the respondent-State
\nhad throughout acknowledged the title of ownership of the
\nappellant over the land right from the date of issuance of
\nNotification under Section 4(1) of the Act; respondent-State
\nwas bound by their conduct and they were estopped from
\nclaiming otherwise at later stage, i.e., after the whole
\nacquisition proceedings were completed, Award had been
\npassed and that too in the second round before the High
\nCourt.  (3) The High Court committed a serious error in
\ninterfering with the well-reasoned and justified findings
\nrecorded by the District Judge on proper appreciation of
\nboth oral and documentary evidence; the High Court did
\nnot dislodge the reasons recorded by the District Court in
\nrecording findings.  (4) No material was placed on record to
\nestablish that the appellant was only a lessee and not the
\nowner; the State had accepted the appellant as the owner
\nof the land and it was bound by the same; even otherwise
\nthe State failed to establish by placing any material on
\nrecord to show that the appellant was only a lessee.  In
\nsupport of his submissions the learned counsel placed
\nreliance on few decisions of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tPer contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
\nmade submissions supporting the impugned judgment
\nadopting the very reasons recorded in favour of the State in
\nthe impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel further submitted that when on
\nan earlier occasion the High Court had permitted the State
\nGovernment to file written statement to raise a plea as
\nregards the right of the appellant only as a lessee or a
\nlicensee over the property in question and that having not
\nbeen challenged by the appellant any further, it was not
\nopen to the appellant to contend that the Reference Court
\ncould not consider the question of title over the land
\nacquired.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the light of the rival contentions advanced and the
\nsubmissions made on behalf of the parties, the two
\nquestions arise for consideration  – (1) whether the High
\nCourt was right in going into the question of title over the
\nproperty acquired by the State and in recording a finding
\nthat the appellant had only leasehold interest in the said
\nland; (2) whether the High Court was right in interfering
\nwith the market value of the land determined by the
\nReference Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe IVth Addl. District Judge, Bhopal (Reference
\nCourt) on proper consideration and appreciation of both
\ndocumentary as well as oral evidence recorded a finding
\nthat the respondent-State could not prove that the
\nappellant was only the licensee on the acquired land.  One
\nAadh Narayan (DW1) examined on behalf of the
\nrespondent-State in his evidence stated that he was
\nemployed in the office of the Director of Land Records.  He
\nwas not able to support the case of the respondent that the
\nappellant was a lessee or licensee.  He admitted in his
\nevidence that there was no lease deed executed between
\nthe parties as per the records available in the office.  There
\nwas also no record to show that the appellant was a
\nlicensee.  In his cross-examination, he admitted that he
\ncould not tell whether the acquired land belonged to the
\nState or it was acquired by State later on.  Abdul Rahuf
\nKhan (PW3) examined in support of the case of the
\nappellant in his evidence stated that no lease deed was
\nexecuted by State and that no lease amount was paid to
\nthe State and his firm was the owner of the land acquired.
\nHe further stated that he had obtained this land in 1950
\nfrom the State for the purpose of establishing bone mill; the
\nappellant-firm is recorded as owner in revenue records of
\nthe State; the Land Acquisition Officer also treated the
\nappellant as owner and made the award showing the
\nappellant as the owner in the notification issued to acquire
\nthe land.  The learned Addl. District Judge, referring to
\nvarious documents in para 9 of the judgment in the light of
\nthe oral evidence concluded that the respondent-State
\nfailed to establish that the appellant is only a
\nlessee\/licensee when all along the appellant was shown as
\nthe owner and even the Land Acquisition Officer treated the
\nappellant as owner.  The State contending otherwise had to
\nestablish its case that the appellant was only
\nlessee\/licensee, failed to do so.  The High Court, in our
\nview, committed a serious error in reversing this finding of
\nthe Reference Court without dislodging the reasons
\nrecorded by the Reference Court in support of its conclusion
\non this point.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe contention that it was not open to the appellant to
\nurge that the Reference Court could not consider the
\nquestion of title over the land having not challenged the
\norder made by the High Court earlier permitting the
\namendment of the written statement, has no force.  Merely
\nbecause permission was granted to amend the written
\nstatement did not mean that the appellant could not resist
\nthe claim of the respondent-State as regards its right as
\nowner over the land acquired.  The respondent-State itself
\nhas treated the appellant all along as the owner of the land.
\nNot only in the notification acquiring the land, name of the
\nappellant is shown as owner, even the revenue records also
\nshow the appellant as owner.  Further the Land Acquisition
\nOfficer passed award in respect of this land treating the
\nappellant as owner entitled to receive compensation.  If the
\nState was owner of the land in question, there was no
\nreason for it to acquire its own land.  The State cannot said
\nto be a person interested to agitate any claim either under
\nSection 18 or under Section 30 of the Act.  The court
\nexercising jurisdiction under Section 18 could not decide the
\nquestion of the title of the State over the acquired land.
\nThe position of law is clear in this regard by recent
\njudgment of this Court in Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar
\n& Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 128].  The sole question that arose
\nfor consideration in that case was  when the State
\nproceeds to acquire land on an assumption that it belongs
\nto a particular person, can the award be called into question
\nby the State seeking a reference under Section 30 of the
\nAct on the premise that the land did not belong to the
\nperson from whom it was purportedly acquired and was a
\nland owned by the State having vested in it.  In para 36 of
\nthe said judgment, having considered various aspects and
\nthe scheme of the Act, this Court has concluded thus:-
\n“36.\t To sum up, the State is not a “person
\ninterested” as defined in Section 3(b) of the Act.
\nIt is not a party to the proceedings before the
\nCollector in the sense, which the expression
\n“parties to the litigation” carries.  The Collector
\nholds the proceedings and makes an award as a
\nrepresentative of the State Government.  Land
\nor an interest in land pre-owned by the State
\ncannot be the subject matter of acquisition by
\nthe State.  The Question of deciding the
\nownership of the State or holding of any interest
\nby the State Government in proceedings before
\nthe Collector cannot arise in the proceedings
\nbefore the Collector [as defined in Section 3(c)
\nof the Act].  If it was government land there was
\nno question of initiating the proceedings for
\nacquisition at all.  The Government would not
\nacquire the land, which already vests in it.  A
\ndispute as to the pre-existing right or interest of
\nthe State Government in the property sought to
\nbe acquired is not a dispute capable of being
\nadjudicated upon or referred to the civil court for
\ndetermination either under Section 18 or Section
\n30 of the Act.  The reference made by the
\nCollector to the court was wholly without
\njurisdiction and the civil court ought to have
\nrefused to entertain the reference and ought to
\nhave rejected the same.  All the proceedings
\nunder Section 30 of the Act beginning from the
\nreference and adjudication thereon by the civil
\ncourt suffer from lack of inherent jurisdiction and
\nare therefore a nullity liable to be declared so.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the present appeal, it is not the case of the
\nrespondent-State that the title of the appellant had come to
\nan end on happening of any event or change taking place
\nafter making of the award by the Collector.  As stated in
\npara 37 in the case of Sharda Devi (supra), the decision in
\nthis appeal does not preclude the State from pursuing such
\nother legal remedy before any other forum, if available in
\nlaw and if such a claim is maintainable in law.  In the light
\nof the judgment of this Court afore-mentioned, in our view,
\nthe High Court committed an error in taking a view that the
\nquestion of title could be decided in the proceedings arising
\nunder Section 18 of the Act.  Hence, the finding recorded by
\nthe High Court in the impugned judgment that the appellant
\nhad only leasehold interest in the land cannot be sustained.
\n\tThe Reference Court after due consideration of oral
\nand documentary evidence determined the market value of
\nthe land acquired @Rs.2 per sq.ft. as on the date of issuing
\nnotification under Section 4(1) dated 23.12.1962.   The
\nLand Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation @450\/-
\nper acre and also awarded a sum of Rs. 6600\/- as
\ncompensation for the trees that existed in the land.  The
\nReference Court being conscious that the market value of
\nthe land had to be determined as on the date of 4(1)
\nnotification i.e. 23.12.1962 took into consideration sale
\ndeeds of the year 1954, 1955, 1960 and 1963 and also one
\nsale deed of 1962. In para 22 of the judgment of the
\nReference Court, it is stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“Therefore, it is proved from the statements
\ngiven by claimant and his witnesses that
\nBalawant Singh had sold the land attached to
\ndisputed land @ Rs. 2-5 per squire foot to
\nShyamlal in 1963 and Shyamlal purchased the
\nland in New Market @ 2.20 per squire foot in
\n1960.  There is a difference in threats of land in
\nBhopal Mahanagar in 1960 and 1962,
\ntherefore, I am of the view that the rate of the
\ndisputed land was Rs. 2.5 per squire foot on
\nthe date of Notification u\/s 4(1) of Land
\nAcquisition Act got issued in the official
\nGazette.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is also noticed that the land acquired is situated on
\nthe State Highway of Bhopal-Jabalpur; it is one and half
\nmile away from Hamidiya bus stand; BHEL factory is two
\nand half miles away from this land; facilities like electricity,
\nwater and phone are available to this land; transportation is
\nalso available for passengers and goods and that the land in
\nquestion is surrounded by other industrial establishments.
\nIt was not used as agricultural land at the time of
\nacquisition.  The Reference Court in its order having noticed
\nabove facts as observed thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“In these circumstances, the reasoning of land
\nacquisition Officer that disputed land should be
\nvalued by treating the agriculture is baseless.
\nThe disputed land is situated within the limits of
\nNagar Nigam of Bhopal Mahanagar and situated
\nat bank of the Public Road which is in between
\nMahanagar and BHEL.  It is in the interest of
\njustice to find out that what would an ordinary
\npurchaser have paid for the disputed land on
\n2.12.1962.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, on a proper appreciation of evidence, as already
\nstated above, the Reference Court determined the market
\nvalue of the land acquired @Rs. 2 per sq. ft.  The High
\nCourt in the impugned judgment without considering the
\nmaterial on record in order to determine the proper market
\nvalue and even without considering the reasons recorded by
\nthe reference Court as to the market value has simply
\nstated: –\n<\/p>\n
“Thus, we are of the considered view that the
\nprice fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of
\nRs. 2\/- per sq. ft. does not deserve to be
\nupheld.”\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter the High Court held that “admittedly it had
\nthe potentiality on the date of publication of the notification
\nunder Section 4(1) of the Act, considering the proximity to
\nthe urban areas, its potentiality for development and its
\ncharacter, we think it appropriate to fix the price on the
\nbasis of square yard.  Considering the entire gamut of facts,
\nwe think Rs. 2\/- should be the just price per square yard
\nand accordingly, we so hold.”\n<\/p>\n
The reference Court as well the High Court both have
\nconcurrently held that the land acquired, though was an
\nagricultural land, was not being used for agricultural
\npurpose as on the date of issuing 4(1) notification and it
\nhad potentialities for purpose of creating building sites.  The
\nReference Court was right in determining the market value
\nof the land acquired @Rs. 2\/- per sq. ft. but it committed
\nan error in not giving any deduction towards developmental
\ncharges.  In our view, having regard to the location and
\nsurroundings of the acquired land, as already indicated
\nabove, it would be just and appropriate to deduct 30%
\ntowards developmental charges out of the amount of
\ncompensation payable to the appellant @Rs. 2\/- per sq. ft.
\nIn view of what is stated above, the impugned
\njudgment and order cannot be sustained.  Hence, the
\nappeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment is modified
\nawarding the compensation to the appellant as owner of the
\nland acquired @ Rs. 2\/- per sq. ft. after deducting 30% of
\nthe market value of the land calculated on the basis of Rs.
\n2\/- per sq. ft.  The appellant is also entitled for all the
\nstatutory benefits on the amount of compensation so
\ndetermined.  The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  No
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 2004 Author: S V Patil Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, B.N. Srikrishna CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6276 of 1999 PETITIONER: M\/s. Ahad Brothers RESPONDENT: State of M.P. & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/11\/2004 BENCH: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & B.N. SRIKRISHNA […]<\/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-140828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 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\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-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=\"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-19T14:49:56+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-19T14:49:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3049,\"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\\\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-19T14:49:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 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":"M\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 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\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-19T14:49:56+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-19T14:49:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004"},"wordCount":3049,"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\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004","name":"M\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-19T14:49:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahad-brothers-vs-state-of-m-p-anr-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Ahad Brothers vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 19 November, 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\/140828","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=140828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}