{"id":145266,"date":"2003-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003"},"modified":"2015-07-25T21:03:53","modified_gmt":"2015-07-25T15:33:53","slug":"orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"Orissa Industrial &#8230; vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Orissa Industrial &#8230; vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Sema<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.N. Variava, H.K. Sema<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4424 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nOrissa Industrial Infrastructure Dev.Ltd.\nRESPONDENT:\nSupai Munda &amp; Ors. \t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/12\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nS.N. VARIAVA &amp; H.K. SEMA\t\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>WITH<br \/>\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 9564 of 2003<br \/>\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION ( C ) NO. 19869 OF 1997<\/p>\n<p>SEMA,J<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19869 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThese two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order<br \/>\ndated 19th February, 1997 passed by the High Court.  Civil Appeal No. 4424<br \/>\nof 1997 has been preferred by Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development<br \/>\nCorporation and the appeal arising out of SLP) 19869 of 1997 has been<br \/>\npreferred by the State of Orissa.  Since both the appeals arise out of the<br \/>\ncommon judgment of the High Court, they are being disposed of by this<br \/>\ncommon order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFacts of this case illustrate a classic example as to how the concerned<br \/>\nauthority subjugated and suppressed the rights of the illiterate rustic tribal<br \/>\nvillagers of far flung area from the madding crowd and coerced them to<br \/>\naccept the price fixed by the concerned authority despite their protest.<br \/>\n\tThe facts of the cases may be briefly recited.  For brevity we are<br \/>\ntaking the facts from Civil Appeal No. 4424 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe State Government acquired private land in village Gadpur under<br \/>\nSukinanda Tehsil in the District of Jajpur, Orissa for development of an<br \/>\nintegrated industrial complex.  Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of<br \/>\nthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act&#8217;) was<br \/>\nissued on 13.7.90.  In the said Notification land comprising Acre 0.65\/5<br \/>\nKadi belonging to respondent No. 1 (contesting respondent) was also<br \/>\nacquired along with other land owners.   Declaration under Section 6 of the<br \/>\nAct was issued on 12.6.91.  The Award under Section 11 of the Act was<br \/>\npassed on 25.7.92.  Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued to the<br \/>\nrespondent-claimant on 27.7.92.  An agreement was allegedly entered into<br \/>\nbetween the State and the land owners on 6.8.92 on the basis of which the<br \/>\npayment of compensation was made on that date, allegedly on the agreed<br \/>\nterms.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFrom the record it appears that the 1st respondent orally protested as to<br \/>\nthe sufficiency of the amount of compensation awarded and wanted to have<br \/>\nhis protest recorded but the authority reprimanded him that if any protest or<br \/>\nobjection was recorded the amount of compensation would not be paid and<br \/>\nthe same would be deposited in the Treasury.  It is alleged that the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent being an illiterate tribal person was coerced to receive the<br \/>\ncompensation amount without having recorded any protest.  It is also alleged<br \/>\nthat the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not received by the<br \/>\nrespondent.  The 1st respondent, thereafter, preferred an application under<br \/>\nSection 18 of the Act for reference for determining higher compensation by<br \/>\nregd. A.D. on 17.9.92 to the authority and the same was received on 18.9.92.<br \/>\nOn 8.12.92, the Land Acquisition Officer declined to refer the application<br \/>\nunder Section 18 of the Act to the competent civil court.  Aggrieved by the<br \/>\nsaid order, the respondent filed civil revision petition before the High Court.<br \/>\nBy  order dated 11.9.95, the High Court disposed of the revision petition by<br \/>\nsetting aside the order dated 8.12.92 and directed the Land Acquisition<br \/>\nOfficer to re-hear the question of maintainability of the application under<br \/>\nSection 18 of the Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent by adducing evidence.  The Land Acquisition Officer, thereafter,<br \/>\nheard the matter afresh and rejected the application by order dated 15.12.95<br \/>\nwhich has been again set aside by the High Court on revision being preferred<br \/>\nby the respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy the impugned order, the High Court directed the authority to send<br \/>\nthe reference to the appropriate civil court within a period of one month<br \/>\nfrom the date of receipt of the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.  Two main<br \/>\ncontentions have been raised before us: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tReference under Section 18 is not maintainable being barred by<br \/>\nlimitation; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tWhen an Award is made under Section 11(2) of the Act, no<br \/>\nreference can be made under Section 18 of the Act as the same is<br \/>\nbarred by proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 31 of the Act.<br \/>\nLimitation<br \/>\nIt is undisputed that the Award was made on 25.7.92.  The alleged<br \/>\nagreement was entered into between the authority and the respondent herein<br \/>\non 6.8.92 and the compensation amount was also paid on 6.8.92.  As already<br \/>\nnoticed the application for reference under Section 18 of the Act was sent by<br \/>\nregistered post on 17.9.92 and the authority received the same on 18.9.92.<br \/>\nNotice under sub-section 2 of Section 12 of the Act was sent on 27.7.92.<br \/>\nThe High Court has dealt with this question elaborately and arrived at the<br \/>\nconclusion that if the period is reckoned from the date of posting of the<br \/>\napplication i.e. 17.9.92, the application was filed within 42 days of the<br \/>\nreceipt of payment.  It is undisputed that the application was received on<br \/>\n18.9.92.  Therefore, there was only one day&#8217;s delay.<br \/>\nSection 18 of the Act prescribes the procedure for reference to court<br \/>\nand provides that every application for reference shall be made &#8212; (a) if the<br \/>\nperson making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time<br \/>\nwhen he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector&#8217;s<br \/>\naward; and (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice<br \/>\nfrom the Collector under sub-section 2 of Section 12 or within six months<br \/>\nfrom the date of the Collector&#8217;s award, whichever period shall first expire.<br \/>\nIn the present case clause (b) is attracted because the 1st respondent was not<br \/>\npresent, or represented before the Collector at the time he made his award.<br \/>\nTherefore, notice under sub-section 2 of Section 12 was sent to the<br \/>\nrespondent herein on 27.7.92.  It was returned on 29.7.92, said to be after<br \/>\nproper service.  The evidence on record shows that one Supai Gagrai had put<br \/>\nhis signatures on the bottom of the notice and received the notice.  The name<br \/>\nof the respondent herein is Supai Munda.  The respondent has denied to have<br \/>\nreceived the notice.  It is his say that he is an illiterate person and cannot put<br \/>\nhis signatures.  This will clearly demonstrate that the respondent herein has<br \/>\nnot received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act personally.  If that is<br \/>\nso, the notice upon the respondent was not duly served.  The contention of<br \/>\nthe appellants on this ground, therefore, fails.\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether reference can be made under Section 18 of the Act when the<br \/>\nAward is allegedly made under Section 11(2) of the Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>To answer this question first it will be relevant to consider whether the<br \/>\nAward was made under Section 11 or under Section 11(2) of the Act.<br \/>\nPursuant to an order of 4th September, 2003 passed by this Court, the<br \/>\nState Government filed a translated copy of the Award dated 25.7.1992<br \/>\n(shown as 25.8.1992 through inadvertence which has been subsequently<br \/>\ncorrected as 25.7.1992).  Even otherwise the Award was made on 25.7.1992<br \/>\nis not disputed.  The copy of the Award dated 25.7.1992 is accompanied by<br \/>\nan affidavit dated 12.11.2003 sworn in by Mr.J.K.Das, Advocate on behalf<br \/>\nof the appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP) No. 19869 of 1997.<br \/>\nThe Award of 25.7.1992 was clearly passed in a proceeding under Section<br \/>\n11 of the Act.  At the time of the hearing learned counsel for the State,<br \/>\nMr. J.K. Das, also produced an English version of the Award dated 6.8.1992<br \/>\nsaid to have been passed pursuant to the agreement dated 6.8.1992.  The<br \/>\nsubsequent Award dated 6.8.1992 is shown to have been passed under<br \/>\nSection 11(2) of the Act.  We are surprised to note as to how the subsequent<br \/>\nAward dated 6.8.1992 was made pursuant to the alleged agreement made on<br \/>\n6.8.1992.  We smell the rats.  When the Award is made by the Collector<br \/>\nunder Section 11 of the Act, the proceedings before him stand terminated as<br \/>\nsoon as the Award is made.  The provision of sub-section 2 of Section 11 is<br \/>\nattracted only at any stage of the proceedings before the Collector, that is to<br \/>\nsay, if the Collector has not passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act<br \/>\nand the proceedings before him were still subsisting.  In the present case, it<br \/>\nclearly appears from the Award dated 25.7.1992 itself that it was made<br \/>\nunder Section 11 of the Act.  The claimant Shri Supai Munda (respondent<br \/>\nherein) has categorically stated that he received the compensation amount<br \/>\npursuant to the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, which was issued on<br \/>\n27.7.1992.  That statement remains uncontroverted.  In our view, therefore,<br \/>\nthere was no occasion for the learned Collector to have recourse to sub-<br \/>\nsection (2) of Section 11 of the Act.  There can never be two awards &#8211; one<br \/>\nunder Section 11 of the Act and another under Section 11(2) of the Act over<br \/>\nthe same land acquired.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent herein examined<br \/>\nhimself as witness No. 1;  Gourang Ch. Jamuda (co-villager) as witness No.<br \/>\n2; and Ramai Munda as witness No. 3.  The respondent-claimant deposed<br \/>\nthat he received the compensation amount for his land measuring an area<br \/>\nAcre 0.65\/5 Kadi in Mouza Gadpur by putting his thumb impression on the<br \/>\nrelevant papers, the contents of which were not explained to him.  He further<br \/>\nstated that the officer told him that unless he put his thumb impression, the<br \/>\ncompensation amount would not be paid and the same would be deposited<br \/>\ninto the treasury.  The officer further told him that the compensation amount<br \/>\nwould not be paid to him if he put objections.  Witness No. 2 has deposed<br \/>\nthat he was present at the camp when the claimant received the<br \/>\ncompensation amount.  He further deposed that the officer did not explain<br \/>\nabout the contents of the paper when the claimant put his thumb impression<br \/>\non the same.   The officer also said that the compensation amount would not<br \/>\nbe paid to the claimant if he would raise objection.  He further deposed that<br \/>\nthe claimant then put his thumb impression on the paper out of fear.  The<br \/>\nsame is the deposition of witness No. 3.  The appellant has not rebutted the<br \/>\nstatements of witness Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by adducing evidence.  The deposition<br \/>\nof witness Nos. 1, 2 and 3, therefore, remain uncontroverted.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nfact that the State Authority coerced the claimant to accept the amount of<br \/>\ncompensation fixed by them is established by convincing evidence.  It is also<br \/>\nevidently apparent that the claimant made oral protest as to the sufficiency<br \/>\nof the amount of compensation, which has been cowed down by resorting to<br \/>\ncoercive method.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellants stressed to press the proviso to<br \/>\nSection 31(2) of the Act, which provides that the reference under Section 18<br \/>\nof the Act is incapable unless a person has received the compensation<br \/>\namount under protest.  This benefit will not be available to the appellants in<br \/>\nthe present case because, as already noticed, the claimant has received the<br \/>\ncompensation under duress.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the<br \/>\nobservations made by the learned Land Acquisition Officer in his order<br \/>\ndated 8.12.92 to the effect that he explained to the respondent the actual<br \/>\nmarket value of the land on the basis of sale statistics.  He also observed that<br \/>\nthe claimant had received the compensation amount without protest.  No<br \/>\nreliance can be placed on the observations made in the judgment and order<br \/>\ndated 8.12.92 inasmuch as the same has been set aside by the High Court by<br \/>\nits order dated 11.9.95.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the facts and circumstances as alluded above, the judgments in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1549211\/\">State of Gujarat &amp; Ors. v. Daya Shamji Bhai &amp; Ors.<\/a> (1995) 5 SCC 746;<br \/>\nand Ishwarlal Premchand Shah &amp; Ors. v. State of Gujarat &amp; Ors. (1996) 4<br \/>\nSCC 174; relied on by the counsel for the appellants have no relevance on<br \/>\nthe facts of this case.  Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.<br \/>\nThe court below is directed to proceed to hear the reference<br \/>\napplication and dispose it of as quickly as possible, preferably within six<br \/>\nmonths from the date of receipt of this order as the matter is pending since<br \/>\n1992.  It is open to the appellants to urge any grounds as are available to<br \/>\nthem under law.\n<\/p>\n<p>Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeals are dismissed.  No<br \/>\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Orissa Industrial &#8230; vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003 Author: J Sema Bench: S.N. Variava, H.K. Sema CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4424 of 1997 PETITIONER: Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Dev.Ltd. RESPONDENT: Supai Munda &amp; Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/12\/2003 BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA &amp; H.K. SEMA JUDGMENT: J U D [&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-145266","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>Orissa Industrial ... vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003 - 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\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Orissa Industrial ... vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-25T15:33:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Orissa Industrial &#8230; vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-25T15:33:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1984,\"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\\\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003\",\"name\":\"Orissa Industrial ... vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-25T15:33:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Orissa Industrial &#8230; vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Orissa Industrial ... vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003 - 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\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Orissa Industrial ... vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-25T15:33:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Orissa Industrial &#8230; vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-25T15:33:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003"},"wordCount":1984,"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\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003","name":"Orissa Industrial ... vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-25T15:33:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-industrial-vs-supai-munda-ors-on-5-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Orissa Industrial &#8230; vs Supai Munda &amp; Ors on 5 December, 2003"}]},{"@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\/145266","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=145266"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145266\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}