{"id":146962,"date":"1987-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987"},"modified":"2016-06-18T11:45:00","modified_gmt":"2016-06-18T06:15:00","slug":"om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987","title":{"rendered":"Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its … on 3 November, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its … on 3 November, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 350, \t\t 1988 SCR (1) 761<\/div>\n
Author: S Rangnathan<\/div>\n
Bench: Rangnathan, S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nOM PRAKASH, ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF URBANDEVELO\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/11\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR  350\t\t  1988 SCR  (1) 761\n 1988 SCC  (1) 356\t  JT 1987 (4)\t330\n 1987 SCALE  (2)975\n\n\nACT:\n     Land Acquisition  Act, 1894-Whether the Lt. Governor of\nDelhi is  competent to issue notification under section 4(1)\nthereof for the acquisition of lands for planned development\nof Delhi-Effect\t of the\t enactment of  the Delhi Development\nAct 1957 on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The petitioners  challenged before\t the High  Court the\nvalidity of  a notification  issued by\tthe Lt.\t Governor of\nDelhi for  the acquisition  of lands  in Delhi\tfor \"planned\ndevelopment of\tDelhi\". The  High Court\t decided against the\npetitioners. The  petitioners moved  this court\t by  special\nleave. Notice  was issued by the Court to the respondents on\na limited  point-whether the  Lt. Governor  is competent  to\nissue  a   notification\t under\tsection\t 4(1)  of  the\tLand\nAcquisition Act,  1894 for  the acquisition of the lands for\nthe \"planned development of Delhi.\"\n     Dismissing the petitions for special leave, the Court,\n     HELD: Considering\tthe notifications  dated  19.8.1954,\n1.11.56 and 7-9-66 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs of\nthe Government\tof  India  under  Article  239\t(1)  of\t the\nConstitution of India, the Lt. Governor of Delhi is entitled\nto exercise  the powers\t of the\t Central Government in Delhi\nunder the  provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and he was\ncompetent to  issue the\t notification impugned. The argument\nthat after the enactment of the Delhi Development Act, 1957,\nthe provisions\tof the\tLand Acquisition  Act are  no longer\nrelevant in  the present context and the Lt. Governor has no\njurisdiction or\t competence to\tissue  the  notification  in\nquestion, is  not right.  It is no doubt true that the Delhi\nDevelopment Act\t makes a  separate mention  of\tthe  Central\nGovernment and\tthe Administrator of the Union Territory and\ndemarcates some functions between the Central Government and\nthe Administrator,  but there  can be  no doubt\t that in the\ncontext of section 15 of the Delhi Development Act, it would\nnot be\tcorrect\t to  understand\t these\ttwo  expressions  in\ndifferent senses. The Delhi Development Act does not\n762\ndestroy but  only  supplements\tthe  Land  Acquisition\tAct.\n[763D-F; 767G]\n     Express Newspapers\t Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. Union of India &\nOrs.<\/a> [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 382, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition
\n(Civil) No. 363 l of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  order dated  11.12.1986 of\t the
\nDelhi High Court in C.W. No. 1943 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t AND
\n     Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4321 of 1987.
\n     From the Judgment and order dated 5.3.1987 of the Delhi
\nHigh Court in R.A. No. 8 of 1987 in W.P. No. 2013 of 1986
\n     B.R.L. Iyenger, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik and Naresh Kaushik
\nfor the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     V.B. Saharya for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     RANGANATHAN, J. In both these matters, notice was given
\nto the\trespondent on  a  limited  point:  whether  the\t Lt.
\nGovernor of Delhi to competent is issue a notification under
\nsection 4(1)  of the  Land Acquisition\tAct. 1894 (‘the 1894
\nAct’), to  acquire hand\t “for  the  planned  development  of
\nDelhi”. That  is  the  ground  on  which,  inter  alia,\t the
\npetitioners unsuccessfully  challenged before the High Court
\nthe validity of a notification dated 27.1.1984 issued by the
\nLt.  Governor\tof  Delhi   (as\t the   Head  of\t  the  Delhi
\nAdministration) for  the acquisition  of about 3550 hectares
\nof land situated in Delhi. We have, therefore, heard counsel
\non this limited question.\n<\/p>\n
     Section  4(1)  of\tthe  1894  Act,\t insofar  as  it  is
\nrelevant, reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “4(1)Whenever\t it   appears  to   the\t appropriate
\n\t       Government  that\t land  in  any\tlocality  is
\n\t       needed or  is likely  to be  needed  for\t any
\n\t       public purpose, a notification to that effect
\n\t       shall be published in the official Gazette
\n763<\/span>
\n     Section 3(ee)  of the  same  Act  defines\t“appropriate
\nGovernment” A as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “In this  Act, unless there is something repugnant
\n\t  in the subject or context-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ee) the   expression\t  “appropriate\t Government”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       means, in relation to acquisition of land for
\n\t       the  purposes   of  the\tUnion,\tthe  Central
\n\t       Government, and,\t in relation  to acquisition
\n\t       of land\tfor any\t other purposes,  the  State
\n\t       Government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A reference  should also  be made,\t in this context, to
\nnotifications issued under Article 23(1) of the Constitution
\nof India  by the  Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government
\nof  India   on\t19.8.1954,   1.11.1956\tand   7.9.1966.\t The
\ncumulative effect  of these  notifications is  that the\t Lt.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Governor of  the Union\tTerritory of  Delhi is\tentitled  to
\nexercise the  powers and  discharge  the  functions  of\t the
\nCentral Government  under the  provisions of  the  1894\t Act
\nwithin the  Union Territory  of Delhi.\tThere is  no  doubt,
\nconsidering the\t provisions of\tthe 1894  Act and  the above
\nnotifications, that  the Lt.  Governor of  Delhi  was  fully
\ncompetent to issue the notification dated 27.1.1984.\n<\/p>\n
     The argument  addressed on\t behalf of  the petitioners,
\nhowever,  is   that,  after   the  enactment  of  the  Delhi
\nDevelopment Act, 1957 (the 1957 Act’), the provisions of the
\n1894 Act  are no  longer relevant in the present context. It
\nis submitted  that the\texpression “planned  development  of
\nDelhi” can  and does  envisage the development of Delhi only
\nin accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan and the
\nZonal Plans drawn up under the 1957 Act. Under the said Act,
\nthe  full   responsibility  of\tdrawing\t up  plans  for\t the
\ndevelopment of\tDelhi as  well\tas  executing  the  same  in
\nseveral phases\tis vested in the Central Government. Sec. 15
\nof the\tAct, makes  it clear  that this\t takes in  also\t the
\nacquisition of Lands for such planned development. It reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “S. 15 Compulsory acquisition of land-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (1)  If\tin   the  opinion   of\tthe  Central
\n\t\t    Government, any land is required for the
\n\t\t    purpose of development, or for any other
\n\t\t    purpose, under  this  Act,\tthe  Central
\n\t\t    Government may acquire such land
\n764<\/span>
\n\t       under the  provisions of the Land Acquisition
\n\t       Act, 1894. (1 of 1894).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (2)  Where any  land has been acquired by the
\n\t\t    Central Government, that Government may,
\n\t\t    after it  has taken\t possession  of\t the
\n\t\t    land, transfer the land to the Authority
\n\t\t    or any  local authority  for the purpose
\n\t\t    for which  the land has been acquired on
\n\t\t    payment by\tthe Authority  or the  local
\n\t\t    authority of  the  compensation  awarded
\n\t\t    under  that\t  Act  and  of\tthe  charges
\n\t\t    incurred by the Government in connection
\n\t\t    with the acquisition.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is argued that while the notifications under Article
\n239 of\tthe Constitution  may have  delegated the  power  of
\nacquisition under  the second  part of\ts. 15(1)  to the Lt.
\nGovernor,  they\t do  not  affect  the  Central\tGovernment’s
\njurisdiction under  the first  part to\ttake a decision that
\ncertain lands  are needed  for the  purposes of the Act. The
\nargument  that\t land  acquisition   in\t Delhi\tfor  planned
\ndevelopment is\tthe ‘business’\tof the Central Government is
\nsought to  be reinforced  by reference\tto the Allocation of
\nBusiness Rules,\t 1961, made  by the  President under Article
\n77(3) of  the Constitution  of India.  These rules enumerate
\nthe following  items as\t falling within\t the purview  of the
\nMinistry of Works & Housing in the Union Government:\n<\/p>\n
     16.  Schemes of  large scale  acquisition,\t development
\n     and disposal of land in Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     17. Delhi Development Authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     18.  Master Plan  of Delhi,  Co-ordination of  work  in
\n     respect of\t the Master  Plan and  slum clearance in the
\n     Union Territory of Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     19. Administration of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     All this  shows, according to the learned counsel, that
\nthe Lt.\t Governor has no jurisdiction or competence to issue
\nthe impugned notification.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  ex facie,  a  very  plausible  reply  to\t the
\npetitioner’s arguments based on s. 15 of the 1957 Act. It is
\nthis: that  the expression  “Central Government” in s. 15 of
\nthe 1957 Act has to be understood in
\n765<\/span>
\nthe light  of the  definition contained\t in s.\t3(8) of\t the
\nGeneral Clauses\t Act, 1897. That definition reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “3.  In this Act, and in all Central Acts and
\n\t\t    Regulations made  after the commencement
\n\t\t    of this  Act, unless  there is  anything
\n\t\t    repugnant in the subject or context,
\n\t\t\t    XX XX XX
\n\t       (8) ‘Central Government’ shall-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (a) ……………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (b)\t in relation  to anything done or to
\n\t\t\t be done  after the  commencement of
\n\t\t\t the\tConstitution,\t mean\t the
\n\t\t\t President; and shall include-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t (i)  in   relation   to   functions
\n\t\t\t      entrusted under  clause (1) of
\n\t\t\t      Article\t  258\t  of\t the
\n\t\t\t      Constitution to the Government
\n\t\t\t      of   a\tState,\t the   State
\n\t\t\t      Government acting\t within\t the
\n\t\t\t      scope of\tthe authority  given
\n\t\t\t      to it under that clause;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t (iii)in     relation\t  to\t the
\n\t\t\t      administration  of   a   Union
\n\t\t\t      Territory, the  administration
\n\t\t\t      thereof  acting\twithin\t the
\n\t\t\t      scope of\tthe authority  given
\n\t\t\t      to him  under Article  239  of
\n\t\t\t      the Constitution.”<\/p>\n
     It, therefore, follows, it can be said that, even under
\nthis provision, the jurisdiction to acquire lands rests only
\nin the\tLt.  Governor  of  Delhi.  Anticipating\t this  reply
\ncounsel for  petitioners urges\tthat the  definition in\t the
\nGeneral Clauses\t Act is\t inapplicable in  the context of the
\nDelhi Development  Act. It  is said that throughout this Act
\nthere  runs   a\t clear\t demarcation  between\tthe  Central
\nGovernment on  the one\thand and  the Administrator  of\t the
\nUnion Territory on the other. Reference is made to s. 30, 41
\nand 52\tof the\t1957 Act  and it  is urged,  in the light of
\nthese  provisions,   that  the\t reference  to\tthe  Central
\nGovernment in  s. 15 should be construed as a reference only
\nto the Central Government and not to the Administrator (i.e.
\nLt. Governor) of the Union Territory.\n<\/p>\n
766<\/span><\/p>\n
     A counter\taffidavit had  been filed  on behalf  of the
\nDelhi  Development   Authority\t(DDA)\twhich  contained  an
\nannexure which\twould have  provided a\tdirect answer to the
\ncontentions urged  on behalf of the petitioners. This answer
\nis a  notification dated  14.2.69,  issued  by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  under   s.\t52(2)  of  the\t1957  Act.  By\tthis
\nnotification, the Central Government directs that the powers
\nof that\t Government under  the provisions  of the  1957\t Act
\nmentioned in  the Schedule thereto annexed would, subject to
\nthe control  of the  Central Government\t and  until  further
\norders, also  be exercised by the Administrator of the Union
\nTerritory of  Delhi. 11 items are mentioned in the Schedule.
\nOf these,  the powers  in regard  to item  2 of the Schedule
\nalone have  to be  exercised by\t the Administrator  with the
\nprior approval\tof the Central Government. The others, which
\ninclude powers\tin regard  to s. 15(item 6) can be exercised
\nby the\tAdministrator even without such prior approval. This
\nnotification places  it beyond\tdoubt that the powers of the
\nCentral Government  under section 15 can be exercised by the
\nLt. Governor  of Delhi.\t Both the  power to  form an opinion
\nunder  the   first  part  of  s.  15(1)\t and  the  power  of
\nacquisition under  the second  part are comprehended by this
\nnotification.  This   notification,  therefore,\t would\thave
\nfurnished a  complete answer  to the  contentions  urged  on
\nbehalf of  the petitioners.  Unfortunately, it\tappears, the
\nnotification was  only at  the draft  stage  and  was  never
\ngazetted. We have, therefore, to leave this notification out
\nof account.\n<\/p>\n
     But, even\totherwise, we  are of  the opinion  that Lt.
\nGovernor was  quite competent  to issue\t the notification in
\nquestion. It  is no  doubt true\t that  the  1957  Act  makes
\nseparate  mention   of\tthe   Central  Government   and\t the
\nAdministrator and  demarcates  some  functions\tbetween\t the
\nCentral Government  on the one hand and the State Government
\nor the\tAdministrator on the other. But, whatever may be the
\nposition in  regard to\tother provisions,  there can  be  no
\ndoubt that,  in the  con text of section 15, it would not be
\ncorrect to  understand these  two expressions  in  different
\nsenses. We say this because on reading of s. 15(1) it is the
\nobvious intention of the Legislature that the same authority
\nshould exercise\t its functions\tunder both  the parts of the
\nsub-section. If\t the sub-section  is read  in the  manner in
\nwhich the  petitioners seek  to read  it, the working of the
\nsection would become impracticable and cumbersome. According
\nto them,  the Central  Government will first to have form an
\nopinion that  certain lands are required for the purposes of
\nplanned development  of Delhi under the Act; thereafter this
\nopinion has  to be  communicated to the Lt. Governor who, in
\nview of\t the delegation\t of powers  under Article 239 of the
\nConstitution which we have referred to earlier, will have to
\napply his
\n767<\/span>
\nmind once  again to  the same question before he can issue a
\nnotification under  section 4  of the  1894 Act.  This is  a
\nduplication of\tfunctions which\t could not  have been within
\nthe contemplation of the Legislature. The provision requires
\nthe satisfaction  of only one authority and since the powers
\nof the\tCentral Government  under the  1894  Act  have\tbeen
\ndelegated to  the  Lt.\tGovernor,  the\texpression  ‘Central
\nGovernment’ will have to be understood in the same sense for
\nthe first part of the sub-section as well. The Allocation of
\nBusiness Rules\trelied on  by counsel,\thave no relevance in
\nthis context.  They only provide that, when any of the items
\nmentioned (such\t as DDA,  master  plan,\t the  1957  Act,  or
\nacquisition etc.  Of properties\t in Delhi)  comes up for the
\nconsideration of  the Central Government, it will have to be
\ndealt within the Ministry of Works & Housing. They are quite
\nconsistent with\t the position that even the powers delegated
\nto the\tLt. Governor  are exercisable by him only subject to
\nthe control and further orders of the President. They cannot
\nbe understood  as  negativing  the  competence\tof  the\t Lt.
\nGovernor to deal with the subject-matter in question.\n<\/p>\n
     Even assuming  that the  petitioners are right in their
\ninterpretation of  s.  15(1),  the  competence\tof  the\t Lt.
\nGovernor to issue the impugned notification can be upheld on
\nanother ground.\t The provisions\t of  the  1894\tAct  clearly
\nempower the  Lt. Governor  to  acquire\tthe  lands  for\t the
\nplanned development  of Delhi, which, it is now settled law,
\nis clearly  a public  purpose.\tThat  competence  cannot  be
\ndenied without\tsome express provision in some statute. Both
\nthe 1894  Act and  1957 Act are Central enactments. Granting
\nthat the  1957 Act desired to empower the Central Government
\nto acquire  lands in  Delhi for the purposes of the said Act
\nand even  granting that\t such  power  has  to  be  exercised
\nthrough the  Lt. Governor  because of the notification under
\nArticle 239(1),\t such power can also stand size by side with
\nthe wider  power of  the Lt. Governor to acquire lands for a
\npublic purpose.\t There is  nothing in  the  1957  Act  which
\nprohibits the  Lt. Governor taking such steps as he desires,
\nunder the  powers available to him, to carry out the planned
\ndevelopment of\tDelhi in  consonance with the plans approved
\nor finalised  under the\t 1957 Act. Viewed in this light, the
\npowers of  the Lt.  Governor under  section 4  of  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Act\t can be\t read as additional to the powers of
\nthe Central  Government under the Delhi Development Act. The
\n1957 Act does not destroy but only supplements the 1894 Act.
\nThis is\t the view  taken by the High Court and we agree with
\nit.\n<\/p>\n
     Both counsel  referred to\tcertain decisions. We do not
\nthink it  is necessary\tto refer to them in detail except to
\nsay that the decision in H
\n768<\/span>
\nthe Express  Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India &
\nOrs.,<\/a> [1985]  Supplement 3  SCR\t 382  relied  upon  for\t the
\npetitioner is  clearly distinguishable\tand it\trelated to a
\ncase regarding\tthe powers  of the  Delhi Administration  in
\nregard to lands belonging to the Union.\n<\/p>\n
     For  the\treasons\t discussed   above,  we\t reject\t the
\ncontention urged  on behalf  of the petitioners. The Special
\nLeave Petitions fail and are dismissed. We, however, make no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.L.\t\t\t\t\tPetitions dismissed.\n769<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its … on 3 November, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 350, 1988 SCR (1) 761 Author: S Rangnathan Bench: Rangnathan, S. PETITIONER: OM PRAKASH, ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF URBANDEVELO DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/11\/1987 BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH: […]<\/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-146962","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nOm Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its ... on 3 November, 1987 - 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\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its ... on 3 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987\" \/>\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=\"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-18T06:15:00+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its … on 3 November, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-18T06:15:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987\"},\"wordCount\":2166,\"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\\\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987\",\"name\":\"Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its ... on 3 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-18T06:15:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its … on 3 November, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its ... on 3 November, 1987 - 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\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its ... on 3 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-18T06:15:00+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its … on 3 November, 1987","datePublished":"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-18T06:15:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987"},"wordCount":2166,"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\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987","name":"Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its ... on 3 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-18T06:15:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-etc-vs-union-of-india-through-its-on-3-november-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Om Prakash, Etc vs Union Of India Through Its … on 3 November, 1987"}]},{"@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\/146962","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=146962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}