{"id":159233,"date":"2008-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-31T05:01:43","modified_gmt":"2016-12-30T23:31:43","slug":"sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand … vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand … vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n
                                                     REPORTABLE\n\n         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n     CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6442 OF 2000\nSACHIDA NAND LAL @\nSACHIDA NAND SHAH                               ...\nAPPELLANT\n\nVERSUS\n\nSTATE OF BIHAR,\n(NOW JHARKHAND)                         ...RESPONDENT\n\n                J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
C.K. Thakker, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.        The   present   appeal   is   filed         against<\/p>\n
judgment and order dated June 22, 1999 passed<\/p>\n
by a single Judge of the High Court of Patna<\/p>\n
(Ranchi Bench) in Appeal from Original Decree<\/p>\n
Nos. 228 and 229 of 1989 and confirmed by the<\/p>\n
Division Bench on March 01, 2000 in Letters<\/p>\n
Patent Appeal No. 362 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
2.        Shortly stated the facts of the case<\/p>\n
are that on February 16, 1978, a notification<\/p>\n
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
\n                                                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) was<\/p>\n
issued for acquisition of land bearing Khata<\/p>\n
Nos.    277     and    107    situated         in    the    town    of<\/p>\n
Lohardaga       of     Ranchi           for    construction         of<\/p>\n
agricultural          market-yard.            According     to     the<\/p>\n
appellant, the Collector divided the land into<\/p>\n
two    categories;          (i)   category        `ka’     and    (ii)<\/p>\n
category `kha’. The land situated up to 150<\/p>\n
feet    from    the    road       was    categorized        as    `ka’<\/p>\n
whereas land situated beyond 150 feet from the<\/p>\n
road was categorized as `kha’.                       The Collector<\/p>\n
assessed the value of the land of category `ka’<\/p>\n
at     the    rate     of     Rs.48,500\/-           per    acre    and<\/p>\n
category `kha’ at the rate of Rs.32,335\/- per<\/p>\n
acre.        It was, however, the allegation of the<\/p>\n
appellant that the Deputy Secretary, Government<\/p>\n
of Bihar illegally and without any reason or<\/p>\n
ground and without authority of law reduced the<\/p>\n
rate to Rs.25,000\/- and Rs. 16,000\/- per acre<\/p>\n
for     category       `ka’       and     `kha’      respectively.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, an award was passed on May 05,<\/p>\n
1980 on that basis.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
3.         The appellant being aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
award    sought      reference        for   enhancement       of<\/p>\n
compensation under Section 18 of the Act which<\/p>\n
was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 498<\/p>\n
of 1981. Similar references were also sought by<\/p>\n
other land owners.            All the references came up<\/p>\n
for     hearing    before       the    Court    of     learned<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge, Ranchi and the learned Judge<\/p>\n
by    judgment    and    order      dated    July     06,   1987<\/p>\n
partly allowed the reference.               For the land of<\/p>\n
category     `ka’,      the     Reference      Court        fixed<\/p>\n
compensation      at    the    rate    of   Rs.48,000\/-       per<\/p>\n
acre and for category `kha’, it was fixed at<\/p>\n
the rate of Rs.24,250\/- per acre.                   The Court<\/p>\n
also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% and<\/p>\n
interest @ 6% with effect from June 01, 1979.<\/p>\n
4.         The appellant challenged the judgment<\/p>\n
and order passed by Reference Court by filing<\/p>\n
First Appeal No. 229 of 1989 in the High Court<\/p>\n
of Patna, Ranchi Bench.                The learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge    before    whom       the   appeal     came    up    for<\/p>\n
hearing partly allowed it.             So far as the land
\n                                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
of   category    `ka’   is    concerned,    he   enhanced<\/p>\n
compensation     from   Rs.48,000\/-        per   acre   to<\/p>\n
Rs.66,000\/- per acre.         He, however, declined to<\/p>\n
interfere with the rate of `kha’ category of<\/p>\n
land and no enhancement at all was granted to<\/p>\n
the said land, though the Reference Court had<\/p>\n
observed in the order that category `kha’ would<\/p>\n
get 50% amount of compensation of the land of<\/p>\n
category `ka’.\n<\/p>\n
5.         In the circumstances, the appellant-<\/p>\n
claimant approached the Division Bench of the<\/p>\n
High    Court   by   filing    Letters   Patent    Appeal<\/p>\n
No.363 of 1999.      The Division Bench of the High<\/p>\n
Court disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal by<\/p>\n
a cryptic order dated June 22, 1999 which read<\/p>\n
as under;\n<\/p>\n
           “Heard counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            We do not find any merit in this
\n       Letters   Patent   Appeal  which   is
\n       accordingly dismissed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.         The above order passed by the Division<\/p>\n
Bench of the High Court in the Letters Patent
\n                                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal is challenged by the appellant in the<\/p>\n
present appeal. Initially when the matter was<\/p>\n
placed    for   admission    hearing,     the    following<\/p>\n
order was passed by this Court on August 28,<\/p>\n
2000;\n<\/p>\n
            “Issue   notice    limited  to   the
\n        question, whether the High Court is
\n        right while enhancing the rate of
\n        compensation of category `Ka’ land to
\n        Rs. 66,000.00 per acre but maintaining
\n        the   category   `Kha’    land  at   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
        24,250.00. The case of the petitioner
\n        is that the rate of the land of `Kha’
\n        should have been at least half of the
\n        rate of the `Ka’ property as held by
\n        the referring Court.”\n<\/p>\n
                           (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
7.         On November 13, 2000, the petition was<\/p>\n
called out for hearing.        Service of notice was<\/p>\n
complete, but none appeared for the respondent<\/p>\n
and hence leave was granted.        It was thereafter<\/p>\n
placed for final hearing before the Court, but<\/p>\n
it was brought to the notice of the Court that<\/p>\n
in the light of bifurcation of two states of<\/p>\n
(i)     Bihar   and   (ii)   Jharkhand,    the     subject<\/p>\n
matter in the appeal related to the State of
\n                                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
Jharkhand.      Fresh     notices    were,     therefore,<\/p>\n
issued and opportunity was given to the State<\/p>\n
of Jharkhand to make submissions.<\/p>\n
8.        We have heard the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the parties.\n<\/p>\n
9.        The learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
contended that the Division Bench committed an<\/p>\n
error of law in dismissing the Letters Patent<\/p>\n
Appeal without entering into the merits of the<\/p>\n
matter.   He    also    submitted    that   the   Division<\/p>\n
Bench   ought    to     have   allowed   the   appeal     by<\/p>\n
enhancing the amount of compensation.<\/p>\n
10.       In    our    opinion,   however,     the    matter<\/p>\n
deserves to be allowed on the first ground and<\/p>\n
it would not be appropriate for this Court to<\/p>\n
express any opinion on the second question on<\/p>\n
merits of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
11.       As already observed earlier, after the<\/p>\n
Reference Court decided the Reference, Appeal<\/p>\n
from    Original      Decree   was   preferred       by   the<\/p>\n
claimant before the High Court.              It was heard<\/p>\n
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
\n                                                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
Section    54        of   the    Act    provides       for   filing<\/p>\n
Appeals    in    proceedings           before    the    Court.    It<\/p>\n
reads as under;\n<\/p>\n
           Appeals     in   proceedings    before
\n       Court.–Subject to the provisions of the
\n       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
\n       1908),    applicable   to   appeals   from
\n       original decrees, and notwithstanding
\n       anything    to   the   contrary   in   any
\n       enactment for the time being in force,
\n       an appeal shall only lie in any
\n       proceedings under this Act to the High
\n       Court from the award, or from any part
\n       of the award, of the Court and from any
\n       decree of the High Court passed on such
\n       appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie
\n       to the Supreme Court subject to the
\n       provisions contained in Section 110 of
\n       the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and
\n       in Order XLIV thereof.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.        In    view       of   express      provision      as   to<\/p>\n
filing of appeal under the Act as also the<\/p>\n
provision relating to filing of Letters Patent<\/p>\n
as applicable to the High Court of Patna, an<\/p>\n
order passed by a single Judge of the High<\/p>\n
Court can be challenged by filing an intra-<\/p>\n
Court appeal before a Division Bench of the<\/p>\n
same    Court.            The    claimant       was,   therefore,<\/p>\n
justified       in    exercising        the   right     of   filing
\n                                                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
Letters Patent Appeal and accordingly, appeal<\/p>\n
was preferred before a Division Bench.<\/p>\n
13.       Since     the     appeal      before    the    learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge was Appeal from Original Decree,<\/p>\n
i.e. First Appeal, the Division Bench ought to<\/p>\n
have considered the correctness or otherwise of<\/p>\n
the order passed by the learned Single Judge by<\/p>\n
exercising      same   powers      as    exercised       by    the<\/p>\n
learned    single      Judge       in    the     appeal       from<\/p>\n
original decree.           The Letters Patent before the<\/p>\n
Division Bench was not in the nature of appeal<\/p>\n
from an appellate decree, i.e. Second Appeal,<\/p>\n
but it was continuation of appeal from original<\/p>\n
decree,      i.e.      First       Appeal.              In     the<\/p>\n
circumstances,        in    our   opinion,       the    Division<\/p>\n
Bench committed an error of law in dismissing<\/p>\n
the appeal in limine by a brief order quoted<\/p>\n
hereinabove without considering the merits.<\/p>\n
14.       The law on the point is well-settled<\/p>\n
as    regards   the    power      of    the   Division       Bench<\/p>\n
while dealing with and deciding Letters Patent
\n                                                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal from an order passed by a single Judge<\/p>\n
in exercise of power as a Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n
15.        In Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao, AIR<\/a> 1974 SC<\/p>\n
2048,     a   similar        question        came     up     for<\/p>\n
consideration       before       this   Court.       There,    a<\/p>\n
First    Appeal     came    up    for   hearing      before    a<\/p>\n
Single Judge of the High Court and was disposed<\/p>\n
of.     Against the said order, a Letters Patent<\/p>\n
Appeals was filed.         A preliminary objection was<\/p>\n
raised on behalf of the respondents that since<\/p>\n
it was an appeal from a decree passed by a<\/p>\n
Single Judge of the High Court in First Appeal,<\/p>\n
the appeal before the Division Bench was in<\/p>\n
substance     and   in     reality      in   the    nature    of<\/p>\n
Second Appeal and questions of law only could<\/p>\n
be agitated in such Letters Patent Appeal.<\/p>\n
16.        Negativing the contention and holding<\/p>\n
that the scope of appeal before the Division<\/p>\n
Bench was similar to one before a Single Judge,<\/p>\n
this Court stated;\n<\/p>\n
        “There is no dispute that an appeal
\n        lies to a Division Bench of the High
\n        Court from the judgment of a Single
\n                                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
       Judge of that Court in appeal from a
\n       judgment and     decree    of   a   court
\n       subject to the superintendence of the
\n       High Court. The only question is
\n       whether the power of a Division Bench
\n       hearing a Letters Patent appeal under
\n       Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of
\n       Patna   High   Court    or    under   the
\n       analogous provisions in the Letters
\n       Patent of other       High    Courts   is
\n       limited only to a question of law
\n       under Section 100 of the CPC or has
\n       it the same power which the Single
\n       Judge has as a first Appellate Court
\n       in respect of both questions of fact
\n       and of law. The limitations on the
\n       power   of   the   Court    imposed    by
\n       Sections 100 and 101 of the CPC
\n       cannot be made applicable to an
\n       Appellate Court hearing a Letters
\n       Patent appeal from the judgment of a
\n       Single Judge of that High Court in a
\n       first appeal from the judgment and
\n       decree of the court subordinate to
\n       the High Court, for the simple reason
\n       that a Single Judge to the High Court
\n       is not a Court subordinate, to the
\n       High Court”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17.       The    above   observations    in   Asha   Devi<\/p>\n
make it explicitly clear that an intra-Court<\/p>\n
appeal is required to be considered and decided<\/p>\n
by the Division Bench of the High Court on the<\/p>\n
same   footing     as    an   appeal    considered    and<\/p>\n
decided by a single Judge of the Court.
\n                                                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
18.         A similar question again arose before<\/p>\n
this    Court      recently      in    Gaudiya     Mission      v.<\/p>\n
Shobha Bose & Anr., JT<\/a> 2008 (1) SC 384.                       There<\/p>\n
also,   a   single     Judge      of    the    High     Court    of<\/p>\n
Allahabad       decided     the       First    Appeal    against<\/p>\n
which Letters Patent Appeal was filed before a<\/p>\n
Division Bench.        There also, the Division Bench<\/p>\n
without     entering      into    questions      of     fact    and<\/p>\n
law, dismissed the appeal as if it was in the<\/p>\n
nature of Second Appeal.                 Setting aside the<\/p>\n
order passed by the Single Judge, following the<\/p>\n
law laid down by this Court in Asha Devi and<\/p>\n
remitting the matter to the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance<\/p>\n
with law, this Court held that the order passed<\/p>\n
by the Division Bench was liable to be set<\/p>\n
aside and the matter was required to be decided<\/p>\n
on all questions, i.e. on questions of fact as<\/p>\n
also on questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
19.         The    same     principle         applies    in     the<\/p>\n
present     case    also.     The     order    passed     by    the<\/p>\n
Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the
\n                                                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
Letters Patent Appeal cannot be said to be in<\/p>\n
accordance with law and the said order deserves<\/p>\n
to be set aside.          Accordingly, the appeal is<\/p>\n
allowed and the order passed by the Division<\/p>\n
Bench is set aside. The appeal stands allowed<\/p>\n
and the matter is remanded to Division Bench<\/p>\n
which will now hear the parties on merits and<\/p>\n
decide the case in accordance with law by a<\/p>\n
reasoned     judgment.    On    the   facts     and    in   the<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, however, there shall<\/p>\n
be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
20.         Before parting with the matter, we may<\/p>\n
clarify that we have not expressed any opinion<\/p>\n
on merits of the matter one way or the other.<\/p>\n
All   the   observations       made   by   us   hereinabove<\/p>\n
have been made only for the purpose of deciding<\/p>\n
the present appeal. As and when the matter will<\/p>\n
be    placed   for   hearing      before      the     Division<\/p>\n
Bench, the same will be decided strictly on its<\/p>\n
own   merits    without    being      influenced       by   the<\/p>\n
above observations.\n<\/p>\n
21.         The appeal is accordingly allowed.
\n                                                                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
                    …………………………………………………J.
\n                    (C.K. THAKKER)<\/p>\n
New Delhi;          …………………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
November 07, 2008               (D. K. JAIN)\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand … vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008 Bench: C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6442 OF 2000 SACHIDA NAND LAL @ SACHIDA NAND SHAH … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR, […]<\/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-159233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand ... vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008 - 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\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand ... vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-30T23:31:43+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\\\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand … vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T23:31:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1975,\"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\\\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand ... vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T23:31:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand … vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand ... vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008 - 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\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand ... vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-30T23:31:43+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\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand … vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T23:31:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008"},"wordCount":1975,"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\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008","name":"Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand ... vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T23:31:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachida-nand-lal-sachida-nand-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand … vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/159233","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=159233"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159233\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}