{"id":160718,"date":"1969-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969"},"modified":"2019-01-15T09:51:02","modified_gmt":"2019-01-15T04:21:02","slug":"baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969","title":{"rendered":"Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR  314, \t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 839<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBAIDYANATH PANJIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSITARAM MAHTO &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n13\/08\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nRAY, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR  314\t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 839\n 1969 SCC  (2) 447\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1971 SC2123\t (9)\n E\t    1973 SC2602\t (18,19,20,21,27)\n RF\t    1977 SC1992\t (15)\n RF\t    1977 SC2171\t (18)\n\n\nACT:\n    Representation  of\tthe  People  Act,   1950  Elections-\nSection\t 22,  sub-s. (3), s. 27(2)--Inclusion  of  names  in\nelectoral     roll    after    last    date    of     filing\nnomination--Validity   of  votes  cast--Section\t  22(3)\t  if\nmandatory.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Sub-section (3) of s. 23 provides that no direction\t for\nthe   inclusion\t of  name  in  the  electoral  roll   of   a\nconstituency  shall be given after the last date for  making\nnomination  for an election in that constituency and  before\nthe completion of that election.\nThe  appellant's election to the Bihar\tLegislative  Council\nwas challenged on the ground that some of the votes cast  in\nhis  favour were not valid because the names of\t the  voters\nwere included in the electoral roll after the last date\t for\nfiling\tnomination.  The High Court set aside the   election\nand  declared  the  second  respondent\t elected  since\t  on\ncounting    the\t validly cast votes  the  second  respondent\nsecured\t more  votes  than  the appellant.\n    On the question whether it was within the competence  of\nthe  electoral registration officer to amend  the  electoral\nrolls\tafter the last date  for making the  nomination\t was\nover,\n\t  HELD:\t  The  legislative  mandate  like  the\t one\nembodied in s. 23 sub-s. (3) must be considered as mandatory\nnot  merely  because of the language employed in  that\tsub-\nsection\t but  also  in\tview  of  the  purpose\tbehind\t the\nprovision.   The sub-section does not deal with any mode  or\nprocedure  in  the matter off registering  the\tvoters.\t  It\ninterdicts  the concerned officers from interfering with the\nelectoral rolls under the prescribed circumstances.  It puts\na  stop\t to the power conferred on them.   Therefore  it  is\nnot a question of irregular exercise of power but a lack  of\npower. [842 D.F.]\nThere  is  no conflict between\tsub-s.. (2)  of\t s.  23\t and\nsubs.  (2)  of s. 27 because a fair reading of\tthe  various\nclauses\t in  s.\t 27(2) will make it clear  that\t it  is\t the\nelectoral  roll\t of a constituency as it stood on  the\tlast\ndate  for  making the nominations for an  election  in\tthat\nconstituency that is to be considered final for the  purpose\nof that election. [842 H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1969.<br \/>\n   Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People<br \/>\nAct,  1951  from the judgment and order dated  December\t 11,<br \/>\n1968  of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 4  of<br \/>\n1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>D. Goburdhun, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Birendra Prasad Sinha, S.K. Bagga, Harder Singh  and  S.<br \/>\nBagga, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>Harder Singh, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">840<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    Hegde, J.  The principal question raised in this  appeal<br \/>\nunder s. 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951\t (to<br \/>\nbe hereinafter referred to as the Act) is as to the scope of<br \/>\ns.  23(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1950  (to  be<br \/>\nhereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act).  A few  subsidiary<br \/>\ncontentions   have  also  been\tcanvassed.   They  will\t  be<br \/>\nconsidered at the appropriate stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t election  petition from which\tthis  appeal  arises<br \/>\nrelates\t to the Darbhanga Local Authorities Constituency  of<br \/>\nthe  Bihar  Legislative\t Council.   The\t calendar  for\t the<br \/>\nelection for that constituency was as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>   1. Last date for filing nomination papers\t 2-4-1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>   2. Date of scrutiny of nomination papers\t 4-4-1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>   3. Last date for withdrawal of candidatures\t 6-4-1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>   4. Date of Poll\t\t\t\t 28-4-1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>   5. Date of declaration of result\t\t 29-4-1968.<br \/>\n    Originally\tfive candidates submitted  their  nomination<br \/>\nfor the election in question.  On scrutiny all of them\twere<br \/>\nheld  to  have been validly nominated.\tTwo  of\t them  later<br \/>\nwithdrew  their\t candidatures within the  period  prescribed<br \/>\nleaving\t  in  the   field   Shri  Baidyanath  Panjiar,\t the<br \/>\nappellant herein, Shri Raj Kumar Mahaseth, respondent No.  2<br \/>\nand Shri Gangadhar, respondent No. 3. There were six polling<br \/>\nstations in the constituency.  134 votes were polled out  of<br \/>\nwhich 33 votes were polled at Dalsingsarai polling  station.<br \/>\nCounting of the votes showed that the appellant had  secured<br \/>\n45,  the second respondent 49 and the third  respondent\t 40,<br \/>\nfirst  preference  votes.   As\tnone  of  them\tobtained  an<br \/>\nabsolute  majority of the votes cast, the  third  respondent<br \/>\nwas  eliminated and his second preference votes\t were  taken<br \/>\ninto. consideration.  14 of his second preference votes went<br \/>\nto the appellant and 5 to the second respondent.   Therefore<br \/>\nthe  appellant was declared elected. His election was  later<br \/>\nchallenged by the 1st respondent herein. The High Court\t has<br \/>\nset  aside  the\t election and declared\tthe  2nd  respondent<br \/>\nelected\t on  the ground that on counting  the  validly\tcast<br \/>\nvotes,\tthe second respondent has secured more\tvotes\tthan<br \/>\nthe appellant.\tIt held that some of the votes Cast were not<br \/>\nvalid votes.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The controversy relating to the validity of some of\t the<br \/>\nvotes  polled arose under the following\t circumstances.\t  In<br \/>\nthe  electoral roll as it stood on the last date  of  filing<br \/>\nnomination  papers, the registered voters were only 123;  16<br \/>\nof the registered voters were of the members of Dalsingsarai<br \/>\nNotified  Area\tCommittee.   On April 13,  1968,  as  per  a<br \/>\nnotification under s. 389(c) of the Bihar<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">841<\/span><br \/>\nand Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, 40 members were nominated as<br \/>\nmembers to the said Notified Area Committee in place of\t the<br \/>\nold members.  Most of them were newly appointed members.  To<br \/>\nbe  exact 35 of the 40 members nominated were  new  members.<br \/>\nThereafter the electoral roll was amended on the 27th April,<br \/>\n1968,  just a day prior to the polling.\t As per the  amended<br \/>\nelectoral  roll, there were 39 electors in the\tDalsingsarai<br \/>\npolling station.  Only four of them stood registered in\t the<br \/>\nelectoral  roll as it stood on April 2, 1968.  12  of  those<br \/>\nwho were electors under the original roll were removed\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  roll.   33\t out  of the 39\t electors  included  in\t the<br \/>\nelectoral  roll\t relating to. Dalsingsarai  polling  station<br \/>\nexercised their franchise during the poll on April 28, 1968.<br \/>\n  The  question for consideration is whether it\t was  within<br \/>\nthe  competence\t of the electoral  registration\t officer  to<br \/>\namend the electoral rolls after the last date for making the<br \/>\nnomination was over.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Provisions relating to the preparation of electoral  rolls<br \/>\nfor  the Legislative Councils&#8217; Constituencies are  found  in<br \/>\nPart  IV  of  the  1950\t Act.\tSection\t 27(2)\tof  the\t Act<br \/>\nprescribes  the mode of preparation of the  electoral  rolls<br \/>\nregarding   the\t local\tauthorities  constituencies   of   a<br \/>\nLegislative   Council.\t Clause\t (e)  of  that\t sub-section<br \/>\nstipulates  that  provisions of ss. 15, 16, 18,\t 22  and  23<br \/>\nshall apply in relation to local authorities&#8217; constituencies<br \/>\nas  they  apply\t in  relation  to  assembly  constituencies.<br \/>\nSection 22 deals with correction of entries in the electoral<br \/>\nrolls.\tSection 23 deals with the inclusion of names in\t the<br \/>\nelectoral rolls.  Sub-s. (3) of that section provides that:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t   &#8220;No amendment, transposition or  deletion<br \/>\n\t      of  any  entry shall be made under section  22<br \/>\n\t      and  no direction for the inclusion of a\tname<br \/>\n\t      in the electoral roll of a constituency  shall<br \/>\n\t      be  given under this section, after  the\tlast<br \/>\n\t      date for making nomination for an election  in<br \/>\n\t      that  constituency  or  in  the  parliamentary<br \/>\n\t      constituency within which that constituency is<br \/>\n\t      comprised\t and before  the completion of\tthat<br \/>\n\t      election.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    The\t object behind sub-s. (3) of s. 23 of the  1950\t Act<br \/>\nwould  be clear if we examine the scheme of the Act and\t the<br \/>\nprinciples underlying that scheme.  Part III of the 1950 Act<br \/>\nprovides  for  the preparation of the  electoral  rolls\t for<br \/>\nassembly constituencies. Section 15 provides that for  every<br \/>\nconstituency,  there shall be an electoral roll which  shall<br \/>\nbe  prepared in accordance with the provisions of  that\t Act<br \/>\nunder  the  superintendence, direction and  control  of\t the<br \/>\nElection    Commission.\t   Section   16\t  enumerates\twhat<br \/>\ndisqualifications  will\t disentitle  a\tperson\tfrom   being<br \/>\nenrolled  as  a voter.\tSection 18 provides that  no  person<br \/>\nshall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for<br \/>\nany constituency more than once.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">842<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Section\t 18 enunciates the principle &#8220;one person-one  vote&#8221;.<br \/>\nSection\t 22  provides  for  correction\tof  entries  in\t the<br \/>\nelectoral   rolls.  Section 23 (1 ) permits a  person  whose<br \/>\nname is omitted from the rolls to apply for inclusion.\tSub-<br \/>\ns.  (2)\t of  s. 23  authorises\tthe  electoral\tregistration<br \/>\nofficer to include the name of the applicant in the rolls if<br \/>\nhe  is satisfied that he is entitled to be  registered.\t The<br \/>\n,object\t of the aforementioned provision is to. see that  to<br \/>\nthe extent possible, all persons qualified to be  registered<br \/>\nas  voters  in\tany particular constituency should  be\tduly<br \/>\nregistered  and to remove from the rolls all those  who\t are<br \/>\nnot  qualified to be registered. Subs. (3 ) of s. 23  is  an<br \/>\nimportant  exception to the rules noted earlier. It gives  a<br \/>\nmandate\t to  the electoral registration\t officers   not\t  to<br \/>\namend,\ttranspose or delete any entry in the electoral\troll<br \/>\nof a constituency after the last date for making nominations<br \/>\nfor election in that constituency and before the  completion<br \/>\nof  that  election. If there was no  such  provision,  there<br \/>\nwould\thave  been  room  for  considerable   manipulations,<br \/>\nparticularly  when  there   are\t  only\tlimited\t number\t  of<br \/>\nelectors  in  a constituency.  But for\tthat  provision,  it<br \/>\nwould have been possible before the concerned authorities to<br \/>\nso.  manipulate\t the  electoral\t rolls\tas  to\tadvance\t the<br \/>\nprospects of a particular candidate.  This would be more  so<br \/>\nif  either  all\t or a section of the  electors\tare  persons<br \/>\nnominated to local authorities. The legislative mandate like<br \/>\nthe one embodied in s. 23(3) must be considered as mandatory<br \/>\nnot  merely  because of the language employed in  that\tsub-<br \/>\nsection but also in view of the purpose behind the provision<br \/>\nin question.  In our opinion, cl. 23(a) takes away the power<br \/>\nof the electoral registration officer or the chief electoral<br \/>\nofficer to correct the entries in the electoral rolls or  to<br \/>\ninclude\t new names in the electoral rolls of a\tconstituency<br \/>\nafter the last date for making the nominations for  election<br \/>\nin  that  constituency\tand before the\tcompletion  of\tthat<br \/>\nelection.   Section  23(3) does not deal with  any  mode  or<br \/>\nprocedure  in  the  matter of registering  the\tvoters.\t  It<br \/>\ninterdicts the concerned officers from interfering with\t the<br \/>\nelectoral rolls under the prescribed circumstances.  It puts<br \/>\na stop to the power conferred on them. Therefore it is not a<br \/>\nquestion of irregular exercise of power but a lack of power.<br \/>\n    It was next urged by Mr. Goburdhan, learned Counsel\t for<br \/>\nthe appellant that s. 23(3) of the 1950 Act is subject to s.<br \/>\n27(2) of the same Act and therefore in view of the direction<br \/>\nissued by the electoral registration officer to include\t the<br \/>\nnames  of the electors in question, it was not open  to\t the<br \/>\nelection  petitioner to take any objection to the same.\t  We<br \/>\nsee  no substance in this contention. There is\tno  conflict<br \/>\nbetween\t sub-s.\t (2) of s. 23 and sub-s. (2) of s.  27.\t  In<br \/>\nfact, as noticed earlier, the provisions of s. 23 have\tbeen<br \/>\nincorporated  into s. 27(2) in view of s. 27(2)(e).  A\tfair<br \/>\nreading\t of  the various clauses in s. 27(2)  will  make  it<br \/>\nclear that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">843<\/span><br \/>\nthe entries in an electoral roll of a constituency, as\tthey<br \/>\nstood  on  the last date for making the nominations  for  an<br \/>\nelection in that constituency should be considered as  final<br \/>\nfor the purpose of that election.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was next urged that in view of s. 62 (1 ) of the Act<br \/>\nno valid. objection can be taken to the franchise  exercised<br \/>\nby  the electors whose names were included in the  electoral<br \/>\nroll on April 27, 1968. Section 62 (1 ) says that &#8220;no person<br \/>\nwho is not, except as expressly provided by this Act,  every<br \/>\nperson who is,. for the time being entered in the  electoral<br \/>\nroll of any constituency shall be. entitled to vote. in that<br \/>\nconstituency.&#8221;\t That  provision no  doubt  stipulates\tthat<br \/>\nevery  person  who is for the time being registered  in\t the<br \/>\nelectoral  roll\t of  any constituency  except  as  expressly<br \/>\nprovided  by  the  Act shall be entitled  to  vote  in\tthat<br \/>\nconstituency.\tThe question is which is the electoral\troll<br \/>\nreferred to in that section ?  Is it the electoral roll that<br \/>\nwas in force on the last date for making nominations for  an<br \/>\nelection or is it the electoral roll as it stood on the date<br \/>\nof the polling ?  For answering that question we have to go&#8217;<br \/>\n&#8216;  back\t to  s.\t 23(3) of the 1950 Act.\t  In  view  of\tthat<br \/>\nprovision  the electoral roll referred to in s. 62 ( 1 )  of<br \/>\nthe Act must be understood to be the electoral roll that was<br \/>\nin force on the last day for making* the nominations for the<br \/>\nelection.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t was  next  urged  that even  if  we  hold  that  in<br \/>\nincluding fresh electors in the electoral roll on April\t 27,<br \/>\n1968,  the  electoral registration  officer  contravened  s.<br \/>\n23(3) of the 1950 Act, the same cannot be made a ground\t for<br \/>\ninvalidating  the election as the contravention in  question<br \/>\ndoes  not come within the purview of subs. (1) ors.  100  of<br \/>\nthe Act.  This contention again does not appear to be sound.<br \/>\nClause (d)(iii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 100 of the Act  provides<br \/>\nthat if the High Court is of the opinion that the result  of<br \/>\nthe election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate<br \/>\nhas  been  materially affected by  the\timproper  reception,<br \/>\nrefusal\t or  rejection of any vote or the reception  of\t any<br \/>\nvote which is void, it shall declare the election void.\t  We<br \/>\nhave  earlier  come to. the conclusion\tthat  the  electoral<br \/>\nregistration  officer had no power to include new  names  in<br \/>\nthe  electoral roll on April 27, 1968. Therefore  votes.  of<br \/>\nthe  electors whose names were included in the roll on\tthat<br \/>\ndate  must  be\theld  to be  void  votes.   That  conclusion<br \/>\nsatisfies one of the conditions prescribed in s.  100(1)(d).<br \/>\nWe  have now to see whether the other conditions  prescribed<br \/>\nin that clause namely whether the High Court on the material<br \/>\nbefore it could have been of the opinion that the result  of<br \/>\nthe  election  in  so  far  as\tit  concerned  the  returned<br \/>\ncandidate  has\tbeen  materially affected&#8217;  because  of\t the<br \/>\nreception  of  the  votes which are void.   The\t High  Court<br \/>\nelaborately considered that question.  It has examined\teach<br \/>\none  of\t the disputed votes and has come to  the  conclusion<br \/>\nthat if<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">844<\/span><br \/>\nthose  votes had been excluded, the valid votes received  by<br \/>\nthe contesting candidates in the first count would have been<br \/>\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n<pre>\t Appellant\t\t\t\t   32\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t Respondent No. 2\t\t\t   46<\/span>\n\t Respondent No. 3\t\t\t   23.\n<\/pre>\n<p>In  the\t second\t count after the elimination  of  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent   and  taking  into\tconsideration\tthe   second<br \/>\npreferences  give  by  the electors, who  gave\ttheir  first<br \/>\npreference  to\thim  the  following  would  have  been\t the<br \/>\nposition:\n<\/p>\n<pre>\t Appellant\t\t      43 votes and\n\t Respondent No. 2\t      57 votes.\n<\/pre>\n<p>No matter was placed before us to show that this  conclusion<br \/>\nwas  wrong.  There was some controversy about two votes\t but<br \/>\nwe  do\tnot think it necessary to go into the  same  as\t any<br \/>\ndecision as regards their validity will not affect the final<br \/>\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Before  leaving  this case, it is necessary\t to  mention<br \/>\nthat at one stage of the arguments, the learned Counsel\t for<br \/>\nthe  appellant contended that the decision of this Court  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1905805\/\">B.M. Ramaswamy v. B.M. Krishnamurthy and Ors.<\/a>(1) governs the<br \/>\nfacts  of  this case. But after some discussion he  gave  up<br \/>\nthat  contention.   The\t ratio\tof  that  decision  has\t  no<br \/>\nrelevance  for our present purpose.  In that case, the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  came  to the conclusion that the corrections  in\t the<br \/>\nconcerned electoral roll had been made before the last\tdate<br \/>\nprescribed  for\t filing nominations to the election  but  it<br \/>\ncame to the conclusion that the electors newly added to\t the<br \/>\nlist were not qualified to be registered as electors-\tThis<br \/>\nCourt overruled that finding holding that every person whose<br \/>\nname  finds place in the electoral roll must be&#8217; held to  be<br \/>\nqualified  to be a candidate whether he was qualified to  be<br \/>\nregistered  as an elector or not.  In other words it  upheld<br \/>\nthe  finality of the electoral roll as it stood on the\tlast<br \/>\ndate for filing nominations for the election.<br \/>\n    For\t the reasons mentioned above this appeal  fails\t and<br \/>\nthe same is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Y.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>[1963] 3 S.C.R. 479<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">845<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 314, 1970 SCR (1) 839 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: BAIDYANATH PANJIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: SITARAM MAHTO &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/08\/1969 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. RAY, A.N. CITATION: 1970 AIR 314 [&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-160718","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>Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969 - 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\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-15T04:21:02+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\\\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T04:21:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2244,\"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\\\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969\",\"name\":\"Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T04:21:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969 - 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\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-15T04:21:02+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\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969","datePublished":"1969-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T04:21:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969"},"wordCount":2244,"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\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969","name":"Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T04:21:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baidyanath-panjiar-vs-sitaram-mahto-ors-on-13-august-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto &amp; Ors on 13 August, 1969"}]},{"@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\/160718","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=160718"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160718\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160718"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160718"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}