{"id":164622,"date":"1975-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975"},"modified":"2018-05-25T02:26:36","modified_gmt":"2018-05-24T20:56:36","slug":"laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975","title":{"rendered":"Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore … on 24 February, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore … on 24 February, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1303, \t\t 1975 SCR (3) 686<\/div>\n
Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLAXMI CHAND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINDORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, INDORE AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/02\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 1303\t\t  1975 SCR  (3) 686\n 1975 SCC  (1) 565\n\n\nACT:\nMadhya\tPradesh Town Improvement Trust Act  1960--Whether  a\nhousing scheme can contain features of industrial and  other\nnon-housing  scheme--Malafide acquisition in the absence  of\nany  provision whether tribunal can award interest from\t the\ndate  of taking possession of the property till the date  of\ndetermination of compensation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner\t owned certain land.  There was\t an  earlier\nattempt to acquire the land of the petitioner by sanctioning\na  housing accommodation scheme by- the\t Indore\t Improvement\nTrust  under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust\tAct,\n1960.\tThe  said  scheme  was,\t however,  cancelled.\t The\npetitioner  wanted  to\tdevelop\t his.  land  for  industrial\npurposes and, therefore, obtained No Objection\tCertificates\nfrom  various  Government Departments as well  as  from\t the\nTrust.\t  The  petitioner  got\this  land   converted\tfrom\nagricultural  purpose to industrial purpose subject  to\t the\nlimitation that the construction work had to be approved  by\nthe  Trust.   The Trust, however, refused the  No  Objection\nCertificate for development of the land on individual  basis\non the ground that a scheme was being approved for the\tland\nin question and other neighbouring lands.  The Trust  framed\na  scheme  which included the land of the  petitioner  also.\nThe  Trust served a notice to acquire the petitioner's\tland\nfor the purpose of the scheme.\tThe petitioner submitted his\nobjection  stating  that the land was being  developed\tinto\nindustrial  area  and several small  scale  industries\twere\nfunctioning there and, as such, development was alreadyin\nprogress.    Thereafter,  the  Trust  published\t  a   notice\nacquiring the said land. Before\t the Trust  could  take\npossession of the petitioner's land the petitionerfiled\na Writ Petition in this Court.\n\t      It was contended on behalf of the\t petitioners\n\t      :\n\t      (1)   The\t Housing  Accommodation\t Scheme\t  is\n\t      invalid because it does not specify the  class\n\t      of  inhabitants  for whom the  same  has\tbeen\n\t      made.\n\t      (2)  The scheme being a Housing  Accommodation\n\t      Scheme  it is for residential occupation\tonly\n\t      and  it is not competent to include plans\t for\n\t      industrial purposes.\n\t      (3) Section 31 of the Act does not empower the\n\t      Trust   to  frame\t a  scheme  for\t  industrial\n\t      purposes at all.\n\t      (4)  There  is no application of the  mind  in\n\t      terms of section 45 in making the Scheme.\n\t      (5)  The\tacquisition  of\t the  land  for\t the\n\t      purpose of the\t       Scheme is malafide.\n\t      (6)  Since  the  Act makes  no  provision\t for\n\t      payment of interest from the date of  delivery\n\t      of  possession of the land to the\t Trust\ttill\n\t      the  determination  of  compensation  by\t the\n\t      Tribunal, acquisition of the land is violative\n\t      of article 31(2) of the Constitution.\nPetitioner has not challenged vires of any provisions of the\nAct.\nHELD  : (1) Section 31 of the Act permits combining  two  or\nmore  schemes  or supplementing some special features  of  a\nparticular  scheme  in another scheme.\tThere is no  bar  in\nframing\t a  housing accommodation scheme with  some  of\t the\nfeatures  of  industrial scheme.   A  housing  accommodation\nscheme need not necessarily be residential scheme only.\t  It\ncan  admit of providing housing accommodation for any  other\npurpose\t or object.  There is nothing in section 31  or\t any\nother provision of the Act disabling the Trust from  framing\nscheme for industrial purpose. [690E-G]\n687\n(2)Section  45 requires that while framing the scheme  the\ninherent utility, efficiency and adequacy of the scheme\t and\nthe objections and representations of the persons have to be\ntaken  into consideration.' The scheme in question was\topen\nfor inspection.\t There was no ambiguity or vagueness of\t the\nscheme\tor  its\t purpose.   Where  factual  satisfaction  is\nevident\t formal recitals being omitted may not\tmatter.\t  At\nany rate, section 52 (2) Puts a final seat of imprimatur  on\nthe  scheme  after  publication\t of  the  sanction  of\t the\nGovernment. [691C-D)\n(3)  Acquisition is not malafide.. No oblique motive can  be\ninputed\t to the Trust in making the impugned scheme.   There\nis  no allegation of mala fide against the State  Government\nwhose  sanction\t was a, pre-requisite for  the\tacquisition.\nThe order of acquisition cannot, therefore. be characterised\nas I malafide. [691G-H]\n(4)  It\t is  true that there is no  provision  for  awarding\ninterest  unlike  under\t the Land Acquisition  Act.   It  is\nsubmitted by the respondents that there is no bar under\t the\nAct  against awarding interest by the Tribunal.\t It  is\t not\npossible to hold that the compensation Tribunal which is  at\npar  with an arbitrator will be entitled to  award  interest\nwithout\t any express provision in the Act.   The  petitioner\nis, therefore. right in their contention- that this Act does\nnot  provide for awarding interest from the date  of  taking\npossession  of the property to the date of determination  of\ncompensation.\tHowever,  it is not possible  to  quash\t the\nacquisition  in the absence of a challenge to the  vires  of\nthe  provisions of the Act.  The law being valid the  attack\nwill  revaperate upon the quantum of compensation  pure\t and\nsimple.\t  It is sufficient to point out that the quantum  of\ncompensation cannot be challenged under Article 31(2) of the\nConstitution. [692D; 694C-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 517 of
\n1972 & 240 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
\nD.  V. Patel (In WP.  No. 240\/73), S. P. Phadnis and  S.  K.
\nGambhir, for the Petitioners (In both the Petitions).
\nI. N. Shroff, for the Respondent No. 1 (In WP.\tNo. 517\/72).
\nS. M. Jain, for the Respondents Nos. 1-2 (In WP.  No. 2401
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGoswami,  J. This judgment will govern Writ  Petitions\tNos.
\n517 of 1972 and 240 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
The applications are directed against what is described as a
\nHousing\t Accommodation\tScheme\tsanctioned  by\tthe   Indore
\nImprovement  Trust  (briefly  the Trust)  under\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh\t Town Improvement Trust Act 1960 (briefly the  Act).
\nBrief  facts of Writ Petition No. 517 of 1972 may  alone  be
\nsufficient.   There  was an earlier attempt to\tacquire\t the
\nland of the petitioner by sanctioning a scheme in July\t1961
\nbut  the  same was cancelled some time, in  September  1962.
\nThe  petitioner\t personally wanted to develop his  land\t for
\nindustrial  purposes and with that end in view\tobtained  No
\nObjection  Certificates from various Government\t Departments
\nas well as from the Trust.  The petitioner also succeeded in
\nconverting his patta from agricultural purpose to industrial
\npurpose,  subject,  inter alia, to the limitation  that\t the
\nconstruction  work  on\tthe land shall\tbe  carried  out  in
\naccordance with the plans sanctioned by the same
\n688<\/span>
\nImprovement   Trust  (Annexure\t‘G’)  Later,   however\t the
\npetitioner found from a letter of the.\tTrust of October 26,
\n1964,  that  a scheme was being approved for  his  land\t and
\nother  neighbouring  lands and, therefore,  the,  Trust\t was
\nunable,\t  to  issue  the,  No  Objection   Certificate\t for
\ndevelopment  of\t his land on individual\t basis.\t  The  Trust
\nframed\ta Scheme No. 62 under section 46(1) of the  Act\t and
\npublished  a  notice to that effect in the  Gazette  and  in
\nlocal newspapers in 1965.  The Scheme includes the, land  of
\nthe  petitioner.  The representations which  the  Petitioner
\nmade against the Scheme were of no avail.  The Trust  served
\na notice dated February 10, 1965, upon the petitioner  under
\nsection 48(1) of the, Act proposing to acquire his land\t for
\nthe  purpose  of the Scheme.  The petitioner  submitted\t his
\nobjections on April 15, 1965, stating, inter alia, that\t the
\nland  was being developed into industrial area\tand  several
\nsmall  scale industries were functioning there and  as\tsuch
\ndevelopment  was  already in progress.\tIt was\talso  stated
\nthat  the  land\t having been put to the\t use  of  industrial
\npurposes  could\t not  be re-converted for  the\tpurposes  of
\nhousing accommodation’.\t It was further stated that the land
\nwas  mortgaged to the State Bank for about Rs. 2  lakhs\t and
\nthe  compensation that would be required to be paid  by\t the
\nTrust would be necessarily higher than in the case of  other
\nsuitable  vacant lands.\t The Petitioner was given a  hearing
\nbut  ultimately\t the representations were ,  rejected.\t The
\nTrust  duly applied to the State Government for sanction  of
\nthe  Scheme  which  was accorded on April  19,\t1968,  under
\nsection 51 of the Act.\tThe Trust published a notice’  dated
\nJuly 12, 1968, under section 68(1) of the Act declaring\t its
\nintention  to  acquire the land.  The petitioner  filed\t his
\nobjections   under  section  68(2)  against   the   proposed
\nacquisition  of\t the land but these were  rejected  and\t the
\nTrust obtained sanction of the State Government\t (respondent
\nNo. 2) to acquire the land under section 70 of the Act,\t and
\nthe  Notification was duly published on September 27,  1968.
\nTherefore   the\t Trust\tpublished  a  Notification  in\t the
\nGovernment  Gazette dated September 8, 1972,  acquiring\t the
\nsaid land and under section 71(2) of the Act the land vested
\nabsolutely  with the Trust free from encumbrances  from\t the
\ndate  of  the  publication.  Before  the  Trust\t could\ttake
\npossession  of\tthe  petitioner’s land, he  filed  the\twrit
\napplication  under  article  32\t of  the  Constitution\t and
\nobtained  Rule\tNisi and interim stay of  dispossession\t was
\ngranted pending disposal of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
The  following are the common submissions made on behalf  of
\nthe petitioners :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.   The\tHousing\t Accommodation\tScheme’\t  is
\n\t      invalid because it does not specify the  class
\n\t      of  inhabitants  for whom the  same  has\tbeen
\n\t      made.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.  The Scheme being a  Housing  Accommodation
\n\t      Scheme, it is for residential occupation\tonly
\n\t      and  it is not competent to include plans\t for
\n\t      industrial purposes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
689<\/span><\/p>\n
3. Section 31 of the Act does not empower the Trust to frame
\na scheme for industrial purposes at all.\n<\/p>\n
4.  There is no application of the mind in terms of  section
\n45 in making the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
5. The acquisition of the land for the purpose of the Scheme
\nis mala fide.\n<\/p>\n
6. Since the Act makes no provision for payment of  interest
\nfrom  the date of delivery of possession of the land to\t the
\nTrust to the, determination of compensation by the  Tribunal
\nacquisition of the land is violative of Article 31(2) of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
At  the\t very  outset  it should be  pointed  out  that\t the
\nPetitioners have not challenged the, vires of any provisions
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In  order to appreciate the first three\t submissions,  which
\nmay  be\t taken\tup  together, we may  note  a  few  relevant
\nprovisions of the Net.\n<\/p>\n
Chapter IV of the Act describes the contents of\t improvement
\nschemes.   Section 30 provides that “an\t improvement  scheme
\nmay provide for all or any of the following matters, namely-\n<\/p>\n
\t*\t     *\t\t    *\t\t  *\n<\/p>\n
(i)the\t provision  for\t accommodation\tfor  any  class\t  of
\ninhabitants : ”\n<\/p>\n
Section 31 may be set out in full\n<\/p>\n
31. “Types of improvement schemes.-\n<\/p>\n
An improvement scheme shall be of one of the following
\ntypes  or  may combine any two or more of such types  or  of
\nspecial features thereof, that is to say-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  a general improvement scheme;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  a re-building scheme;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  a re-housing scheme;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  a street scheme;\n<\/p>\n
(e)  a deferred street scheme;\n<\/p>\n
(f)  a development scheme;\n<\/p>\n
(g)  a housing accommodation scheme;\n<\/p>\n
(h)  a town expansion scheme;\n<\/p>\n
(i)a  drainage\tor  drainage  including\t sewage\t  disposal
\nscheme; and\n<\/p>\n
(j) a playground, stadium and recreation ground scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
690<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 38.  “Housing accommodation scheme.-
\nWhenever  the Trust is of opinion that it is  expedient\t and
\nfor  the public advantage to provide  housing  accommodation
\nfor any class of the inhabitants within the Trust area,\t the
\nTrust  may  frame a housing accommodation  scheme  for\tsuch
\npurpose.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 39.  “Town expansion scheme.-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Whenever the Trust is of opinion that it  is  expedient
\nand for the public advantage to control and provide for\t the
\nfuture improvement or expansion of a town to which this\t Act
\nis  applicable, the Trust may frame a town expansion  scheme
\nfor such town.\n<\/p>\n
\t *    *\t    *\t   *\t *     *     *
\n(3)  Such  scheme  shall show the methods  in  which  it  is
\nproposed  to  lay  out\tthe area to  be\t developed  and\t the
\npurposes   for\twhich  the  particular\tareas  are   to\t  be
\nutilised.”.\n<\/p>\n
\t *     *      *\t     *\t    *\t  *\t*
\nIt  is\tsubmitted  on behalf of the  petitioners,  that\t the
\nimpugned scheme is not a housing accommodation scheme  under
\nsection 38 but a scheme purely for industrial purposes.\t  It
\nis  pointed out that there is no reference in the Scheme  to
\nthe  class  of inhabitants within the Trust area  for  whose
\naccommodation  the Scheme has been framed under section\t 38.
\nSince it is a housing accommodation scheme it cannot include
\nplans for industrial purposes.\n<\/p>\n
The argument fails to take count of section 31 which permits
\nin terms for combining two or more schemes or  supplementing
\nsome  special  features of a particular\t scheme\t in  another
\nscheme.\t  In  other  words section  31\tenvisages  composite
\nschemes.   Section  39 which provides for a  town  expansion
\nscheme\tauthorises  under sub-section (3)  to  indicate\t the
\nmethod\tof  layout  as\twell  as  the  purposes\t for   which
\nparticular  areas  under the scheme may be  utilised.\tThis
\nsection goes to show that there is no legal bar in framing a
\nhousing\t accomodation scheme with some of the features of  a
\ntown expansion scheme which will even indicate the  purposes
\nfor  which  particular\tareas may  be  utilised.   There  is
\nnothing\t  in  the  Act\tto  ban\t industrial  purposes\tfrom
\nconsideration  under section 39(3).  The fact that a  scheme
\nis  described merely as a housing accommodation scheme\tdoes
\nnot  prevent the adaptation of the scheme to the  incidental
\nrequirements which may be overlapping in another scheme.  We
\nare  also  not satisfied that housing  acoommodation  scheme
\nmust  necessarily be a residential scheme only and  that  it
\ncannot\tadmit  of providing housing  accommodation  for\t any
\nother purpose or object.  The Madhya Pradesh High Court took
\nthe  same view in Beni Prasad Tandon and Others v.  Jabalpur
\nImprovement Trust, Jabalpur(1).\n<\/p>\n
Again it is difficult to appreciate how section 31  prevents
\nthe Trust from framing an industrial scheme.  We do not find
\nanything  in section 31 or in any of the provisions  of\t the
\nAct disabling the
\n(1) [1970] M. P. L. J. 292.\n<\/p>\n
691<\/span><\/p>\n
Trust  from  framing a scheme for industrial  purposes.\t  To
\nmention only section 39, it is clear that under that section
\na  town\t expansion  scheme may be framed  even\twithout\t the
\nlimits\tof  the\t town and that would indicate  that  a\ttown
\nexpansion  scheme may envisage industrial expansion to\tmeet
\nthe  growing needs of the community.  We, therefore, do\t not
\nsee  any  substance in the aforesaid  three  submissions  on
\nbehalf of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to the fourth submission of the petitioners,  it
\nis  difficult  to  accept the  same.   Section\t45  requires
\n‘certain  matters  specified  in (a) to\t (C)’therein  to  be
\nconsidered   when  framing  an\timprovement   scheme.\t The
\nspecified matters touch on the inherent utility,  efficiency
\nand  adequacy  of the scheme and the objections\t and  repre-
\nsentations  of\tthe persons affected will  be,\tdirected  to
\nnegative such assumptions.  The Scheme in question was\topen
\nto  inspection.\t There was no ambiguity or  vagueness  about
\nthe  Scheme  or its purposes.  From even the nature  of\t the
\nrepresentations and objections it is apparent that the Trust
\ndid  have all relevant matters in their mind in framing\t the
\nScheme.\t  Indeed without actually taking into  consideration
\nthe  various matters specified in section 45 it may not\t her
\npossible to frame a scheme and finally to obtain sanction of
\nthe   Government   in\tthe   teeth   of   objections\t and
\nrepresentations\t   against   the   same.    Where    factual
\nsatisfaction  is evident formal recitals being\tomitted\t may
\nnot matter.  At any rate sub-section (2) of section 52\tputs
\na  final seal of imprimatur on the scheme after\t publication
\nof  the\t sanction of the Government.   The  submission\t‘Is,
\ntherefore, devoid of merit.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to the fifth submission, which is actually urged
\nby  the petitioner in writ petition No. 517 of 1972, we\t are
\nnot  satisfied\tthat  the acquisition of the  land  for\t the
\npurpose of the present Scheme is mala fide.  It is submitted
\nthat  the  Trust by formulating the present  Scheme  had  an
\noblique\t motive to change the ownership of the land  already
\nunder  a  private scheme for development to let\t it  out  to
\ntenants\t who  will  run\t the  existing\tenterprises  already
\nstarted on the land.  We are not satisfied that any  oblique
\nmotive\tcan  be\t attributed  to the,  Trust  in\t making\t the
\nimpugned  Scheme.  It is clear that the land was  originally
\nowned  by the petitioner for agricultural purposes and\twhen
\nhe  obtained a patta converting it to indusrial purpose,  it
\nwas  clearly made subject to a condition  that\tconstruction
\nwork on the land shall be carried out in accordance with the
\nplans  sanctioned  by the Trust.  The  petitioner  had\tbeen
\ngiven  reasonable Opportunity to submit representations\t and
\nwas  given  a hearing by a Committee constituted  under\t the
\nAct.   The State Government on the application of the  Trust
\nexamined  the Scheme and sanctioned the acquisition  of\t the
\nland  under  section,  70 when it  was\tsatisfied  that\t the
\nacquisition was in public interest.  There is no particular
\nallegation  of mala fide against the State Government  whose
\nsanction was a pre requisite for the acquisition.  The order
\nof  acquisition cannot, therefore, be characterised as\tmala
\nfide and the submission fails.\n<\/p>\n
692<\/span><\/p>\n
With  regard  to the sixth and last submission there  was  a
\ngood  deal  of argument at the bar.  The  respondents  urged
\nthat this point was not specifically taken in the petitions.
\nUnder section 72(1) of the Act where any land is acquired by
\nthe  Trust it shall pay for such  acquisition  “compensation
\nthe  amount of which shall be determined in accordance\twith
\nthe  provisions hereinafter contained”.\t Under section 73  a
\nTribunal  is constituted for the purpose of determining\t the
\namount of compensation.\t Section 77 provides for matters  to
\nbe   considered\t  for  determining   compensation,   namely,
\n“firstly,  the market value of the land at the date  of\t the
\npublication  of the notification under sub-section  (1),  of
\nsection\t 68” and six other factors.  It is also provided  in
\nthe  same  section  that the Tribunal shall  not  take\tinto
\nconsideration  certain factors mentioned under eight  heads.
\nUnder  sub-section  (2) of section 77 “in  addition  to\t the
\nmarket-value  of  the land as above provided,  the  Tribunal
\nshall  in  every case award a sum of fifteen per  centum  or
\nsuch market-value in consideration of the compulsory  nature
\nof  the acquisition”.  There being no provision for  payment
\nof  interest from the date of compulsory acquisition of\t the
\nland upto the date of payment, acquisition, it is submitted,
\nis invalid in law.\n<\/p>\n
it is true that there is no provision for awarding  interest
\nunlike under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (see sections 28
\nand 34 of that Act).  It is, however, submitted on behalf of
\nthe  respondents that there is no bar under the Act  against
\nawarding  interest by the Tribunal even though there  is  no
\nenabling express provision to that effect under the Act.  It
\nis  stated  that  the Tribunal under  section  78  exercises
\npowers for summoning witnesses and enforcing attendance etc.
\nin  the same manner as provided in the case of civil  courts
\nunder  the  Code of Civil Procedure.  Under section  147  an
\nappeal\tfrom  the Tribunal lies to the High Court  in  cases
\nwhere  the value of the claim exceeds Rs. 500\/- and  in\t any
\nother  case  to\t the  District\tJudge.\t It  is,  therefore,
\nsubmitted  that\t the Tribunal is empowered even as  a  civil
\ncourt  to  award  interest under section  34  of  the  Civil
\nProcedure  Code.   Section 34 of the Civil  Procedure  Code,
\nhowever,  authorises  the court to award interest  from\t the
\ndate of the suit to the date of the decree and thereafter to
\nthe date of payment.  Section 34, therefore, would not\tcome
\nto  the aid of the Tribunal to award interest from the\tdate
\nof  delivery  of  possession  of the land  to  the  date  of
\ndetermination of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondents relied upon the decision of this  Court  in
\nSatinder  Singh and Others v. Amrao Singh and  Others<\/a>(1)  In
\nthis  case this Court had to deal with section 5(e)  of\t the
\nEast   Punjab  Acquisition  and\t Requisition  of   Immovable
\nProperty  (Temporary Powers) Act, 1948 (briefly\t the  Punjab
\nAct)  which provided that an Arbitrator in making his  award
\nshall  have  regard to the provisions of  sub-section(1)  of
\nsection\t 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 so far  as\t the
\nsame  can be made applicable.  The submission in  that\tcase
\nwas  that  since  sub-section (1) of  section  23  is  alone
\nmentioned,  sub-section\t (2)  of  section  23  is  impliedly
\nexcluded and necessarily also section 28 and
\n(1) [1961] 3 S. C. R. 676.\n<\/p>\n
 693<\/span><\/p>\n
section\t 34  stand excluded.  The argument,  therefore,\t was
\nthat die Tribunal was not empowered to award interest  under
\nthe Punjab Act.\t Repelling the said argument this Court held
\nas follows:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  would be legitimate to hold that  by\t the
\n\t      application   of\t S.  23(1)  in\t terms\t the
\n\t      provisions  of  S.  23(2)\t are  by   necessary
\n\t      implication excluded.  If the Legislature\t has
\n\t      provided that only one part of s. 23 should be
\n\t      applied  it would be reasonable to  hold\tthat
\n\t      the other part of s. 23 was not intended to be
\n\t      applied;\tbut  we do not see how it  would  be
\n\t      reasonable to hold that by the application  of
\n\t      S.   23(1)  the  principles   underlying\t the
\n\t      provisions of ss. 28 and 34 are also excluded.
\n\t      Therefore,  it  is necessary to  examine\tthis
\n\t      question\ton  general grounds  and  principles
\n\t      without assuming that the application of these
\n\t      general  considerations is excluded by any  of
\n\t      the provisions of the Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      This Court finally held as follows
\n\t      “The  power  to award  interest  on  equitable
\n\t      grounds  or under any other provisions of\t the
\n\t      law is expressly saved by the proviso to S.  I
\n\t      (of  the\tInterest  Act  1839)……  we\thave
\n\t      already\tseen  that  the\t right\tto   receive
\n\t      interest\tin lieu of possession  of  immovable
\n\t      property\ttaken away either by private  treaty
\n\t      or  by  compulsory  acquisition  is  generally
\n\t      regarded by judicial decisions as an equitable
\n\t      right;  and  so, the proviso to s.  1  of\t the
\n\t      Interest Act saves the said right”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Court in that case, therefore, awarded interest to\t the
\nclaimants.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioners on the other hand drew our attention  to  a
\ndecision  of this court in the Godhra Electricity  Co.\tLtd.
\nand  another v. The State of Gujarat and another  (1)  where
\none  of\t us  Mathew  J., speaking  for\tthe  Court  held  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “There  can be no doubt about the\t correctness
\n\t      of  the general rule under which\ta  purchaser
\n\t      who takes possession is charged with  interest
\n\t      on his purchase money from that time until  it
\n\t      is  paid.\t  This\trule  has  been\t applied  to
\n\t      compulsory  purposes  (see Satinder  Singh  v.
\n\t      Amrao  Singh)<\/a>  (supra).  But the\tquestion  is
\n\t      whether the arbitrator has power under the Act
\n\t      to  award interest on the purchase price.\t  In
\n\t      Toronto  City Corpn. v. Toronto Rly.   Corpn.,
\n\t      [1925] AC 177 at pp. 193-194 the Privy Council
\n\t      held  that  the  general rule  under  which  a
\n\t      purchaser who takes possession is charged with
\n\t      interest on his purchase money from that\ttime
\n\t      until it is paid was well established, and bad
\n\t      on. many occasions been applied to  compulsory
\n\t      purchases\t but the duty of the arbitrators  in
\n\t      that case was not to determine all the  rights
\n\t      of  the  company, but only  to  ascertain\t the
\n\t      actual value of certain property at a  certain
\n\t      time and that it was a truism to say that such
\n\t      value  could not include interest upon it\t and
\n\t      that the liability for interest lay outside of
\n\t      the’ arbitration for its enforcement”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1) A. T. R. 1975 (January) S. C. 32.\n<\/p>\n
694<\/span><\/p>\n
Although  in  the Godhra Electricity Co’s case\t(supra)\t the
\nCourt  has  noticed the decision in  Satinder  Singh’s\tcase
\n(supra),  it may be observed that the Court’s  attention  in
\nthe  latter  case  was not drawn to ,section 5\t(g)  of\t the
\nPunjab Act to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Save  as provided in this section and in\t any
\n\t      rules  thereunder, nothing in any law for\t the
\n\t      time being in force shall apply to arbitration
\n\t      under this section”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And the Court, therefore, in that case rendered the decision
\n“without  .assuming  that the application of  these  general
\nconsiderations is excluded by any, of the provisions of\t the
\nAct”.\tIn view of the Godhra Electricity Co’s case  (supra)
\nit is not possible to hold that the Cornpensation  Tribunal,
\nwhich  is  at par with an Arbitrator, will be  entitled\t ,to
\naward  interest\t without any express provision in  the\tAct.
\nThis is particularly so since under the Act the Tribunal  is
\nen-titled to take into consideration some given factors\t and
\nto  peremptorily ignore certain other specified\t factors  in
\ndetermining the compensation. it has also been empowered  to
\ngrant  solatium\t as similarly provided for  under  the\tLand
\nAcquisition  Act.   In\tthe,  entire  scheme  of  the  self-
\ncontained  Act, in absence of a provision to  authorise\t the
\nTribunal to award interest, it is not possible to hold\tthat
\nit  can\t award\tinterest  on  the  amount  of\tcompensation
\ndetermined by the Tribunal subsequent to the acquisition ,of
\nthe  land.  The petitioners are, therefore, right  in  their
\ncontention  that  this\tAct does not  provide  for  awarding
\ninterest from the date of taking possession of the  property
\nto  the date of determination of cornpensation,\t which\twill
\nalways\tbe on a later date under the provisions of  the\t Act
\n(see sections 72 and 73).\n<\/p>\n
The petitioners, however, have an indirect object.  They are
\nnot  interested\t in the interest as such but want  the\tland
\nback  and  will\t not  be  satisfied  unless  the  order\t  of
\nacquisition  is quashed.  Unfortunately, however, it is\t not
\npossible  for this Court to quash the acquisition  in  these
\ncases  in  absence  of\ta challenge  of\t the  vires  of\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe Act.  Presumption  of  constitutionality
\nwill  forbid casting an evil eye on the Act in absence of  a
\nclear  challenge.  The Act must be assumed to be  valid\t for
\nthe  purpose of these petitions and we wilt proceed on\tthat
\nbasis.\t Then  law being valid the attack  will\t reverberate
\nupon  the quantum of compensation, pure and simple.   It  is
\nsufficient  to\tpoint out that the quantum  of\tcompensation
\nwhich  may be determined according to the provisions of\t the
\nAct  for acquisition of the land cannot be challenged  under
\narticle\t 31(2)\tof the Constitution.  In that  view  of\t the
\nmatter this submission of the learned counsel also fails.
\nln  Writ  Petition No. 240 of 1973, Mr.\t Patel\tadditionally
\nurged  that publication of the notice of the Scheme Was\t not
\nmade  in  accordance  with section 46(2) of  the  Act  which
\nrequires  weekly  publication  in  the\tGazette\t for   three
\nconsecutive weeks.  Apart from the fact, in this case,\tthat
\nthe  petitioner was well aware of the Scheme  and  submitted
\nobjections and representations, section 52(2) appears to  be
\nconclusive on the question.  That sub-section provides\tthat
\nthe  publication of a notification by the  State  Government
\nsanctioning the scheme shall be
\n695<\/span>
\nconclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly framed and
\nsanctioned.   In  view\tof this,  ticklish  skirmishes\tover
\npublication  on\t technical  grounds at a  distant  date\t are
\ncompletely out of place.  The submission is devoid of merit.
\nIn the result both the Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed
\nwith no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
We  should observe that Mr. Shroff pointed out that in\tview
\nof  the\t decision of the Supreme Court in  Satinder  Singh’s
\ncase (supra) and another decision of the Madhya Pradesh High
\nCourt  in  Lakhanlal and others v. Town\t Improvement  Trust,
\nJabalpur  and  others,(1)  the\tTribunal  has  been   always
\nawarding interest in acquisition cases under the Act and  he
\nundertakes on behalf of the respondents, irrespective of our
\ndecision, to pay interest to the petitioners at 6% per annum
\nfrom the date of actual delivery of possession upto the date
\nof payment of the compensation.\n<\/p>\n
P.H.P.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t Petitions dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1970] M. P. L. J. 316.\n<\/p>\n
696<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore … on 24 February, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1303, 1975 SCR (3) 686 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: LAXMI CHAND Vs. RESPONDENT: INDORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, INDORE AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/02\/1975 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN KRISHNAIYER, […]<\/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-164622","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLaxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore ... on 24 February, 1975 - 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\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore ... on 24 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-24T20:56:36+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore … on 24 February, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-24T20:56:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975\"},\"wordCount\":3645,\"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\\\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975\",\"name\":\"Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore ... on 24 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-24T20:56:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore … on 24 February, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore ... on 24 February, 1975 - 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\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore ... on 24 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-24T20:56:36+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore … on 24 February, 1975","datePublished":"1975-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-24T20:56:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975"},"wordCount":3645,"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\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975","name":"Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore ... on 24 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-24T20:56:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-chand-vs-indore-improvement-trust-indore-on-24-february-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Laxmi Chand vs Indore Improvement Trust, Indore … on 24 February, 1975"}]},{"@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\/164622","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=164622"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164622\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164622"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164622"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164622"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}