{"id":165791,"date":"1992-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992"},"modified":"2017-07-30T09:34:09","modified_gmt":"2017-07-30T04:04:09","slug":"ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992","title":{"rendered":"Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992<\/div>\n
Bench: [M.H. Kania, Cj., N.M. Kasliwal Singh, Jj.]<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMJAS FOUNDATION AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nU.O.I. AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/11\/1992\n\nBENCH:\n[M.H. KANIA ,  CJ.,  N.M. KASLIWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]\n\n\n\n\nACT:\nLand Acquisition Act, 1894:\nSections 4, 6, 9 and 10-Notification- challenge to-Delay-Not\nproperly explained effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nNotification under  Section 4  of the  Land Acquisition\nAct, 1894  was issued  in respect of certain lands including\nthe lands  belonging to the appellant-foundation situated at\ntwo different places.\nThe appellant-Foundation filed objections. Subsequently\nnotifications under  Sections 6 and Notices under Sections 9\nand 10 were also issued. The appellant-Foundation challenged\nthe notifications  in respect of the land situated at one of\nthe two\t places, by  way of  a Writ Petition before the High\nCourt and  the same  was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty\nto  the\t  petitioner  to  agitate  the\tmatter\tin  a  suit.\nThereupon, the\tappellant-Foundation filed  a suit  and\t the\nsame was  dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court. The\nLetters\t Patent\t  Appeal  filed\t against  that\tdecision  is\npending.\nIn respect  of the  land situated at the other place, a\nWrit Petition  was filed  by the  appellant before  the High\nCourt,\twhich\tcame  to   be  dismissed     as\t  withdrawn.\nThereafter,  another   Writ  Petition\twas  filed   by\t the\nappellant-Foundation before  the High  Court challenging the\nnotifications.\nThe High  Court having dismissed the Writ Petition, the\nappellant-Foundation preferred the present appeal.\nOn behalf  of the  appellants,\t it was\t contended that\nthey filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act, but\nthe same were rejected without\taffording any opportunity of\npersonal hearing,  and\tthe  denial  of\t such\t opportunity\ninvalidated the\t notifications; and  that the  land  of\t the\nappellants  being  wakf\t property  it  ought  to  have\tbeen\nexcluded on the basis of the notification under Section 4 of\nthe Act.  Alternatively it  was contended that the appellant\nhas been  running several  educational institutions  on\t the\nvery land and that if the exemption for wakf property is not\napplicable to  such educational\t and charitable institutions\nrun by Hindus or non-Muslims, then such a notification would\nbe violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.\nThe Respondents\t contested the\tappeal\ton  grounds  of\ndelay, laches\tand  acquiescence in fling the Writ Petition\nchallenging the\t acquisition proceedings. It was also stated\nthat the  appellants  were  given  opportunity\tof  personal\nhearing.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\nHELD: 1.  The conduct  of the appellants in raising the\nplea that  no opportunity  of personal\thearing was given to\nthe appellants\tin respect  of the  objections\tfiled  under\nSection 5A  of the  Land Acquisition  Act, 1894\t was totally\nbaseless  and\tfactually  incorrect  and  such\t conduct  is\nreprehensible. It  is well-settled that a person invoking an\nequitable extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Art.\n226 of the Constitution is required to come with clean hands\nand should not conceal the material facts. [431-F, G]\nFarid Ahmed Abdul Samad & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation\nof the\tCity of\t Ahmedabad & Anr.,<\/a> [1977] 1 SCR 71, referred\nto.\n2. The\tchallenge to  the acquisition  proceedings  was\nmainly based  on the  ground that  in the notification dated\n13.11.1959 issued  under Section  4 of\tthe Act the lands of\nwakf property  were excluded and the lands of the appellants\nbeing also  used for educational and charitable purposes the\nsame were  also liable\tto be  excluded. At  a later stage a\nground was  also    taken  that\t if  wakf  property  in\t the\naforesaid notification under Section 4 of the Act meant only\nwakf properties\t of the\t Mohammedans, then such notification\nwas discriminatory  and\t violative  under  Art.\t 14  of\t the\nConstitution  as   there  was\tno  reasonable\t ground\t  to\ndiscriminate such  properties of Hindus or non-Muslims meant\nfor charitable\tpurposes. Thus\tthe challenge was in respect\nof notifications  under Sections  4 and\t 6 of the Act  alone\nand though  in the  prayer clause  relief has been sought to\nquash the  notification under  Sections 9  and 10 of the Act\nalso which  were issued\t in 1972,  no ground  whatsoever has\nbeen pleaded  in the writ petition nor raised in the present\nappeal as  to how  the notifications under Sections 9 and 10\nhad any\t concern for  explaining the delay in respect of the\nChallenge to notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act,\nAdmittedly the\tnotices\t under\tsections  9  and  10  issued\nappellants in 1972 were in respect of a portion of the land.\nThe challenge  on the  other Land in the writ petition is in\nrespect of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 covering the\nentire land.  There is no justification at all in explaining\nthe delay  on the  ground that\tno award has been passed nor\nthe appellants\thave been  dispossessed so far.\t This cannot\nbe an  explanation for\tnot  challenging  the  notifications\nunder Sections\t4 and  6 of  the Act and in the present case\nthe appellants had themselves sought stay from this Court as\nearly as  15.11.1978 for  not making and declaring the award\nand not\t to dispossess\tthe appellants.\t Thus  there  is  no\njustification at  all for  the delay in not  challenging the\nnotification issued under Section 4 on 13.11.1959 till 1973.\nEven notifications under Section 6 of the Act were issued in\n1968 and 1969 but not challenged till 1973. [435-H; 436-A-G]\nAflatoon &  Ors. v. Lt. Governor Delhi & Ors.,<\/a> [2975] 1\nSCR 802, relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2213 of
\n1978.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  31.1.1978  of\t the
\nDelhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 106 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
     V.M. Tarkunde,  S.B. Wad, Mrs. J.S. Wad and Mrs. Tamali
\nWad for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     K.T.S. Tulsi,  Solicitior General,\t T.C. Sharma  and P.
\nParmeshwaran  for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     Kirpal  Singh   and  M.A.\t Krishna  Moorthy   for\t the
\nIntervener.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KASLIWAL, J.  This appeal\tby the\tRamjas Foundation, a
\nsociety duly   registered  under the  Societies Registration
\nAct, 1960 and five others who are the Secretary and trustees
\nof the\tRamjas Foundation  is directed\tagainst the order of
\nthe Delhi  High Court  dated January 31, 1978 dismissing the
\ncivil Writ Petition No.106 of 1978 in limine.\n<\/p>\n
     On November  13, 1959,  the  Chief\t Commissioner  Delhi
\nissued\ta     Notification  under  Section  4  of  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)
\nLand measuring 34070 acres was notified as land likely to be
\nacquired by  the Government  at the  public  expense  for  a
\npublic purpose,\t namely, the  planned development  of Delhi.
\nThe following  land   was excluded  from the  scope  of\t the
\nnotification:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  Government  land  and\t evacues
\n     land;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) the land already notified,
\n     either under Section 6 of the  Land
\n     Acquisition Act for any Government
\n     Scheme;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  the\tland  already\tnotified
\n     either under  Section 4  o.   under
\n     Section 6\tof the\tLand Acquisition
\n     Act,   for\t       House\tBuilding
\n     Cooperative Societies  mentioned in
\n     annexure-lII;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  the\tland  under  graveyards,
\n     tombs,   shrines\tand   the   land
\n     attached to  religious institutions
\n     and Wakf property.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The aforesaid  land measuring 34070 acres included land
\nmeasuring about\t 872 bighas,  9 biswas\tsituated in  Chowkri
\nMubarikabad and\t measuring  about  730\tbighas\tsituated  in
\nChowkri Sadhurakhurd,  belonging to  the Ramjas\t Foundation.
\nThe present  appeal relates  to the land situated in Chowkri
\nSadhurakhurd.\tThe Ramjas  Foundation on  December 11, 1959
\nfiled objections  under Section 5A of the Act for the entire
\nland situated  in Mubarikabad  as well\tas Sadhurakhurd. The
\nLt. Governor  of  Delhi\t subsequently  issued  notifications
\nunder  Section\t 6  of\tthe  Act  on  15.4.1968,  27.4.1968,
\n15.5.1968,   19.8.1968, 14.1.1969  and\t18.1.1969.  The\t Lt.
\nGovernor also  issued notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the
\nAct on\tDecember 27,  1972 for Sadhurakhurd land. As regards
\nthe land  in Mubarikabad notification under Section 6 of the
\nAct was issued on February 28, 1968. Ramjas Foundation filed
\na writ\tpetition in  may,  1968\t in  the  Delhi\t High  Court
\nchallenging the\t action of the Government in acquiring their
\nlands situated\tin Mubarikabad.\t In the\t said writ  petition
\nSachar, J.  (as he  then was)  who heard the petition was of
\nthe view that the matter ought to be tried in a suit instead
\nof writ\t proceedings. He,  therefore,  by  his\torder  dated
\nAugust 10,  1971 permitted the Ramjas Foundation to withdraw
\nthe petition  with liberty  to agitate\tthe matter in a suit
\nand as\tsuch the  writ petition\t was dismissed as withdrawn.
\nThe Ramjas  Foundation then  filed a  suit in the Delhi High
\nCourt on  November 8,  1971 for\t quashing the  notifications
\nissued under  Sections 4  and 6 of the Act in respect of the
\nland situated  in   Mubarikabad. The  suit was\tdismissed by
\nAwadh Behari  Rohtagi,\tJ.  of the Delhi High Court by order
\ndated 21.3.1977\t reported in  AIR 1977\tDelhi 261.   Learned
\nCounsel for  the  appellants  brought  to  our\tnotice\tthat
\nLetters Patent\tAppeal before the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt is  pending against  the\taforesaid  Judgment  of\t the
\nLearned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the land situated in Sadhurakhurd with which
\nwe are\tconcerned in  the present appeal a Writ Petition No.
\n213 of\t1973 was  filed in  the High  Court and the same was
\ndismissed as  withdrawn on  30th   March,  1977.  Thereafter
\nanother Writ Petition No. 106 of 1978 was filed\t challenging
\nthe notifications  issued under\t Sections 4,  6, 9 and 10 of
\nthe Act\t and the same was dismissed by the High Court by the
\nimpugned order\tdated January  31, 1978 in limine as already
\nmentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  heard Mr. Tarkunde, Learned Senior Advocate on
\nbehalf of  the appellants  and Mr. Tulsi, Learned Additional
\nSolicitor General  on behalf  of  the  respondents.  Learned
\ncounsel for the appellants contended that the appellants had
\nsubmitted their\t objections under  Section 5A  of the Act on
\n11.12.1959 but\tthe same were rejected without affording any
\nopportunity of\tpersonal hearing.  It was  submitted that it
\nwas mandatory  on the  part of the respondents to have given
\nan opportunity\tof personal  hearing specially when the same
\nwas desired  and a  denial of  such opportunity of  personal
\nhearing invalidates  the notifications issued under Sections
\n6 and  9 of  the Act.  Reliance\t in  respect  of  the  above
\ncontention is  placed on  Farid Ahmed  Abdul Samad & Anr. v.
\nMunicipal Corporation  of the  City  of\t Ahmedabad  &  Anr.,<\/a>
\n[19771 1 SCR 71.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  also contended on behalf of the appellants that
\nthe notification  issued under\tSection 4  of the Act itself
\nexcludes the  land of  wakf property.\t It  has  thus\tbeen
\ncontended that\tso far\tas the land in question is concerned
\nthe same  being also  a wakf  property as such ought to have
\nbeen  exempted\t  under\t the  notification  itself.  It\t was
\nsubmitted  that\t  Ramjas  Foundation   is    an\t educational
\ncharitable   society which  is running\tseveral schools\t and
\npost graduate  college\tin  Delhi  and\tseveral\t educational
\ninstitutions are  being run  on the  alleged  acquired\tland
\nitself. As an alternative argument it was
\nsubmitted that\tin case\t this Hon’ble  Court takes  the view
\nthat wakf  property mentioned  in the  alleged\tnotification
\ndoes not include the educational and charitable institutions
\nrun by Hindus or non-Muslims then such notification  is void
\nfor violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     As regards\t the  objection\t of  the  violation  of\t the
\nmandatory provisions  of Section  5A of\t the Act  in.\t not
\naffording an  opportunity of personal hearing while deciding
\nsuch objections,  we granted  an opportunity  to the Learned
\nAdditional  Solicitor\tGeneral\t to   place  material  after
\nexamining  the\t original  record.     We   granted,\tthis
\nopportunity to the respondents on account of the reason that
\nthe writ  petition had\tbeen dismissed by the High Court  in
\nlimine without issuing notice to the respondents and as such
\nthe respondents\t had not  been given  any opportunity before
\nthe  High   Court  to  place  any  material  to\t refute\t the
\nallegations made  by the  appellants  in  this\tregard.\t The
\nAdditional  Solicitor  General\tduring\tthe  course  of\t the
\nhearing\t of   the  matter   placed  an\torder  of  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Collector,\t Delhi\tdated\t23.2.1968 which\t has
\nbeen taken  on record and for the purposes of identification
\nhas been marked as Annexure ‘X’. A copy of the said Annexure
\n‘X’  was   also\t given\t to  the  Learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 22.3.1968
\nclearly\t shows\t that  the  Ramjas  Foundation\tSociety\t was
\nrepresented through  Sh. Ratan\tLal Gupta,  Advocate who was
\ngiven a\t personal hearing.  From a  perusal of the aforesaid
\ndocument Annexure  ‘X’ dated 23.2.1968 it is clear that full
\nopportunity of\thearing through\t counsel was afforded to the
\nRamjas Foundation.   It\t has been  further mentioned in this
\norder that the Ramjas Foundation Society was also allowed to
\nfile fresh  objections if  so desired,\tbut  Sh.  Ratan\t Lal
\nGupta, Learned\tAdvocate for the Petitioner society declined
\nand stated   that  there was  nothing more  to\tadd  in\t the
\nprevious  objection   petition.\t After\t bringing  the\tsaid
\ndocument Annexure  ‘X’ to  the notice of the Learned counsel
\nfor the\t appellants, no satisfactory explanation or argument
\ncame forward on behalf of the appellants. The conduct of the
\nappellants in  raising\tthe  plea  that\t no  opportunity  of
\npersonal hearing  was given to the  appellants in respect of
\nthe objections filed under Section 5A of the Act was totally
\nbaseless  and\tfactually  incorrect  and  such\t conduct  is
\nreprehensible. lt  is well settled that a person invoking an
\nequitable extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Art.
\n226 of the Constitution is required to come with clean hands
\nand should  not conceal\t the material  facts. The  objection
\nregarding not  affording an  opportunity of personal hearing
\nin   respect of objections filed under Section 5A of the Act
\nwas one of the main planks of the grounds raised in the writ
\npetition as  well as  in the  Special Leave  Petition  filed
\nbefore this  Court and\tought we know if such ground had not
\nbeen taken  this Court would have entertained this appeal or
\nnot.   The appellants  have taken the advantage of obtaining
\nthe stay  order also from this Court which is continuing for
\nthe last 14 years as the Special Leave Petition was filed in
\n1978 itself.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t may  be  further  noted  that\ta  common  objection
\npetition under\tSection 5A of the Act in respect of both the
\nlands situated\tin Mubarikabad\t as  well as in Sadhurakhurd
\nwas  filed  on\t11.12.1959  through  Sh.  Ratan\t lal  Gupta,
\nAdvocate. The  said objections were heard in the presence of
\nShri   Ratan Lal  Gupta,   Advocate and\t disposed of  by one
\ncommon order  Annexure ‘X’  and we  cannot believe  an\tipse
\ndixit  explanation   made  orally    during  the  course  of
\narguments on  behalf of\t the appellants\t that they  had\t  no
\nknowledge of  any personal hearing being given to Shri Ratan
\nLal Gupta,  Advocate. It  is also  important to note that no
\nsuch objection was taken in respect of land in Mubarikabad.\n<\/p>\n
     Another ground  on which  the present  appeal has\tbeen
\ncontested is   the  ground of delay, laches and acquiescence
\nin filing  the writ  petition  challenging  the\t acquisition
\nproceedings.\t As  already   mentioned  above\t  a   common
\nnotification was  issued under\tSection 4  of the Act for an
\narea of\t 34070 acres  of land needed for planned development
\nof Delhi.   Between  1959 and  1961, about,    six  thousand
\nobjections were\t filed under  Section 5A  of  the  Act.\t The
\nobjections  were   overruled.\t  On  March  18,  1966,\t the
\ndeclaration under  Section 6  of the  Act was  published  in
\nrespect of  a portion  of  the\tarea.  Thereafter,  in\t1970
\nnotices were  issued under  Section 9(1) of the Act and some
\nof the persons who had received such notices challenged the
\nvalidity of acquisition proceedings by filing writ petitions
\nbefore the  High Court\tof Delhi.   The High Court negatived
\nall the\t contentions raised in those cases and dismissed the
\nwrit petitions. Thereafter appeals by grant of special leave
\nagainst the judgment of the Delhi High Court as well as writ
\npetitions filed\t directly under\t Art. 32 of the Constitution
\nwere heard  and disposed  of  by  this\tCourt  by  a  common
\nJudgment reported in Aflatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor Delhi &
\nOrs.,<\/a> [1975] 1 SCR 802. In the aforesaid case a Constitution
\nBench of  this Court held that in the case of an acquisition
\nof a  large area  of land comprising several plots belonging
\nto different  persons, the  specification of the purpose can
\nonly be\t with regard  to the  acquisition of the whole area.
\nUnlike in  the case  of an  acquisition of  a small area, it
\nmight be  practically difficult\t to specify  the  particular
\npurpose for  which each\t and every item of land comprised in
\nthe area is needed.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  further held  in the  above case that about six
\nthousand objections  were filed\t under Section 5A by persons
\ninterested in the property. Several writ petitions were also
\nfiled in  1966 and  1967 challenging  the  validity  of\t the
\nacquisition proceedings.  The Government  had necessarily to
\nwait for the disposal of the objections and petitions before
\nproceeding further  in the matter. The High Court was of the
\nview that  there was no\t inordinate delay on the part of the
\nGovernment in  completing the  acquisition proceedings.\t The
\nconclusion of the High Court was held to be correct.  It was
\nalso held  in the  above case  that the\t writ petitions were
\nliable to be dismissed on the grounds of laches and delay on
\nthe part  of the  petitioners.\tIn the above case this Court
\nhad found  that the appellants of that case had not moved in
\nthe matter  even after\tthe declaration\t under Section 6 was
\npublished in  1966.    They  approached the  High Court with
\ntheir writ  petitions only  in 1970  when the  notices under
\nSection 9  were issued\tto them. This Court then observed as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     “There was apparently no reason why
\n     the writ  petitions    should  have
\n     waited till  1972 to  come to  this
\n     Court for\tchallenging the validity
\n     of the  notification issued in 1959
\n     on the  ground that the particulars
\n     of the  public purpose    were  not
\n     specified.\t A   valid  notification
\n     under Section  4 is    sine qua non
\n     for initiation  of proceedings  for
\n     acquisition   of property.\t To have
\n     sat on  the fence\tand allowed  the
\n     Government\t   to\t complete    the
\n     acquisition  proceedings\ton   the
\n     basis that\t the notification  under
\n     Section  4\t and  the    declaration
\n     under Section 6 were valid and then
\n     to\t attack\t   the\tnotification  on
\n     grounds  which  were  available  to
\n     them  at\tthe   time   when   tile
\n     notification was published would be
\n     putting  a\t  premium  on\tdilatory
\n     tactics.  The  writ  petitions  are
\n     liable  to\t  be  dismissed\t on  the
\n     ground of\tlaches and delay  on the
\n     part of the petitioners”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The delay\tand laches  in the  case before\t us are even
\nworse than  those in  the above\t cited Aflatoon’s  case. The
\nappellants had\tinitially filed\t a writ\t petition No. 213\/73
\nchallenging the\t notification dated 13.11.1959 under Section
\n4 of  the Act and notification dated 27.4.1968 under Section
\n6 of the Act with respect to 245 bighas and 1 biswas of land
\nsituated in  the revenue  estate  of  Sadhurakhurd  and\t the
\nnotices dated  27.12.1972 under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act
\nissued by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi with respect
\nto  Khasra  No.\t 1040\/353  (12\tbighas\tand  8\tbiswas).  On
\n30.3.1977 Shri\tM.C. Gupta,  Learned counsel  for the Ramjas
\nFoundation stated  that he had instructions from his clients
\nto state  that they  did not  want to press the petition and
\nwish to\t withdraw it.\tThe  statement of Sh. Gupta had been
\nseparately recorded.   The  Court,  in\tthese  circumstances
\npermitted to withdraw the petition and dismissed the same as
\nwithdrawn. lt is important to note that in the statement Sh.
\nM.C.Gupta, Learned  counsel for\t the petitioners  stated  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     “I may  be\t permitted  to\twithdraw
\n     this  petition   in  view\t of  the
\n     Judgment  delivered   by  Hon.  Mr.
\n     Justice Awadh Behari in Suit 451 of
\n     1971 decided  on 21st  March, 1977,
\n     between   the parties,  wherein the
\n     contentions  urged\t were  precisely
\n     the same as urged in this petition,
\n     my\t    clients\treserved     the
\n     opportunity to file a fresh suit if
\n     so\t    necessitated      by     the
\n     circumstances in future.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It may  be noted that the reference with regard to suit
\nNo. 451 of 1971 decided on 21st March, 1977 is in respect of
\nthe land  of petitioners  situated  in\tMubarikabad.  It  is
\nsurprising that though the opportunity was sought for filing
\na fresh suit, the appellants again filed a writ petition No.
\n106 of\t1978  in  the  High  Court  on\t7.1.1978  which\t was
\nultimately dismissed  by the  High Court  in limine  on 31st
\nJanuary, 1978  by a  Division  Bench  comprising  of  T.P.S.
\nChawla and  Awadh Behari,  JJ. In this writ petition No. 106
\nof 1978\t the appellants conveniently omitted to mention that
\nthe permission\tto withdraw the petition No. 213 of 1973 was
\ngranted on  the statement of Sh. M.C. Gupta that his clients
\nreserved the liberty to file a fresh suit and not writ. Thus
\nno liberty  was sought\tor given  for filing  a\t fresh\twrit
\npetition.  In  any  case  there\t were  no  fresh  ground  or
\ncircumstances available\t to the\t appellants to\tfile a fresh
\nwrit petition  No. 106\tof 1978\t on  7.1.1978  on  identical
\ngrounds when  the earlier  writ petition No. 213 of 1973 had
\nbeen  dismissed\t as  withdrawn\ton  30.3.1977.\tNothing\t had
\nhappened between  30.3.1977 and\t 7.1.1978 for giving a fresh
\ncause of action to the appellants  to file the writ petition
\nNo. 106\t of 1978.  Awadh Behari,  J. had dismissed  the suit
\nNo. 451\t of 1971  by order  dated 21.3.1977 in regard to the
\nlands in  Mubarikabad and  he was  also one of the Judges of
\nthe Division  Bench who\t passed\t the  impugned\torder  dated
\nJanuary 31,  1978 dismissing  the writ petition in limine as
\nhe  was\t fully\taware  of  the\tentire\tbackground  of\tthis
\nlitigation.   The appellants  are themselves responsible for
\ncreating confusion  in initiating  separate  proceedings  at
\ndifferent period of time in respect of the lands situated in
\nMubarikabad  and   Sadhurakhurd\t though\t  challenge  to\t the
\nacquisition  proceedings  was  on  common  grounds.  Learned
\ncounsel for  the appellants was unable to satisfy in respect
\nof such\t conduct of  hide  and\tseek  on  the  part  of\t the
\nappellants. In\tcase, as  sought  to  be  explained  by\t Mr.
\nTarkunde, Learned  Senior Counsel  for the  appellants,\t the
\nappellants were\t depending on  the result  of the civil suit
\nfiled in  respect of the lands situated in Mubarikabad there
\nwas no justification for filing the writ petition No. 213 of
\n1973 in\t respect of the land situated in Sadhurakhurd as the
\nsuit was  not decided  in 1973\tbut was in fact dismissed on
\n21.3.1977. We  find no\tjustification for  filing  the\twrit
\npetition in  respect of the land situated in Sadhurakhurd in
\n1973 and  subsequently withdrawing the writ petition on 30th
\nMarch, 1977  reserving the  liberty to file a fresh suit but
\nthereafter  again  filing  the\twrit  petition\ton  7.1.1978
\ninstead of suit.\n<\/p>\n
     Independently,  of\t  all  the  circumstances  mentioned
\nabove, we  shall now  consider the  question  of  delay\t and
\nlaches in  filing the writ petition No.\t 106 of 1978 and the
\nearlier writ  petition No.  213 of 1973 relating to lands in
\nSadhurakhurd.\t  Mr.  Tarkunde,   Learned  Senior   Counsel
\nvehemently contended  that there is no limitation prescribed
\nfor filing  the writ  petition and the question of delay and
\nlaches has  to be  examined independently  in the  facts and
\ncircumstances  of   each  case.\t  He  has  argued  that\t the
\nappellants are\tcontinuing  in\tpossession  uptil  date\t and
\nthough\tchallenge   has\t been\t made  to  the\tvalidity  of
\nnotifications issued  under Section  4 in 1959, Section 6 in
\n1968 and  1969 and  Section 9  and 10  in 19722, there is no
\ndelay, since no award has been passed so far and no loss has
\noccasioned to  the  respondents due to lapse of time. It has
\nbeen submitted\tthat there  was no  change of  circumstances
\nduring the  intervening period and the delay had  been fully
\nexplained on  the aforesaid grounds. It has also been argued
\nthat notifications  under Sections  9 and  10 were issued in
\n1972 and soon there after the appellants came forward with a
\nwrit petition  No. 213 of 1973 challenging the notifications
\nissued under Sections 4, 6, 9 and 10 of the Act.  We find no
\nforce at all in the above contentions.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  an admitted fact that notification under Section
\n4 of  the Act  was issued  as early  as\t 1959  and  all\t the
\nnotifications under  Section 6 of the Act in relation to the
\nland of\t the appellants\t in Sadhurakhurd were issued in 1968
\nand 1969.   The challenge to the acquisition proceedings was
\nmainly\t based on  the ground that in the notification dated
\n13.11.1959 issued  under Section  4 of\tthe Act the lands of
\nwakf property  were excluded and the lands of the appellants
\nbeing also  used for educational and charitable purposes the
\nsame were  also liable\tto be  excluded. At  a later stage a
\nground was also taken that if wakf property in the aforesaid
\nnotification under  Section 4  of the  Act meant  only\twakf
\nproperties of  the Mohammedans,\t then such  notification was
\ndiscriminatory\tand   violative\t under\t Art.  14   of\t the
\n(Constitution  as   there  was\t no  reasonable\t  ground  to
\ndiscriminate such  properties of  Hindus or non-Muslims also
\nmeant for  charitable purposes.\t So far as the notifications
\nunder Section  6 of  the Act  are concerned  the  same\twere
\nattacked on  the ground\t that  no  opportunity\tof  personal
\nhearing was given to hear the objections filed under Section
\n5A of  the Act.\t  Thus\tit  is\tabundantly  clear  that\t the
\nchallenge was  in respect  of notifications under Sections 4
\nand 6  of the  Act alone  and though  in the  prayer  clause
\nrelief had  been sought\t to  quash  the\t notification  under
\nSections 9  and 10 of the Act also which were issued in 1972
\nbut no\tground whatsoever  has\tbeen  pleaded  in  the\twrit
\npetition nor  raised before  us as to how the  notifications
\nunder Sections\t9 and  10 had any concern for explaining the
\ndelay in  respect of  the challenge  to notifications  under
\nSections 4  and 6  of the Act. It is worthwhile to note that
\naccording to  the appellants  own showing  the notices under
\nSections 9  and 10  issued to the appellants in 1972 were in
\nrespect of  the land being Khasra No. 1040\/353 which related
\nto 12  bighas and  8 biswas only. The challenge on the other
\nhand in\t the writ   petition  is in respect of notifications
\nunder Sections\t4 and  6 covering  the entire land measuring
\nabout 730 bighas situate in village Sadhurakhurd. We find no
\njustification at  all in  explaining the delay on the ground
\nthat no\t award has  been passed nor the appellants have been
\ndispossessed so\t far.  This cannot be an explanation for not
\nchallenging the notifications under  Sections 4 and 6 of the
\n9Act and  in the  present case the appellants had themselves
\nsought stay  from this\tCourt as early as 15.11.1978 for not
\nmaking and  declaring the  award and  not to  dispossess the
\nappellants.   Thus we  find no\tjustification at all for the
\ndelay in  not  challenging  the\t notification  issued  under
\nSection 4 on 13.11.1959 till 1973.  Even notifications under
\nSection 6  of the  Act were  issued in 1968 and 1969 but not
\nchallenged  till    1973.  As  already\tmentioned  above  in
\nAflatoon’s case\t (supra) a  Constitution Bench of this Court
\nhas clearly  held that\teven  after  the  declaration  under
\nSection 6  of the  Act published in 1966, the appellants had
\napproached with\t their\twrit  petitions\t in  1970  when\t the
\nnotices under  Section\t9  were\t issued\t to  them  the\twrit
\npetitions were\tliable to  be dismissed\t on the\t grounds  of
\nlaches and delay.  Mr. Tarkunde, learned senior counsel made
\nstrenuous   effort to  distinguish the aforesaid case on the
\nground that  in the  aforesaid case the Court was influenced
\nwith the  fact that the petitioners had sat on the fence and
\nallowed the  Government to  complete  (emphasis\t added)\t the
\nacquisition proceedings.  Much emphasis has been laid on the
\nword ‘to  complete’ the acquisition proceedings.  We find no
\nforce in this submission  as the facts narrated in the above
\ncase clearly  shows that  the petitioners in those cases had
\nfiled writ  petitions in  the High  Court in 1970 and in the
\nSupreme Court  in 1972\tafter the  issuance of notices under
\nSections 4,  6 and  9 of  the  Act.  The  use  of  the\tword
\ncomplete’  was\t not  of  much\tsignificance  and  the\tmain
\nreasoning of  the  case\t was  that  grounds  to\t attack\t the
\nnotification  under  Sections  4  and  6  of  the  Act\twere
\navailable at the  time of publication of such notifications.
\nIn the\tfacts and  circumstances of  the case  before us the
\nappellants were\t also sitting  on the fence and did not take
\nany steps  of challenging  the notification under Sections 4
\nand 6  of the Act till 1973 though the grounds now sought to
\nbe urged  were available  to the  appellants as soon as such
\nnotifications were  issued.   Thus viewing  the\t matter from
\nany angle  we are clearly of the view that the writ petition
\nwas also  liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and
\ndelay on the part of the appellants apart from other grounds
\nalready dealt  by us.\tIn  the face  of the  aforesaid view
\ntaken by  us,\tit is  not necessary  at all  to go on other
\nquestions raised  in the  case.\t  We decline  to express any
\nopinion on any questions of law raised in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result we\tdismiss this  appeal with  costs. In
\nview of\t the dismissal\tof the\tappeal\titself\tall  interim
\norders stand vacated automatically.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992 Bench: [M.H. Kania, Cj., N.M. Kasliwal Singh, Jj.] PETITIONER: RAMJAS FOUNDATION AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: U.O.I. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/11\/1992 BENCH: [M.H. KANIA , CJ., N.M. KASLIWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] ACT: Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4, […]<\/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-165791","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992 - 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\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992\" \/>\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=\"1992-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-30T04:04:09+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-30T04:04:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992\"},\"wordCount\":3812,\"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\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992\",\"name\":\"Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-30T04:04:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992 - 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\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-30T04:04:09+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992","datePublished":"1992-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-30T04:04:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992"},"wordCount":3812,"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\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992","name":"Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-30T04:04:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjas-foundation-and-ors-vs-u-o-i-and-ors-on-13-november-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramjas Foundation And Ors vs U.O.I. And Ors on 13 November, 1992"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/165791","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=165791"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165791\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165791"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165791"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165791"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}