{"id":165899,"date":"1979-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979"},"modified":"2016-10-11T14:02:25","modified_gmt":"2016-10-11T08:32:25","slug":"state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979","title":{"rendered":"State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 91, \t\t 1980 SCR (1) 233<\/div>\n
Author: A Sen<\/div>\n
Bench: Sen, A.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF GUJARAT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/08\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR   91\t\t  1980 SCR  (1) 233\n 1979 SCC  (4)\t40\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1992 SC 221\t (2)\n\n\nACT:\n     Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949-S. 6-Bombay\nPersonal Inams Abolition Act, 1952-S. 7-Scope of.\n     Words & phrases-Waste lands-Meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The object\t and purpose  of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure\nAbolition Act,\t1949 and the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition\nAct, 1952  was to abolish taluqdari and inamdari rights as a\nmeasure of  agrarian reform. Section 6 of the former Act and\ns. 7  of the  latter Act  (both of  which are  identical  in\nterms) provide\tthat among  others \"....all  unbuilt village\nsite lands,  all waste\tlands  and  all\t uncultivated  lands\n(excluding lands used for building or other non-agricultural\npurposes), which  are not  situate within  the limits of the\nwantas......  \"\t    shall   vest  in   the  Government.\t The\nExplanation to\tthis section  provides \"for  the purposes of\nthis section  land shall be deemed to be uncultivated, if it\nhas nor\t been cultivated  for a\t continuous period  of three\nyears immediately  before the  date on\twhich this Act comes\ninto force.\"\n     The respondents  were former  Taluqdars  and  Inamdars.\nVast stretches\tof hilly  tracks  which\t were  incapable  of\ncultivation, but  on which  there was  spontaneous growth of\ngrass formed  part of  the taluqdari estates and inams. When\ngrass was  cut from  these lands,  care was taken not to cut\nstubs but they were allowed to remain in tact so that in the\nfollowing year\tgrass grew  with the  onset  of\t rains.\t The\nrespondents secured  income from  the  grass  grown  on\t the\nlands;\tfor  earning  income  they  kept  watchmen  so\tthat\nunauthorised pasturing by cattle did not destroy the growing\ngrass.\n     With the  abolition of  the taluqdari  rights and inams\nthe lands  were regarded as having vested in the Government.\nThe respondents\t thereupon sought  a  declaration  that\t the\nlands were  neither vacant  lands nor uncultivated lands and\nbeing in their possession they became the occupants thereof.\nThe Mahalkari  held that  the lands  were not waste lands or\nuncultivated  lands   and  since  the  respondents  were  in\npossession thereof  they  became  occupants.  The  Collector\nreversed this  order and  held that by reason of Explanation\nto s. 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and Explanation to s.\n7 of the Inams Abolition Act, the lands should be treated as\nunoccupied  lands   and,  therefore,   they  vested  in\t tho\nGovernment. The\t Revenue Tribunal  reversed the order of the\nCollector.\n     On further\t appeal the  High Court\t held that  the land\nwere productive lands in the sense that grass grew naturally\nand that the Explanation contemplates only those lands which\ncould  be   cultivated\tbut   which  were  left\t fallow\t and\nuncultivated for a continuous period of three years\n234\n     Dismissing the appeals;\n^\n     HELD: 1. The High Court as well as the Revenue Tribunal\nwere right  in holding\tthat the disputed lands did not vest\nin the\tGovernment under s. 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act\nand s. 7 of the Inams Abolition Act. [242A]\n     2. It would be evident from s. 6 that the vesting is in\nrespect of  properties which  could be put to public use. It\nleaves\tprivate\t properties,  of  the  taluqdars  untouched.\nPublic properties  situate in  a taluqdar's estate vested in\nthe Government\tbecause they  were meant  for public use. In\nspite of  vesting of  such property  in the  Government, the\nconferral of  the rights  of an occupant on a taluqdar under\ns. 5(1)(b)  in respect of the lands in his actual possession\nis saved. [239D-F]\n     3. The  contention that the grass lands on hilly tracks\nwhich were  incapable of  cultivation were  waste lands\t and\nuncultivated lands  within the\tmeaning of  s. 6  cannot  be\naccepted. The  expression \"all\twaste lands\" has been joined\nby  the\t  conjunction  \"and\"   with  the   expression\t\"all\nuncultivated lands\".  They indicate  two distinct  types  of\nlands. If  the legislature  had intended  that the aforesaid\nexpression should indicate one class of lands the expression\nwould have  been  \"all\twaste  and  uncultivated  lands\"  as\nagainst the  expression \"all  waste and uncultivated lands\".\nThere are,  therefor, two  distinct categories of properties\nviz., waste lands and uncultivated lands. [240A-B]\n     4. The  expression \"waste\tlands\" means lands which are\ndesolate, abandoned  and not  fit  ordinarily  for  use\t for\nbuilding purposes.  In the  sequence in which the expression\nwaste lands  appears in\t the two sections it cannot but have\nits ordinary etymological meaning viz., lands Lying desolate\nor useless without trees or grass or vegetation, not capable\nof any use. [240C]\n     Rajanand Brahma  Shah v.  State of U.P. & Ors. [1967] 1\nSCR 373,  Ishwarlal  Girdharilal  Joshi\t etc.  v.  State  of\nGujarat & Anr., [1968] 2 SCR 267; referred to.\n     5(a). The\tgrass lands  on hilly  tracts were not waste\nlands. They  were productive  lands in\tthe sense that grass\ngrew naturally\tand so\tthey were not desolate, abandoned or\nbarren waste lands with no vegetation. The expression \"waste\nlands\" in the context would be clearly in the original sense\nof the\tterm waste as meaning barren or desolate lands which\nare unfit for any use or worthless. That test is not clearly\nsatisfied. [240H]\n     (b) The expression \"uncultivated lands\" in s. 6 must in\nthe context  m which  it appears  means \"cultivable  but not\ncultivated\", \"allowed  to lie fallow\". It is uncultivable or\nunfit for cultivation. [241B]\n     6. The  Explanation below s. 6 has a two-fold function:\n(1) to\texplain the  meaning of the expression \"uncultivated\nlands\" in  the substantive provision and (2) it is a key for\nascertaining the  meaning of  the  expression  \"uncultivated\nlands\". Without\t the Explanation any land Lying uncultivated\non the\tdate of\t the vesting even for a year i.e. allowed to\nlie fallow  according to  the normal  agricultural  practice\nwould vest  in the  Government. But the Explanation steps in\nand seeks  to mitigate\tthe rigour.  It says  that the\tland\nallowed to  lie fallow\tcontinuously for  a period  of three\nyears shall alone be deemed to be uncultivated land. meaning\nthere-by that a piece of land allowed to lie\n235\nfallow intermittently  for a period of less than three years\nwill not be deemed  \"uncultivated lands . [241 C-E]\n     7. In  the instant\t case there were no basic operations\nas tilling of the land, sowing or disseminating of seeds and\nplanting of  grass. The\t subsequent operations viz., the act\nof securing  the income\t of the\t grass by  engaging watchmen\netc. by\t themselves would  not tantamount  to cultivation of\nthe land. [241G]\n     8.\t The   Acts  make   no\tprovision   for\t payment  of\ncompensation for the acquisition of the rights of the former\nTaluqdar and Inamdars in such lands. Section 7 of the former\nAct and\t s. 10 of the latter Act speak of the extinguishment\nof  any\t right\tor  interest  in  land\twhich  is  waste  or\nuncultivated but  is culturable.  The lands  in question not\nbenefit for  cultivation were  not culturable and therefore,\nthey do\t not fall  within the  ambit of these provisions. If\nthe contention\tof the\tappellants were\t to prevail it would\nhave the  effect of taking these lands out of the purview of\ns. 14  of the  former Act and s. 17 of the latter Act though\nsuch lands are not governed by s. 17 and s. 10 respectively.\nThis would result in deprivation of property without payment\nof compensation. [242B-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos. 2411-
\n2427 and 2431-2440 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t Special Leave\tfrom the  Judgment and Order
\ndated 5-11-1968\t of the\t Gujarat High  Court in\t S.C.A. Nos.
\n570\/63, 629,  and 634\/63.  283-286 of  1966 and\t 287-296 and
\n300-309\/66.\n<\/p>\n
     G. A. Shah and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant.
\n     D. V.  Patel, I.  N. Shroff,  P. V.  Hathi\t and  H.  S.
\nParihar for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SEN J.  These twenty-seven\t appeals, by  special leave,
\ndirected against  judgment of  the Gujarat  High Court dated
\nNovember. 5 1968 raise a common question and are, therefore,
\ndisposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     The short question involved in these matters relates to
\ninterpretation of  s.  6  of  the  Bombay  Taluqdari  Tenure
\nAbolition Act, 1949, “the Taluqdari Abolition Act”, and s. 7
\nof the\tBombay Personal\t Inams\tAbolition  Act,\t 1952,\t“the
\nPersonal Inams Abolition Act”.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  present appeals, certain facts are no longer in
\ndispute. The  respondents are  the  erstwhile  taluqdars  or
\ninamdars what  was known  as Ghogha  Mahal, which  now forms
\npart of the Bhavnagar district. There were vast stretches of
\nhilly tracts  described as ‘Dunger’, which were incapable of
\ncultivation, but  on which  there was  spontaneous growth of
\ngrass. These lands formed part of their taluqdari estates or
\ninams. They used to sell the grass growing on these
\n236<\/span>
\nlands and  it was  a definite  source of  income to them. It
\nappears that  the lands\t were recorded\tas  Kharaba  in\t the
\nrecord\tof   rights  and,  therefore,  consequent  upon\t the
\nabolition of taluqdari rights by the Taluqdari Abolition Act
\nand with  the Abolition\t of inams  under the  Personal Inams
\nAbolition Act,\tthe lands  were recorded as having vested in
\nThe Government.\t Thereupon, the\t respondents  made  separate
\nclaims\tbefore\t the  Mahalkari,  Ghogha  Mahal,  seeking  a
\ndeclaration under s. 37(2) of the Bombay I and Revenue Code,
\n1879  that   the  lands\t  were\tneither\t  vacant  lands\t nor
\nuncultivated lands  and\t being\tin  their  possession,\tthey
\nbecome the occupants thereof.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t an  enquiry  held  under  s.  3(2),  the  Mahalkari
\nexamined the claimants individually, the village talatis and
\nthe relevant  entries in  the records of rights which showed
\nthat the  taluqdars and\t inamdars were\tderiving income from
\nthe grass growing on the lands. It was also in evidence that
\nconsiderable effort  and expenses had to be incurred by them
\nfor securing  the income  of this  grass i.e.,\tby   keeping
\nwatchmen etc.  to see  that unauthorised pasturing by cattle
\nbrought on  land or  trespassing on  it did  not destroy the
\ngrowing grass,\tbut that  it grew  to full  stature so as to
\ngive a\tfair and  full yield.  When operation for cutting of
\nthe grass  used to  commence, the stubs were not cut off but
\nwere allowed  to remain\t intact so  that the next year after
\nThe rains,  the grass  would grow naturally again. A portion
\nof the\tgrass-lands were  also kept apart by the respondents
\nfor the\t grazing of their cattle by fencing of the area. The
\nMahalkari, Ghogha  Mahal by his order dated October 28, 1958
\nheld on this evidence that the lands could not be treated as
\nwaste lands or uncultivated lands, and since the respondents
\nwere in possession thereof, they became the occupants.\n<\/p>\n
     The Collector,  Bhavnagar, in  exercise of his suo motu
\npowers of  revision under  s. 211  of the  Code by his order
\ndated  February\t 28,  1961  set\t aside\tthe  orders  of\t the
\nMahalkari and  held in\tall these  twenty-seven cases,\tthat
\nsince the  lands in  question were  not being  cultivated by
\ntaluqdars or  inamdars, they  must, by reason of Explanation
\nto s. 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and Explanation to s.
\n7 of  the Inams\t Abolition Act, be treated to be ‘unoccupied
\nlands’, and,  therefore, the  lands vest  in the Government.
\nThe Revenue  Tribunal, however, by its two orders dated June
\n19, 1962  and March  26, 1965,\treversed the  order  of\t the
\nCollector and  restored that  of the  Mahalkari holding\t the
\nrespondents to\tbe the\toccupants of  the lands in question.
\nThe State  Government of  Gujarat  filed  twenty-seven\twrit
\npetitions in  the High\tCourt for quashing the orders of the
\nRevenue Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
237<\/span><\/p>\n
     Agreeing with the Revenue Tribunal, the High Court held
\nthat there  was evidence  that the lands in dispute were not
\nlying desolate,\t abandoned or barren with no vegetation, but
\nwere, in  fact, productive  lands, in  the sense  that grass
\ngrew naturally\tand so, they could not be regarded as ‘waste
\nlands’, although they were wrongly recorded as such. It also
\nheld that the hilly tracts on which grass grew naturally, by
\ntheir very nature were unfit for cultivation and, therefore,
\ncould not  be treated  as ‘uncultivated lands’. It relied on
\nthe Explanation\t to the\t two sections  and observed  that it
\ncontemplates only  those lands which could be cultivated but
\nwhich were  left fallow\t and uncultivated  for a  continuous
\nperiod of  three years.\t In  its  opinion,  the\t expressions
\n‘waste lands’  and ‘uncultivated  lands’, therefore, did not
\ncover grass-lands on hilly tracts which by their very nature
\nare incapable  of cultivation,\tbut which are not useless so
\nas to be not capable of any use.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  for consideration  in  these\t appeals  is
\nwhether the  High  Court  was  right  in  holding  that\t the
\nrespondents, who  were taluqdars  or inamdars, were entitled
\nto settlement  of  these  grass-lands  on  hilly  tracts  as
\n‘occupants’ thereof  under s.  5(1)  (b)  of  the  Taluqdari
\nAbolition Act and s. 5(2) (b) of the Inams Abolition Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Before dealing with the judgment of the Court below, it
\nwill be\t convenient to\trefer to  the scheme of the two Acts
\nand to\tset out the relevant sections. The provisions of the
\ntwo Acts  are identical\t in terms.  It would source, for our
\npresent purposes,  to generally\t refer to  the provisions of
\nthe Taluqdari  Abolition Act.  The object and purpose of the
\nAct, as\t is clear  from the  preamble, was  to\tabolish\t the
\ntaluqdari rights  as a measure of agrarian reform. Section 3
\nabolished  the\t taluqdari  tenure   and  extinguished\t all
\nincidents of  the tenure attached to any land comprised in a
\ntaluqdari estate  save as  provided in\tthe Act. Under s. 4,
\nall revenue  surveys and  settlements made under s. 4 of the
\nGujarat Taluqdars  Act, 1888  are deemed  to have  been made
\nunder (Chapter\tVIII and VIII-A of the Land Revenue Code. By
\ns. 5(1)(a)  all taluqdari lands are henceforth liable to the
\npayment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of
\nthe Land Revenue Code.\n<\/p>\n
     The abolition of the taluqdari tenure, however, did not
\ndeprive the  taluqdars of the lands in their possession, and
\ns. 5(1)(b)  provides that  a taluqdar  holding any taluqdari
\nland shall be deemed to be an occupant within the meaning of
\nthe Land Revenue Code or any other law for the time being in
\nforce. Than comes s. 6 which provides that all public roads,
\nlanes etc.,  not situate  within the  wants belonging  to  a
\ntaluqdar, shall vest in the government and all rights
\n238<\/span>
\nheld by\t a taluqdar in such property shall be deemed to have
\nbeen  extinguished.   Section  7  provides  for\t payment  of
\ncompensation to taluqdars for extinguishment of rights under
\ns. 6  Clause (b)  (i) thereof  provides that if the property
\nacquired is  ‘waste or uncultivated but is culturable land’,
\nthe amount  of\tcompensation  shall  not  exceed  three\t the
\nassessment of  the land.  Section 14 provides for payment of
\ncompensation to taluqdars for extinguishment or modification
\nof any other right where such extinguishment or Modification
\namounts to transference to public ownership of such lands or
\nany right in and over such land, i.e. in any land other than
\nthose in  respect of  which provision  for  the\t payment  of
\ncompensation has been made under s. 7.\n<\/p>\n
     The scheme\t under the  Personal Inams  Abolition Act is
\nmore   or    less   similar.   Section\t 4   provides\tthat
\nnotwithstanding anything contained in any usage, settlement,
\ngrant, sanad,  or order\t or a  decree or order of a Court or
\nany law\t for the  time being in force (1) all personal inams
\nshall be  deemed to have been extinguished, with effect from
\nand on the appointed date; (2) all rights legally subsisting
\non the\tsaid date in respect of such personal inams shall be
\ndeemed to have been extinguished, save as expressly provided
\nby or under the provisions of the Act. Similarly s. 5(2) (a)
\nprovides that  an inamdar  in resect of the inam land in his
\nactual possession  or in possession of a person holding from
\nhim other  than an  inferior holder  referred to  in cl.(b),
\nshall be  entitled to  all the rights and shall be liable to
\nall obligations\t in respect  of such  land as  an  occupant.
\nUnder cl.(b)  an inferior  holder holding  an inam  land  is
\nentitled to the same rights.\n<\/p>\n
     Turning now  to s. 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and
\ns.  7  of  the\tPersonal  Inams\t Abolition  Act,  which\t are
\nidentical in  terms, the  first thing  to be noticed is that
\nthey  deal   with  specific   properties  alone,  which\t arc
\nenumerated therein  and in  which  all\tthe  rights  of\t the
\ntaluqdars or inamdars are completely extinguished.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act reads:
\n\t  “6. All public roads, lanes and paths, the bridges
\n     ditches, dikes  and fences, on or beside, the same, the
\n     bed of the sea and of harbours, creeks below high water
\n     mark, and\tof rivers, streams, nallas, lakes, wells and
\n     tanks, and\t all canals,  and  water  courses,  and\t all
\n     standing and  flowing water,  all unbuilt\tvillage\t sit
\n     lands,  all  waste\t lands\tand  all  uncultivated\tland
\n     (excluding\t lands\tused  for  building  or\t other\tnon-
\n     agricultural purposes),  which are\t not situate  within
\n     the limits of the wantas belonging to a taluqdar in
\n239<\/span>
\n     taluqdari estate  shall except  in so far as any rights
\n     of\t any   person  other   than  the   taluqdar  may  be
\n     established in  and over  the same\t and except  as\t may
\n     otherwise be  provided by any law for the time being in
\n     force, vest  in and  shall be  deemed to  be, with\t all
\n     rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, the
\n     property of  the Government  and all  rights held\tby a
\n     taluqdar in  such property shall be deemed to have been
\n     extinguished and  it shall be lawful for the Collector,
\n     subject  to  the  general\tor  special  orders  of\t the
\n     Commissioner, to  dispose them  of\t as  he\t deems\tfit,
\n     subject always to the rights of way and of other rights
\n     of the public or individuals legally subsisting.
\n\t  Explanation-For  the\tpurposes  of  this  section,
\n     land shall\t be deemed to be uncultivated, if it has not
\n     been cultivated  for a continuous period of three years
\n     immediately before\t the date  on which  this Act  comes
\n     into force”. (Emphasis supplied)
\n     On a  fair reading\t of the section, it would be evident
\nthat the  vesting is in respect of properties which could be
\nput to\tpublic use.  It leaves the private properties of the
\ntaluqdar untouched.  The legislative intent is manifested by
\nclear enumeration of certain specific properties not situate
\nwithin the  wantas of  a taluqdar.  It begins  by specifying
\n‘All public  roads, lanes, paths, bridges, etc.’ and ends up
\nwith ‘all  village site\t lands,\t all  waste  lands  and\t all
\nuncultivated  lands’.  and  these  being  public  properties
\nsituate in  a taluqdar’s estate must necessarily vest in the
\nGovernment because  they are  meant for public use. In spite
\nof vesting  of such property in the Government, however, the
\nconferral of  the rights  of an occupant on a taluqdar under
\ns. 5(1)(b) in respect of the lands in his actual possession,
\nis saved.\n<\/p>\n
     Pausing there,  it is fair to observe that the words in
\nparenthesis ‘excluding lands used for building or other non-
\nagricultural  purposes’,  exemplify  the  intention  of\t the
\nlegislature not\t to deprive  a taluqdar\t of such  land, even
\nthough such  property  is  uncultivated\t land,\tdue  to\t its
\ninherent character as well as by reason of the Explanation.\n<\/p>\n
     lt is  therefore, evident that the determination of the
\nquestion whether a particular category of property belonging
\nto a  taluqdar in  a  taluqdari\t estate\t is  vested  in\t the
\nGovernment or  not, and\t the determination  of the  question
\nwhether the rights held by a taluqdar in such property shall
\nbe deemed to have been extinguished or not, will depend upon
\nthe category of that property. The expression ‘all
\n240<\/span>
\nwaste lands’  has been\tjoined by conjunctive ‘and’ with the
\nexpression  ‘all   uncultivated\t lands’.   They,  therefore,
\nindicate two distinct types of lands. If the legislature had
\nintended that  the aforesaid  expression should indicate one
\nclass of  lands, the  expression rather would have been ‘all
\nwaste and uncultivated lands’ as against the expression ‘all
\nwaste lands  and  all  uncultivated  lands”  were  we  have,
\ntherefore, two\tdistinct categories of properties viz. ( 1 )
\nwaste lands, and (2) uncultivated lands. The contention that
\nthe grass-lands\t on hilly  tracts  which  are  incapable  of
\ncultivation  were  ‘waste  lands’  or  ‘uncultivated  lands’
\nwithin the meaning of s. 6 cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     Now, the  expression ‘waste  lands’ has  a well-defined
\nlegal  connotation.  It\t means\tlands  which  are  desolate,
\nabandoned, and not fit ordinarily for use building purposes.
\nIn Shorter  oxford English  Dictionary 3rd  Ed., vol.  2, p.
\n2510, the meaning of word waste’ s given as
\n\t  “1. Waste  or desert land, uninhabited or sparsely
\n     inhabited and uncultivated country; a wild and desolate
\n     region; 2.\t A piece  of land not cultivated or used for
\n     any purpose,  and producing  little or  no\t herbage  or
\n     wood. In  legal use,  a piece  of such  land not in any
\n     man’s occupation  but lying  common.  3.  A  devastated
\n     region.”\n<\/p>\n
     In the  sequence in  which the expression ‘waste lands’
\nappears in the two relevant sections, it cannot but have its
\nordinary etymological meaning as given in the Shorter oxford
\nDictionary i.e..  land lying  desolate or  useless,  without
\ntrees or  grass or  vegetation, not  capable of\t any use. In
\nRajanand Bramha\t Shah v.  State of  Uttar Pradesh & Ors this
\nCourt, while  discerning the  meaning of  ‘waste and  arable
\nland’ in  s.  17(4)  Of\t the  Land  Acquisition\t Act,  1894,
\nobserved that  the expression  ‘waste land’ as contrasted to
\n‘arable\t land’,\t  would\t mean  ‘land’  which  is  unfit\t for
\ncultivation and\t habitation, desolate  and barren  land with
\nlittle or  no vegetation  thereon. To the same effect is the
\ndecision in  Ishwarlal Girdharilal  Joshi etc.\tv. State  of
\nGujarat & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
     It is clear that these grass-lands on hilly tracts were
\nnot waste  lands. They\twere productive\t lands in  the sense
\nthat grass  grew naturally  and so  they were  not desolate,
\nabandoned or  barren waste  lands with\tno  vegetation.\t The
\nexpression ‘waste lands’ in the context would be clearly, in
\nthe original sense of the term ‘waste’ as
\n241<\/span>
\nmeaning barren or desolate lands which are unfit for any use
\nor which are worthless. That test is not clearly fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
     The   appellants\t alternative   contention    raises,
\nprimarily, the\tquestion whether  upon a proper construction
\nof s.  6 these grass-lands on hilly tracts were uncultivated
\nlands. That  depends upon  the terms  of  the  section.\t The
\nexpression ‘uncultivated  lands’  in  s.  6,  must,  in\t the
\ncontext in  which  it  appears,\t mean  ‘cultivable  but\t not
\ncultivated’ i.e.  fit for  cultivation, but  allowed to\t lie
\nfallow. It is uncultivable or unfit for cultivation.\n<\/p>\n
     The Explanation  below s.\t6   has a two-fold function.
\nThe purpose  of the  Explanation first\tis  to\texplain\t the
\nmeaning\t of  the  expression  ‘uncultivated  lands’  in\t the
\nsubstantive provision.\tIt then\t seeks to curtail the effect
\nof the\tsection. It is a key for ascertaining the meaning of
\nthe   expression    ‘uncultivated   lands’.    Without\t the
\nExplanation, any land lying uncultivated, on the date of the
\nvesting, even  for a  year.  i.e.,  allowed  to\t lie  fallow
\naccording to the normal agricultural practice, would vest in
\nthe Government.\t But then the Explanation steps in and seeks
\nto mitigate the rigour. It says that the land allowed to lie
\nfallow continuously for a period of three years, shall alone
\nbe deemed  to be  uncultivated land,  meaning thereby that a
\npiece of  land allowed\tto lie fallow, intermittently, for a
\nperiod\tof   less  than\t three\tyears  will  not  be  deemed
\n‘uncultivated lands’.\n<\/p>\n
     In that  view of  the matter,  the grass-lands on hilly
\ntracts which  ere incapable of any cultivation could not, in
\nlaw, be treated to be uncultivated lands’ within the meaning
\nof s. 6, read with the Explanation thereto.\n<\/p>\n
     There seems  to be\t no doubt  on the  facts of the case
\nthat there  were no  such basic operations as tilling of the
\nland, sowing  or disseminating\tof seeds,  and\tplanting  of
\ngrass. The  subsequent operations i.e., operations performed
\nafter the  grass grew on the land, e.g., the act of securing
\nthe income  of this  grass by  engaging watchmen etc. to see
\nthat unauthorised  pasturing by\t cattle brought\t on land  or
\ntrespassing on it did not destroy the growing grass but that
\nit grew to full stature so as to give a fair and full yield,
\nor when\t operations  for  cutting  off\tthe  grass  used  to
\ncommence, the act of tending the stubs so that they were not
\ncut off\t but were  allowed to remain intact so that the next
\nyear after  the rains, the grass would grow naturally again,
\nby themselves  would not be tantamount to cultivation of the
\nland.\n<\/p>\n
242<\/span><\/p>\n
     In our  opinion, the  High Court as well as the Revenue
\nTribunal were, therefore, right in holding that the disputed
\nlands did  not vest  in tile  government under\ts.   of\t the
\nTaluqdari Abolition  Act and  s. 7  of\tthe  Personal  Inams
\nAbolition Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In reaching.  that conclusion,  we cannot but take into
\nconsideration the  fact that  the  Acts\t make  no  provision
\nwhatever for payment of any compensation for the acquisition
\nof the\trights of  the former taluqdars and inamdars in such
\nlands. They  are not  entitled to  any\tcompensation  either
\nunder s.  7(1)(b)(i) of\t the Taluqdari\tAbolition Act and s.\n<\/p>\n
10.(1) (b)  (i) of  the Personal  Inams Abolition Act. These
\nprovisions speak  of the  extinguishment  of  any  right  or
\ninterest in  land which\t is ‘waste  or uncultivated  but  is
\nculturable’.  The  lands  in  question\tnot  being  fit\t for
\ncultivation, were  not ‘culturable’  and. therefore, they do
\nnot fall  within the  ambit  of\t these\tprovisions.  If\t the
\ncontention of  the appellant  were to prevail, it would lead
\nto an anomalous position. It would have the effect of taking
\nthese lands  out of  the purview  of s.\t 14 of the Taluqdari
\nAbolition Act and s. 17 of the Personal Inams Abolition Act,
\nthough such  lands are\tnot governed by s. 7(1)(b)(i) of the
\nformer Act  and s.  10(1)(i) of\t the latter  Act. This would
\nresult\tin   deprivation  of  property\twithout\t payment  of
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
     Our attention  was drawn  to the  decision\t in  Ambabai
\nJanhavibai  v.\tState  of  Maharashtra.\t (1)  That  judgment
\nproceeds on the footing that there was a conflict between s.
\nS and  s. 7 of the Personal Inams Abolition Act. There is no
\nbasis for  this assumption.  Further, the  observation\tthat
\n‘since it  is admitted\tthat no agricultural operations were
\ncarried out  on the  lands for\tthe purpose  of\t raising  or
\ngrowing grass  on the lands’, the contention that ‘the lands
\non which  grass grew  naturally could  not  be\tsaid  to  be
\nuncultivated, cannot  be accepted’, even though the inamdars
\nwere making  use of these lands and were realising income by
\nselling the  grass which grew thereon, appears to proceed on
\na  wrongful  assumption\t that  the  sine  qua  non  for\t the
\napplicability  of   s.\t5   was\t actual\t  cultivation.\tThis
\nobservation, in our view, cannot be supported.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the   result,\tthese  appeals\tmust  fail  and\t are
\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n243<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 91, 1980 SCR (1) 233 Author: A Sen Bench: Sen, A.P. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RESPONDENT: GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/08\/1979 BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) […]<\/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-165899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979 - 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\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-11T08:32:25+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\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-11T08:32:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979\"},\"wordCount\":3223,\"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\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979\",\"name\":\"State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-11T08:32:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979 - 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\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-11T08:32:25+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\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979","datePublished":"1979-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-11T08:32:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979"},"wordCount":3223,"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\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979","name":"State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-11T08:32:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-on-8-august-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors on 8 August, 1979"}]},{"@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\/165899","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=165899"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165899\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}