{"id":170972,"date":"1966-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966"},"modified":"2016-06-27T00:32:18","modified_gmt":"2016-06-26T19:02:18","slug":"khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966","title":{"rendered":"Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1074, \t\t 1967 SCR (1) 120<\/div>\n
Author: K S Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKHUB CHAND AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/08\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1074\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 120\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1973 SC 552\t (2)\n R\t    1976 SC 263\t (13)\n R\t    1984 SC1721\t (1,5)\n F\t    1985 SC1622\t (13)\n RF\t    1991 SC 711\t (13)\n\n\nACT:\nRajasthan Land Acquisition Act (24 of 1953), ss. 4 and 5(2)-\nGiving\tof public notice of substance of Notification  under\ns. 4 at convenient places in locality-If mandatory.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn   1957,   the  Government  of   Rajasthan   published   a\nnotification  under s. 4 of the Rajasthan  Land\t Acquisition\nAct;  1953,  to\t the effect that the  appellants'  land\t was\nneeded\tfor  a\tpublic purpose.\t The public  notice  of\t the\nsubstance  of the notification to be given by the  Collector\nat  convenient\tplaces in the locality, as  required  by  s.\n4(1),  was however not given.  In January 1958 and  February\n1959, notifications under as. 5(2) and 6 respectively of the\nAct,  were published in the local Gazette.  Thereafter,\t the\nofficer\t originally appointed by the Government\t to  perform\nthe  functions\tof a Collector under the Act  continued\t the\nacquisition   proceedings   in\t spite\t of   a\t  Government\nnotification  of  June\t1959, whereby  another\tofficer\t was\nappointed to perform those functions.  The appellants  filed\nobjections  questioning his jurisdiction and stopped  taking\npart  in  the proceedings.  On 11th  December,\t1959,  after\nmaking ex parte enquiries, the officer made an award, and on\n27th  June  1960, he made :a second  award  superseding\t the\nfirst.\t The  appellants  came\tto know\t of  the  awards  in\nSeptember  1960.   In October 1960, they  filed\t a  petition\nunder Art. 226, challenging the validity of the\t proceedings\non  the\t ground,  inter alia, that the\trequirement  of\t the\ngiving\tof  the public notice under s.\t4(1)  at  convenient\nplaces\tof  the locality was, mandatory, and as it  was\t not\ncomplied with, the entire acquisition proceedings were void.\nThe High Court agreed with the contention but dismissed\t the\npetition  on  the ground that the objection was taken  at  a\nbelated stage.\nHELD: (i) The provision in ss. 4(1), requiring public notice\nwas  mandatory and non-compliance with it was fatal  to\t the\nentire acquisition proceedings. [125 H]\nSection\t 4(1)  says that the Collector\tshall  cause  public\nnotice\tof the ,,substance of such notification to be  given\nat  convenient\tplaces in the said locality.   If  the\tword\n\"shall\" is, construed as \"may\" the object of the sub-section\nwill  be defeated.  The object is to give intimation to\t the\nperson whose land is sought to be acquired, of the intention\nof  the\t officer to enter the land.  Under s. 4(2),  such  a\nnotice\tis  a necessary condition for the  exercise  of\t the\npower  of entry and non-compliance with the condition  makes\nthe entry of the officer or his servants unlawful. [125 F-H]\nThe  fact that the owner may have notice of the\t particulars\nof the intended acquisition under s. 5(2) does not serve the\npurpose\t of s. 4, for a notice under s. 5(2) is given  after\nthe  officer  enters the land and  submits  the\t particulars\nmentioned in s. 4. [125 C]\nBabu  Barkya Thakir v. The State of Bombay,<\/a> [1961] 1  S.C.R.\n128,explained.\n(ii) The  High Court was in error in holding, on the  facts,\nthat there was inordinate    delay    in    invoking\t its\njurisdiction. [127 D]\n121\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1964,
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated April 17, 1963  of
\nthe  Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writ  Petition\t No.
\n410 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
Sarjoo Prasad and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
\nG. C. Kasliwal, Advocate-General for the State of Rajasthan.
\nB. P. Maheshwari and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSubba  Rao,  C.J.  This appeal by  certificate\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the  judgment\tof the High Court  of  Rajasthan  at
\nJodhpur,  dismissing  the petition filed by  the  appellants
\nunder Art. 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  relevant facts may be briefly stated.  By a  registered
\nsale deed dated December 10, 1958, the appellants  purchased
\nthe land comprised in Khasra Nos. 158 and 182\/2 situated  in
\nvillage\t Sangaria  in  Tehsil Hanumangarh in  the  State  of
\nRajasthan.    On  February  14,\t 1957,\tthe  Government\t  of
\nRajasthan published a notification No. 7 (104) Rev\/(A) dated
\nOctober\t 19,  1956,  under  s.\t4  of  the  Rajasthan\tLand
\nAcquisition  Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act,  to\t the
\neffect that the said land, along with others, was needed  or
\nlikely\tto  be\tneeded\tfor the\t public\t purpose  of  laying
\ntownship   and\torchards.   On\tJanuary\t 9,  1958,   another
\nnotification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette under s.
\n5(2)   of  the\tAct.   On  February  3,\t 1959,\t a   further
\nnotification  under  S. 6 of the Act was  published  in\t the
\nRajasthan  Gazette  in\trespect\t of  the  said\tland.\t The
\nGovernment of Rajasthan, in exercise of the powers under  s.
\n3(c)  of the Act, issued a notification dated September\t 10,
\n1955,  appointing  the\tDeputy\tDirector  of   Colonisation,
\nSuratgarh  Division  with headquarters\tat  Hanumangarh,  to
\nperform\t the functions of a Collector under the\t Act  within
\nthe local limits of his jurisdiction.  On July 30, 1959, the
\nsaid Government published a notification dated June 4, 1959,
\n,in  modification of the previous  notification,  appointing
\nthe   Deputy  Director\tof  Colonisation,  Rajasthan   Canal
\nProject, then having headquarters at Bikaner, to perform the
\nsaid  functions within the districts of Ganganagar,  Bikaner
\nand  Jaisalmer.\t Notwithstanding the said notification,\t the
\nDeputy\tDirector of Colonisation, Suratgarh  exercising\t the
\nfunctions   under   the\t Act,  continued   the\t acquisition
\nproceedings.   The appellants filed  objections\t questioning
\nthe jurisdiction of the said Deputy Director to proceed with
\nthe  enquiry  and thereafter they did not take part  in\t the
\nproceedings.   On December II, 1959, after making  ex  parte
\nenquiries, the said Deputy Director made an award which\t for
\nconvenience of reference may be
\n 4 Sup CI\/66–9
\n122<\/span>
\nreferred  to  as  Award\t No.  1.  In  the  said\t award,\t the
\nappellant’s  land was valued at Rs. 614 per bigha.  But,  on
\nJune 27, 1960 the said Deputy Collector made another  award,
\nhereinafter referred to as Award No. 2, setting aside  Award
\nNo.  1 and giving compensations to the appellants’  land  at
\nthe  rate of Rs. 442 instead of at Rs. 614 per\tbigha.\t The
\nappellants  filed  the writ petition in the  High  Court  of
\nRajasthan challenging the validity of the said proceedings.
\nThe contentions raised by the parties before the High  Court
\nneed  not  be particularised as they are apparent  from\t the
\nfollowing findings given by it: (1) The provision of s. 4 in
\nthe  Act, namely, that a public notice of the  substance  of
\nthe notification should be given at convenient places in the
\nlocality  of the land in dispute, is mandatory and the\tLand
\nAcquisition Officer did not comply with the same; but as the
\nobjection  raised  by  the appellants  in  that\t regard\t was
\nbelated\t it could not be allowed to be taken at that  stage.
\n(2)  The direction given by the Rajasthan Government to\t the
\nDeputy\tDirector  of Colonisation,  Suratgarh  Division,  to
\nexercise  the powers of the Land Acquisition  Officer  under
\nthe Act was not withdrawn, either expressly or by  necessary
\nimplication,  by  the notification dated June  4,  1959,  by
\nwhich  the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Rajasthan  Canal
\nProject,   was\tauthorised  to\tperform\t the  functions\t  of
\nCollector within the three districts mentioned therein.\t (3)
\nAward No. 1 dated December 11, 1959, which related to Khasra
\nNo.  158  had become final and it could not  be\t altered  by
\nAward No. 2 in regard to the said Khasra number.  In  effect
\nand substance, the High Court held that both the awards were
\nvalid but Award No. 2 should be confined only to Khasra\t No.
\n182\/2.\t In the result, the petition was  dismissed.   Hence
\nthe appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellants raised before us\t the
\nfollowing   three   points:  (1)  The\tentire\t acquisition
\nproceedings were void inasmuch as the mandatory provision of
\ns. 4 of the Act was not complied with. (2) After the  Deputy
\nDirector of Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project, had\tbeen
\nauthorised  to perform the functions of a Collector, in\t the
\ndistricts  of Ganganagar, Bikaner and Jaisalmer, the  Deputy
\nDirector   of\tColonisation,\tSuratgarh   Division,\twith
\nheadquarters  at Hanumangarh, who was appointed\t earlier  to
\nperform\t the functions of a Collector under the\t Act  within
\nthe  local  limits  of the  said  jurisdiction,\t had  become
\nfunctus\t officio  in regard to the instant  acquisition\t and
\ntherefore, the proceedings conducted by him thereafter\twere
\nnull  and  void.  (3) Under the Land  Acquisition  Act,\t the
\nCollector thereunder could make only one award in respect of
\na notification and, therefore, when he made the first  award
\nin respect of the notification he became functus officio and
\ntherefore,  the second award made by him in respect  of\t the
\nsame notification was void.\n<\/p>\n
123<\/span><\/p>\n
The  learned  Advocate-General of Rajasthan  questioned\t the
\ncorrectness of every one of the said contentions.  We  shall
\nadvert to his contentions in the relevant contexts.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Sections 4, 5, and 5A of the Act read:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section\t 4.   Publication   of\t preliminary
\n\t      notification    and   powers    of    officers
\n\t      thereupon.-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1) Whenever it appears to the Government that
\n\t      land in any locality is needed or is likely to
\n\t      be   needed   for\t any   public\tpurpose,   a
\n\t      notification to that effect shall be published
\n\t      in  the Rajasthan Gazette, and  the  Collector
\n\t      shall cause public notice of the substance  of
\n\t      such  notification to be given  at  convenient
\n\t      places in the said locality.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)  Thereupon  it  shall be  lawful  for\t any
\n\t      officer, generally or specially authorised  by
\n\t      the  Government  in this behalf, and  for\t his
\n\t      servants and workmen,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   to enter upon and survey and take levels
\n\t      of any land in such locality;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   to dig or bore into the sub-soil;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   to\tdo  all\t other\tacts  necessary\t  to
\n\t      ascertain whether the land is adapted for such
\n\t      purpose;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   to\tset out the boundaries of  the\tland
\n\t      proposed to be taken and the intended line  of
\n\t      the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e)  to mark such levels, boundaries and\tline
\n\t      by  placing  marks and cutting  trenches;\t and
\n\t      where otherwise the survey cannot be completed
\n\t      and  the levels taken and the  boundaries\t and
\n\t      line  marked, to cut down and clear  away\t any
\n\t      part of any standing crop, fence or jungle:
\nSection\t 5.  Report  by Collector.-(1) The  Collector  or  a
\nRevenue\t Officer  specially empowered by the  Government  in
\nthis behalf shall forward to the Government with his remarks
\na  report  on the result of the survey, if  any,  and  other
\noperations  described in and taken under sub-section (2)  of
\nsection 4.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  After considering the report, if any,  submitted  under
\nsub- section (1) or, if no such report has been received, at
\nany  time  after the issue of the  notification\t under\tsub-
\nsection\t (1)  of section 4, the Government shall  publish  a
\nfurther\t notification  in  the\tRajasthan  Gazette,   giving
\nsufficient  description of the land already  notified  under
\nthe  said  sub-section (1) of section 4 to enable it  to  be
\nidentified  and\t stating the purpose for which it is  or  is
\nlikely to be needed,
\n124<\/span>
\n\t      its approximate area and situation and,  where
\n\t      a\t plan has been made of the land,  the  place
\n\t      where  such  plan may be\tinspected,  and\t the
\n\t      Collector\t shall\tcause public  notice  to  be
\n\t      given  of\t the substance of the  said  further
\n\t      notification at convenient- places on or\tnear
\n\t      the land to be acquired.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section  5A.  Hearing of\tobjections.-(1)\t Any
\n\t      person  interested in any land which has\tbeen
\n\t      notified\tunder section 5 as being  needed  or
\n\t      likely to be needed for public purpose or\t for
\n\t      a\t company may, within thirty days  after\t the
\n\t      issue  of\t the  notification,  object  to\t the
\n\t      acquisition of the land or of any land in\t the
\n\t      locality, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
The learned Advocate-General argued that a combined  reading
\nof  ss.\t 4,  5 and 5A indicates that the  direction  in\t the
\nsecond\tpart of s. 4 that the Collector shall  cause  public
\nnotice\tof the substance of the notification to be given  at
\nconvenient  places in the said locality was only  directory.
\nHe pointed out that s. 4 contemplated only a notification in
\ngeneral.  terms and that under s. 5(2), after the  Collector
\nascertained the necessary particulars, the Government had to
\nissue a fresh notification giving sufficient description  of
\nthe  land intended to be acquired along with a plan, if\t one
\nhad been made, and also to cause a public notice to be given
\nof  the\t substance of the said\tnotification  at  convenient
\nplaces\ton or near the land to be acquired.  As two  notices
\nwere  contemplated  by\tthe Act one  in\t general  terms\t and
\nanother\t with specifications-and as both the notices  should
\nbe  published  and  their substance should  be\tnotified  at
\nconvenient   places,  the  argument  proceeded,\t  that\t the
\ndirection  to cause a public notice of the substance of\t the
\nnotification  to be given at convenient places in  the\tsaid
\nlocality under s. 4 was only directory, for the party  would
\nget under the later notification better particulars and thus
\nhe would not in any way be prejudiced.\n<\/p>\n
This  argument was not accepted by the High Court,  and,  in
\nour  view, rightly.  The provisions of a statute  conferring
\npower on the Government to compulsorily acquire lands  shall
\nbe  strictly construed.\t Section 4 in clear terms says\tthat
\nthe Collector shalt cause public notice of the substance  of
\nsuch  notification to be given at convenient places  in\t the
\nsaid  locality.\t  The  provision  is  mandatory\t in   terms.
\nDoubtless,  under  certain  circumstances,  the\t  expression
\n“shall”\t is  construed as “may”.  The term  “shalt”  in\t its
\nordinary  significance\tis  mandatory and  the\tcourt  shall
\nordinarily give that interpretation to that term unless such
\nan  interpretation  leads  to some  absurd  or\tinconvenient
\nconsequence  or\t be  it\t variance with\tthe  intent  of\t the
\nlegislature,  to be collected from other parts of  the\tAct.
\nThe  construction  of the said expression,  depends  on\t the
\nprovisions of a particular Act, the setting in
\n125<\/span>
\nwhich  the  expression\tappears, the object  for  which\t the
\ndirection  is given, the consequences that would  flow\tfrom
\nthe   infringement   of\t the  direction\t  and\tsuch   other
\nconsiderations.\t The object underlying the said direction in
\ns. 4 is obvious.  Under sub-s. (2) of s. 4 of the Act, after
\nsuch  a\t notice\t was given, the officer\t authorised  by\t the
\nGovernment in that behalf could enter the land and interfere
\nwith  the possession of the owner in the  manner  prescribed
\nthereunder.  The Legislature thought that it was  absolutely
\nnecessary  that\t before such officer can enter the  land  of
\nanother, the owner thereof should have a clear notice of the
\nintended entry.\t The fact that the owner may have notice  of
\nthe  particulars of the intended acquisition under  s.\t5(2)
\ndoes not serve the purpose of s. 4, for such a notice  shall
\nbe given after the appropriate officer or officers enter the
\nland  and  submit  the particulars mentioned in\t s.  4.\t The
\nobjects\t of the two sections are different : the  object  of
\none  section is to give intimation to the person whose\tland
\nis sought to be acquired, of the intention of the officer to
\nenter his land before he does so and that of the other is to
\nenable\thim  to know the particulars of the  land  which  is
\nsought\tto be acquired.\t In the Land Acquisition  Act,\t1894
\n(Central Act 1 of 1894) there is no section corresponding to
\ns.  5(2) of the Act.  Indeed sub-s. (2) of s. 5 of -the\t Act
\nwas omitted by Act 15 of 1960 and s. 5A was suitably amended
\nto  bring  the said provision in conformity  with  those  of
\nCentral Act 1 of 1894.\tWhatever may be said on the question
\nof construction after the said amendment-on which we do\t not
\nexpress\t any  opinion-before the amendment, ss. 4  and\t5(2)
\nwere intended to serve different purposes.
\nIndeed, the wording of s. 4 (2) of the Act leads to the same
\nconclusion.  It says, “thereupon it shall be lawful for\t any
\nofficer, generally or specially authorised by the Government
\nin  this behalf, and for his servants and workmen  to  enter
\nupon  and  survey  and\ttake levels  of\t any  land  in\tsuch
\nlocality………..  The expressions “thereupon” and  “shall
\nbe  lawful”  indicate that unless such a  public  notice  is
\ngiven,\tthe officer or his servants cannot ,enter the  land.
\nIt is a necessary condition for the exercise of the power of
\nentry.\tThe non-compliance with the said condition makes the
\nentry  of  the\tofficer or his servants\t unlawful.   On\t the
\nexpress terms of sub-s. (2), the officer or his servants can
\nenter  the  land to be acquired only if\t that  condition  is
\ncomplied  with.\t  If  it is not complied  with,\t he  or\t his
\nservants cannot exercise the power of entry under s. 4\t(2),
\nwith the result that if the expression ” shall” is construed
\nas  “may”,  the\t object of the sub-section  itself  will  be
\ndefeated.   The\t statutory intention  is,  therefore  clear,
\nnamely,\t that the giving of public notice is mandatory.\t  If
\nso,  the  notification issued under s. 4  without  complying
\nwith the said mandatory direction would be void and the land
\nacquisition  proceedings  taken pursuant  thereto  would  be
\nequally void.\n<\/p>\n
126<\/span><\/p>\n
Reliance  is placed by the learned Advocate-General  on\t the
\ndecision of this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur v. The State of
\nBombay<\/a>(1).   There, the notification under s. 4 did not\t say
\nspecifically that the land sought to be acquired was  needed
\nfor  a public purpose, but it gave the necessary details  in
\nregard\tto the purpose for which the land was sought  to  be
\nacquired.   It\twas  argued  that  the\tnon-mention  of\t the
\nexpression  “public purpose” invalidated. the  notification.
\nDealing with the argument, this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      What  was a mere proposal under s.  4  becomes
\n\t      the  subject matter of a\tdefinite  proceeding
\n\t      for acquisitions under the Act.  Hence, it  is
\n\t      not  correct  to say that any  defect  in\t the
\n\t      notification under s. 4 is fatal to the  vali-
\n\t      dity of the proceedings, particularly when the
\n\t      acquisition  is for a Company and the  purpose
\n\t      has  to be investigated under s. 5A or  s.  40
\n\t      necessarily after the notification under s.  4
\n\t      of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In that case a formal defect was sought to be relied upon to
\ninvalidate  the\t notice and this Court did  not\t accept\t the
\ncontention,  But it cannot be an authority for the  position
\nthat,  if a public notice of the notification was not  given
\nas prescribed by s. 4, it can be ignored.  That would be re-
\nwriting the section.\n<\/p>\n
The  decision of this Court in Smt.  Somavanti v, The  State
\nof  Punjab(2)  is  also\t beside\t the  point.   The  argument
\nadvanced therein was that the notification under s. 6 should
\nsucceed the notification under s. 4 and that it could not be
\nlegally published in the same issue of the Gazette.  Dealing
\nwith that argument, this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In   the\t case  before  us  the\t preliminary
\n\t      declaration under s. 4 (1) was made on  August
\n\t      18,   1961,  and\ta  declaration\tas  to\t the
\n\t      satisfaction  of the Government on August\t 19,
\n\t      1961,  though both of them were  published  in
\n\t      the   Gazette   of  August  25,\t1961.\t The
\n\t      preliminary   declaration\t as  well   as\t the
\n\t      subsequent  declaration are both\trequired  by
\n\t      law  to be published in the official  gazette.
\n\t      But   the\t  law  does  not  make\t the   prior
\n\t      publication  of notification under sub-s.\t (1)
\n\t      of   s.  4  a  condition\tprecedent   to\t the
\n\t      publication of a notification under sub-s. (1)
\n\t      of S. 6.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  the\t said  ground the  contention  was  rejected.\tThis
\ndecision  also has no bearing on the point raised before  us
\nIndeed\tthe following observation made by this Court in\t the
\ncourse
\n(1) (1961] 1 S.C.R. 128, 140.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1963] 2 S.C.R., 774,823, 822.\n<\/p>\n
127<\/span><\/p>\n
of the judgment, to some extent, goes against the contention
\nof the respondent:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 4 is  a
\n\t      condition\t  precedent   to   the\t making\t  of
\n\t      notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 6.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the present case, the High Court, as we  have  expressed
\nearlier\t rightly held that the provision for  public  notice
\nwas  mandatory\tbut disallowed the objection on\t the  ground
\nthat  it  was  rather  belated,\t We  find  it  difficult  to
\nappreciate  the said reasoning.\t This is not a case where  a
\nparty,\twho  submitted\thimself to  the\t jurisdiction  of  a
\ntribunal,  raised the plea of want of jurisdiction when\t the
\ndecision  went\t‘against him; but this is a case  where\t the
\nappellants questioned the jurisdiction of the tribunal\tfrom
\nthe  outset  and refused to take part  in  the\tproceedings.
\nThough\tthe  notification under s. 4 was  published  in\t the
\nRajasthan Gazette on February 14, 1957, Award No. I was made
\non December 11, 1959 and Award No. 2, on June 27, 1960.\t The
\nappellants  say that they came to know that the awards\twere
\nmade only on September 15, 1960, and they filed the petition
\non  October 26, 1960.  It ‘cannot, therefore, be  said\tthat
\nthere  was  such  an inordinate delay  as  to  preclude\t the
\nappellants from invoking the jurisdiction of the High  Court
\nunder Art. 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
In this view, it is not necessary to express our opinion  on
\nthe  other two questions raised by the learned\tcounsel\t for
\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appellants will be entitled to a writ  of
\nprohibition  restraining the respondents from giving  effect
\nto the said two awards.\t The order of the High Court is\t set
\naside  and  the\t writ petition filed  by  the  appellant  is
\nallowed with costs here and in the court below.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t Appeal allowed.\n128<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1074, 1967 SCR (1) 120 Author: K S Rao Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj) PETITIONER: KHUB CHAND AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/08\/1966 BENCH: RAO, K. […]<\/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-170972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKhub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966 - 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\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-26T19:02:18+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-26T19:02:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2913,\"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\\\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966\",\"name\":\"Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-26T19:02:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966 - 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\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-26T19:02:18+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966","datePublished":"1966-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-26T19:02:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966"},"wordCount":2913,"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\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966","name":"Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-26T19:02:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khub-chand-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-22-august-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966"}]},{"@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\/170972","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=170972"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170972\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}