{"id":173188,"date":"1971-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971"},"modified":"2015-09-17T12:53:18","modified_gmt":"2015-09-17T07:23:18","slug":"sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971","title":{"rendered":"Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1599, \t\t 1971 SCR 230<\/div>\n
Author: V Bhargava<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSAHODARA DEVI & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/03\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nSHELAT, J.M.\nDUA, I.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1599\t\t  1971 SCR  230\n\n\nACT:\nCantonment  Land  Administration Rules,\t 1937,\tr.  27-Power\nunder rule to grant lease whether discretionary-Use of\tword\n'May', effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\tfiled  a petition under\t Art.  226  of.\t the\nConstitution against the refusal of the Defence Ministry  to\n`execute  a  lease  under  r.  27  of  the  Cantonment\tLand\nAdministration Rules, 1937 in respect of a bungalow situated\nin a cantonment area, on occupancy land held on 'old  grants\nlease'.\t  The  single  Judge  directed\tthe  respondents  to\nexecute the lease but the Division Bench held that the power\nto  grant  a  lease  under r.  27  was\tdiscretionary.\t The\nDivision Bench therefore set aside the orders of the  single\nJudge and issued orders to the respondents to reconsider the\nrequest of the appellants for grant of lease under r. 27 and\nSch.   VII  of\tthe  Rules in  accordance  with\t law..\tWith\ncertificate the present appeal was filed in this Court.\t The\nonly  question for consideration was whether the  appellants\nwere  entitled\tto a direction against\tthe  respondents  to\nissue a lease to them under r. 27 and Sch.  VIl of the\t1937\nRules.\nHELD:Rule 27 only confers a power in general on the Military\nEstates\t Officer  to  grant leases and, by  using  the\tword\n'may',\tit clearly gives, him discretion to grant leases  in\nsuitable cases.\t There is the further circumstance that\t the\nexercise  of  the power by the Military Estate\tOfficer\t has\nbeen made subject to the approval of the Central  Government\nor  such  other\t authority as  the  Central  Government\t may\nappoint for that purpose.  The power of the Military Estates\nOfficer\t being\tsubject to such\t discretionary\tapproval  or\ndisapproval of another authority cannot possibly be held  to\nbe  required  to  be  exercised in  all\t cases\twithout\t any\ndiscretion. [234G235A]\nIn the present case therefore the High Court in directing  a\nreconsideration of the case in accordance with law was quite\ncorrect,  so that the application of the appellants must  be\ndecided afresh after keeping in view the principle that\t the\npower to grant a lease under r. 27 is discretionary, but the\nrefusal\t should only be in suitable cases  where  sufficient\nreasons exist for the purpose. [235C]\nSardar Govindrao & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh,<\/a> [1965] 1\nS.C.R. 678, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2246  of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 11, 1969  of
\nthe Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 469 of 1968.
\nYogeshwar  Prasad,  S.\tK.  Bagga  and\tS.  Bagga,  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
V.   A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
231<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBhargava, J–The appellants are admittedly the joint  owners
\nof  Bungalow  No.  45, situated along Tagore  Road,  in\t the
\nCantonment  of Kanpur.\tThese premises are recorded  in\t the
\nGeneral Land Register of the Cantonment as occupancy land on
\nold  grant  terms.   It appears that the  words\t “old  grant
\nterms”\treferred to rants made by the Government under\tthe
\nGeneral Order of the Governor-General in Council dated\t12th
\nSeptember,  1836.  Subsequently, the first Act to be  passed
\nin respect of these lands was the Cantonments Act No. 13  of
\n1889.\tThis was followed by Cantonments Act No. 15 of\t1910
\nand   Cantonments  Code,  .1912.  These\t were\tamended\t  by
\nCantonments Act No. 2 of 1924 which still continues to be in
\nforce.\t On the 26th June, 1925, Rules were framed  for\t the
\nfirst time under section 280 of the Cantonments Act of 1924,
\nregulating administration of Cantonment lands.\tThese  Rules
\nwere,  however,\t superseded  by fresh  Rules  by  Government
\nnotification  dated 23rd November, 1937.  The new Rules\t are
\ndescribed  as “Cantonment Land Administration Rules,  1937”.
\nUnder  these  Rules,  a provision was made in  rule  27\t for
\nregularisation of old grants by issue of fresh leases.\t The
\nappellants  did\t not  have any documents  to  show  how\t the
\noriginal title of their predecessors was acquired in respect
\nof   these  lands.   The  earliest  document,\twhich,\t the
\nappellants  could produce, was a sale-deed executed  by\t Ram
\nNath  and  others, sons of Roop Kishore, in favour  of\tDost
\nMohammad Estate, on the 8th September, 1943.  This  document
\nrecited\t that Roop Kishore, the father of vendors  Ram\tNath
\nand  others, purchased the property in various\tinstallments
\nby documents executed between the years 1901 and 1908.\t The
\nappellants  acquired the rights to the Bungalow by  a  sale-
\ndeed  executed\tin their favour by Dost Mohammad  Estate  on
\n30th April, 1958.  After taking this sale-deed, they applied
\nfor mutation to Cantonment authorities; but objections\twere
\nraised and the authorities did not agree to mutate the names
\nof  the\t appellants until the appellants agreed to  give  an
\nundertaking  to\t be  bound by the  terms  of  the  Governor-
\nGenerals Order of September 12, 1936.  Their names were then
\nmutated\t on 13th September, 1961, which. had to be  followed
\nby  a deed of admission executed by the appellants  on\t15th
\nSeptember,  1961.  Subsequently, the  appellants  approached
\nthe  authorities  to get their rights defined  and  to\thave
\ntheir  possession regularised under r. 27 of the  Rules\t of
\n1937.  The request not having been granted, the\t appellants,
\non  12th  April, 1966, moved the Military  Estates  Officer,
\nLucknow\t for  the  same,  purpose  and,\t according  to\t the
\nappellants.  no\t attention  was paid  lo this  request\tof
\ntheirs.\t On 15th ‘October, 1966, they sent a reminder to the
\nMilitary   Estates  Officer,  Lucknow  and,   in   addition,
\nrequested  him\tto  supply them with a\tform  prescribed  by
\nSchedule V of the Rules of 1937.  It may be mentioned
\n232<\/span>
\nthat  the lease under r. 27 was required to be\texecuted  in
\nthe  form  in Schedule VII and not in Schedule\tV.  On\t25th
\nOctober,  1966,\t the Military Estates Officer wrote  to\t the
\nappellants   to\t collect  the  form  from,  the\t  Cantonment
\nExecutive  Officer, Kanpur Cantonment, who was the Agent  of
\nthe  Military  Estates\tOfficer\t and  to  submit  it,  after
\ncompletion, to the Military Estates Officer, Lucknow,  along
\nwith  a\t site  plan.  The  letter  contained  an  additional
\nsentence  that this reply sent also disposed of the  earlier
\nletter of the appellants dated 12th April, 1966.
\nThe appellants had also, in the meantime, moved the  Defence
\nMinistry by a letter dated 27th, August, 1966, for grant  of
\na  lease under r. 27 read with Schedule VII of the Rules  of
\n1937,  quoting an instance of one Mr. Packwood, resident  of
\nKanpur Cantonment, in whose case a similar lease had already
\nbeen  issued.  By the letter dated 25th October,  1966,\t the
\nJoint  Secretary  to  the  Defence  Ministry  informed\t the
\nappellants that a lease under r. 27 and Sch.  VII could\t not
\nbe   granted;  but,  if\t the  appellants  so  desired,\t the
\nGovernment  were  prepared to consider their case  under  r.
\n28(1) and Schedule VIII of those Rules.\t The appellants made
\na  representation against this letter by a letter dated\t 1st
\nNovember, 1966; but, when no reply was received, they gave a
\nnotice to the Government on 28th February, 1967, to  execute
\nthe  lease in two months under r. 27 and Sch.  VII.   Again,
\nthere  was no reply and, thereupon, the appellants  moved  a
\npetition  under\t Art. 226 of the Constitution  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of Allahabad on 18th, March, 1967, seeking a writ  of
\nmandwnus directing the Military authorities to issue a lease
\nto  them under r. 27 and Sch.  VII.  The petition was  heard
\nby  a  single  Judge  of the High  Court  and  he  issued  a
\ndirection to the respondents to grant a lease as prayed.  He
\nrejected  the  plea of the respondents that  the  case\tfell
\nwithin\tRules  16 to 26 and 28 and not under Rule  27.\t The
\nrespondents  appealed to a Division Bench which agreed\twith
\nthe  learned  single  Judge that rules\t16-26  and  28\twere
\ninapplicable  to  the  case  of\t the  appellants.   It\twas,
\nhowever,  of the view that, though, the case was covered  by
\nr.  27,\t that rule did not contain any\tmandatory  provision
\nrequiring a lease to be given in all cases of old grants and
\nthat there was a discretion vested in the authorities acting
\nunder  that rule not to give a lease in suitable cases.\t  It
\nwas also held that the appellants had no right to claim such
\na  lease under that rule.  Consequently, the Division  Bench
\nset  aside  the\t direction of the single  Judge\t and  issued
\norders\tto the respondents to reconsider the request of\t the
\nappellants  for grant of lease under r. 27 and Sch.  VII  of
\nthe Rules in accordance with. law.  It is against this order
\nthat   the  appellants\thave  come  up\tto  this  Court\t  by
\ncertificate under Art. 133(1)(b). of the Constitution.
\nIn this appeal, we are concerned with only one single  point
\nrelating to the nature of the direction contained- in r.  27
\nof the
\n233<\/span>
\nRules  of 1937 The concurrent decision of the  single  Judge
\nand the Division Bench, holding that rules 16-26 and 28\t are
\ninapplicable,  has not been challenged in this\tcase  before
\nus.   The only point that has been canvassed is whether\t the
\nappellants   are  entitled  to\ta  direction   against\t the
\nrespondents  to issue a lease to them under r. 27  and\tSch.
\nVII of the Rules of 1937.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Rule 27 of the Rules of 1937 is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “27.  Special Lease for the Regularisation  of
\n\t      Old Grants.Notwithstanding anything  contained
\n\t      in rules 16 to 26 the Military Officer in\t any
\n\t      case  where a site is held without  a  regular
\n\t      lease,  may,  on application  by\tthe  holder,
\n\t      grant,  with  the\t approval  of  the   Central
\n\t      Government  or  such other  authority  as\t the
\n\t      Central\tGovernment  may\t appoint  for\tthis
\n\t      purpose, a lease of the said land in the\tform
\n\t      set out in Schedule VII.”\n<\/p>\n
In  this  Rule,\t thus,\tthe  power  to\tgrant  a  lease\t for
\nregularisation of old grants has been given to the  Military
\nEstates\t Officer by using the word “may”, and the  power  is
\nfurther subject to the approval of the Central Government or
\nsuch  other authority as the Central Government may  appoint
\nfor  the purpose.  In view of this language used,  we  think
\nthat  the  High Court was quite fight in holding  that\tthis
\nrule does not envisage a mandatory direction to the Military
\nEstates\t Officer  to grant a lease in all  cases  where\t the
\nquestion of regularisation of old grants arises.   Normally,
\nthe,  word  “may” is used to grant a discretion and  not  to
\nindicate  a  mandatory direction.  Had the,  intention\tbeen
\nthat the Military Estates Officer must grant a lease in\t all
\ncases,\tthe  word used would have been\t“shall”\t instead  of
\n“may”.\tIt is true that the word “may”, in some context, has
\nbeen interpreted as containing a mandatory direction and the
\nauthority given the power has to exercise that power  unless
\nthere  be  special reasons.  Such a case  came\tbefore\tthis
\nCourt  in  Sardar Govindrao and Others v.  State  of  Madhya
\nPradesh<\/a> (1).  That was a case where a rule relating to grant
\nof  money or pension was sought to be enforced.\t This  Court
\nheld:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “This  is an instance where, on the  existence
\n\t      of the condition precedent, the grant of money
\n\t      or   pension   becomes   obligatory   on\t the
\n\t      Government notwithstanding that in s. 5(2) the
\n\t      Government  has been given the power  to\tpass
\n\t      such orders as it deems fit and in sub-s.\t (3)
\n\t      the  word\t “may” is used.- The word  “may”  is
\n\t      often read as “shall” or “must” when there  is
\n\t      something\t in the nature of the thing to’\t be
\n\t      done which makes it the duty of the
\n\t      (1)   [1965] S.C.R. 678
\n34<\/span>
\nPerson on Whom the power is conferred to exercise the Power.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 5(2) is discretionary because it takes into  account
\nall  cases  which may be brought before\t the  Government  of
\npersons c raising to be adversely affected by the  provision
\nof s. 3 of the Act.  Many such persons may have no claims at
\nall although they may in a general way be said to have\tbeen
\nadversely  affected  by\t s.  3.\t if  the  power\t was  to  be
\ndiscretionary  in  every  case there was no  need  to  enact
\nfurther\t than sub-s. (2).  The reason why  two\tsub-sections
\nwere  enacted is not far to seek.  That Government may\thave
\nto  select some for consideration under sub-s. (3) and\tsome
\nunder s. 7 and may have to dismiss the claims of some others
\nrequires the conferment of a discretion and sub-s. (2)\tdoes
\nno  more than to give that discretion to Government and\t the
\nword  “may” in that sub-section bears its ordinary  meaning.
\nThe  word  “may”  in sub-s. (3) has,  however,\ta  different
\npurport.  Under that sub-section, Government must, if it  is
\nsatisfied  that an institution or service must be  continued
\nor  that  there is a descendant of a  former  ruling  chief,
\ngrant money or pension to the institution or service or\t to,
\nthe  descendant of the former ruling chief, as the case\t may
\nbe.  of\t course,  it need not make a  grant  if\t the  person
\nclaiming  is  not a descendant of a former ruling  chief  or
\nthere  is  other  reasonable ground not to  grant  money  or
\npension..  But, except in those cases where there  are\tgood
\ngrounds for not granting the pension, Government is bound to
\nmake a grant to those who fulfill the required condition and
\nthe  word “may” in the third sub-section  though  apparently
\ndiscretionary has to be read as “must”.\n<\/p>\n
It may be noticed that, in that case, the word “may” as used
\nin  the\t general  sub-s.  (2) was not  held  to\t indicate  a
\nmandatory direction.  It was only in sub-s. (3), because  of
\nthe  special  context, that ‘the Court held  that  the\tword
\n“may”  was equivalent to ”  shall” or “must”.  In  the\tcase
\nbefore\tus, rule 27 only confers a power in general  on\t the
\nMilitary  Estates Officer to grant leases and, by using\t the
\nword  “may”, it clearly gives him discretion to grant it  in
\nsuitable cases.\t There is further the circumstance that\t the
\nexercise  of the power by the Military Estates\tOfficer\t has
\nbeen made subject to the approval of the Central  Government
\nor  such  other\t authority as  the  Central  Government\t may
\nappoint for that purpose.  If the power had to be  exercised
\nby the Military Estates Officer in all cases, its being made
\nsubject\t to  the  approval of  another\tauthority  would  be
\nmeaningless.  When a rule envisages approval of the proposed
\naction of the Military Estates Officer, it also implies that
\nhis action can be disapproved.\tThis approval or disapproval
\nwill necessarily be at the discretion of the Central
\n235<\/span>
\nGovernment  or\tthe  authority\tappointed  by  it  for\tthat
\npurpose.   The power of the Military Estates  Officer  being
\nsubject\t to  such discretionary approval or  disapproval  of
\nanother authority cannot possibly be held to be required  to
\nbe  exercised  in  all cases without  any  discretion.\t The
\nDivision Bench was, therefore, perfectly correct in  holding
\nthat  the  power under r. 27 is a discretionary\t power,\t and
\nboth  the  Military Estates Officer as well as\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  or the other authority appointed by it for\tthat
\npurpose\t in  exercising their power have the  discretion  in
\nsuitable  cases\t not to proceed under this rule.   The\tHigh
\nCourt,\tin  directing  a  reconsideration  of  the  case  in
\naccordance with law, was, therefore, quite correct, so\tthat
\nthe  application of the appellants must be  decided  afresh,
\nafter keeping in view the principle that the power to  grant
\na  lease  under rule 27 is discretionary ; but\tthe  refusal
\nshould\tonly be in suitable cases where\t sufficient  reasons
\nexist for that purpose.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal fails and ‘is dismissed.  In the circumstances of
\nthis case, we make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
G. C.\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n236<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1599, 1971 SCR 230 Author: V Bhargava Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha PETITIONER: SAHODARA DEVI & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/03\/1971 BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA SHELAT, J.M. […]<\/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-173188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971 - 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\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-17T07:23:18+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-17T07:23:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971\"},\"wordCount\":2163,\"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\\\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971\",\"name\":\"Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-17T07:23:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971 - 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\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-17T07:23:18+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971","datePublished":"1971-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-17T07:23:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971"},"wordCount":2163,"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\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971","name":"Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-17T07:23:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahodara-devi-ors-vs-government-of-india-anr-on-26-march-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sahodara Devi & Ors vs Government Of India & Anr on 26 March, 1971"}]},{"@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\/173188","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=173188"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173188\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}