{"id":179220,"date":"2005-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005"},"modified":"2015-06-11T03:11:37","modified_gmt":"2015-06-10T21:41:37","slug":"jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Mathur<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Cji R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6588 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nJaipur Municipal Corporation \t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nC.L. Mishra \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/10\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nCJI R.C. Lahoti,G.P. Mathur &amp; P.K. Balasubramanyan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17693 of 2004)<\/p>\n<p>G.P. Mathur, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThis appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the<br \/>\norder dated 28.5.2004 of High Court of Rajasthan by which the<br \/>\nreview petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt is necessary to mention some basic facts for the decision of<br \/>\nthe appeal.  \tThe respondent, C.L. Mishra, sent a letter to the<br \/>\nRajasthan High Court that a temple had been constructed on a land<br \/>\nadjoining Bagla Mukhi Sadhana Kendra in Sector 3, Malviya Nagar,<br \/>\nJaipur, a place which was earmarked for a park and the construction<br \/>\nhad been made without prior approval of the competent authorities.<br \/>\nThe letter was treated as a public interest litigation and was registered<br \/>\nas D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6051 of 1997 at the Jaipur Bench of the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  Notices were issued to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation,<br \/>\nRajasthan Housing Board, Collector Jaipur, and two private persons<br \/>\nnamely Shyam Lal Gulani and Hargum Dass Motwani, who were<br \/>\nalleged to have raised the unauthorized construction.   These persons<br \/>\nfiled a joint reply asserting that the writ petitioner himself was an<br \/>\nunauthorized occupant and he had forcibly taken possession of the<br \/>\ntemple where he was residing.   They also submitted that a public<br \/>\ntemple exists on the disputed land for a long time and was shown to<br \/>\nbe land of temple in the maps and plans of Rajasthan Housing board<br \/>\nand that of Jaipur Municipal Corporation.  They denied that the<br \/>\ntemple had been constructed by encroaching upon land, which was<br \/>\nearmarked for a park. The Rajasthan Housing Board filed a reply<br \/>\nstating, inter alia, that there was a temple on the land alleged by the<br \/>\nwrit petitioner but no work of new construction was found.  On<br \/>\nenquiry from the residents of the area it was found that the temple was<br \/>\nbeing maintained by Pujya Sindhi Panchayat, Sector 3.   It was also<br \/>\nstated that in the municipal map it was shown as a temple and the land<br \/>\nhad been earmarked for the same.   The other plea taken by the Board<br \/>\nwas that after construction of the colony, the same had been handed<br \/>\nover to Jaipur Municipal Corporation and if any unauthorized<br \/>\nconstruction had been made, it was the responsibility of the Jaipur<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation to remove the same.   The Jaipur Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation also filed a reply stating, inter alia, that on 9.11.1992 the<br \/>\ncharge of certain sectors in Malviya Nagar was handed over by<br \/>\nRajasthan Housing Board to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation.  The<br \/>\nHousing Board had not handed over the strip of land which remained<br \/>\nvacant in the colony or in respect of which the title was in dispute and<br \/>\nhas kept all such lands in its own ownership.  The Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation thus denied any responsibility in the matter of removal of<br \/>\nencroachment from the land.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAfter noticing the pleas and contentions raised by various<br \/>\nparties, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by the order dated<br \/>\n8.5.2000 and the last two paragraphs thereof, which contain the<br \/>\noperative portion of the order, are being reproduced below :-<br \/>\n&#8220;We would, therefore, dispose of this petition by<br \/>\ndirecting that the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur shall be<br \/>\nresponsible for removal of encroachment from the land<br \/>\nhanded over to it for maintenance etc.  by the Rajasthan<br \/>\nHousing Board.   We would also direct that completion<br \/>\nof the formalities of completely handing over land to the<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation by the Rajasthan Housing Board<br \/>\nshall also be expedited.   We are not making any<br \/>\nobservations on the factual situation and rival contentions<br \/>\nabout the existence or otherwise of the encroachment and<br \/>\nthe rights of the parties. When the Municipal Corporation<br \/>\ntakes action for removal of the encroachment it shall<br \/>\nnaturally, in compliance with the law, afford adequate<br \/>\nopportunity to the persons known to be in possession of<br \/>\nthe encroached portions to be in their possession, before<br \/>\nremoving the encroachments.   We expect the Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation to discharge its functions expeditiously and<br \/>\nif it finds that the public land has been encroached upon,<br \/>\nit shall take action for removal irrespective of whether<br \/>\nthe encroachment is under the garb of temple or a place<br \/>\nof worship.   If need be, the Municipal Corporation shall<br \/>\nalso be entitled to take help from the local administration<br \/>\nin order to see that the law and order is not disturbed<br \/>\nduring the removal of encroachment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe private respondents shall maintain status quo<br \/>\nas to the construction on the land and not put up any new<br \/>\nconstruction on it for a period of six months from today<br \/>\nduring which the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur shall<br \/>\ndecide whether a prima facie case of encroachment is<br \/>\nmade out and if it is of the opinion that the public land<br \/>\nhas been encroached upon, it shall take action for its<br \/>\nremoval by issuing the notices in compliance with law, to<br \/>\nthe encroachers and shall dispose of the matter within a<br \/>\nperiod of six month from today.   If so requested, the<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation shall also afford hearing to the<br \/>\nPetitioner on the question as to whether a prima facie<br \/>\ncase of encroachment is made out.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, gave a<br \/>\nreport on 14.9.2000 to the effect that encroachment over the land had<br \/>\nbeen made by Sindhi Panchayat.  The matter was thereafter<br \/>\nconsidered by a Committee for Regulations and Bye-Laws of Jaipur<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation which gave a detailed report running into<br \/>\nseveral pages on 15.2.2001.   The Committee held that it was not a<br \/>\ncase of encroachment and the public temple had not been constructed<br \/>\non the land earmarked for any park.  On the contrary, a garden had<br \/>\nbeen developed in front of the temple by members of public.  It was<br \/>\nalso observed in the report that if the temple was being maintained by<br \/>\nPujya Sindhi Panchayat, then it should be got registered under the<br \/>\nRajasthan Public Trust Act.   A copy of this report has been filed as<br \/>\nAnnexure P-2 to the Special Leave Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t  C.L. Mishra, thereafter, filed a contempt petition which was<br \/>\nregistered as D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.3 of 2001 in D.B. Civil<br \/>\nWrit Petition No.6051 of 1997.   The contempt petition was heard on<br \/>\n24.7.2001 when the Division Bench passed an order observing that<br \/>\nnormally the satisfaction of the Commissioner as to whether there is<br \/>\nan encroachment or not is final and such dispute is not to be referred<br \/>\nto a Committee, but the said course was adopted in the present case.<br \/>\nAfter making the aforesaid observation, the following order was<br \/>\npassed :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The learned counsel for contemnors seeks time to<br \/>\ncomply with the order in the light of the observations<br \/>\nwhich are made today in this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>We grant one month&#8217;s time to comply with the<br \/>\norder in its true letter and spirit.\n<\/p>\n<p>List this case on 30.8.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation, Jaipur, need not remain present<br \/>\non further dates of hearing unless so directed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe contempt petition was thereafter heard on 28.1.2002 when<br \/>\nthe following order was passed :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The contempt petition dated 2.1.2001 is pending<br \/>\nbefore this Court since 2.1.2001.   The Respondent No.1<br \/>\nand 2 i.e. Shri Inderjit Khanna, Chief Secretary,<br \/>\nGovernment of Rajasthan and Shri G.S. Sandhu,<br \/>\nSecretary to the Government, Department of Urban<br \/>\nDevelopment Housing and Local Self Government,<br \/>\nGovernment Secretariat, Jaipur had already been deleted<br \/>\nfrom the array of non-petitioners by the Court on<br \/>\n14.5.2001.   Respondent No.3 Smt. Nirmala Verma, the<br \/>\nthen Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur has already<br \/>\nexpired.   The only respondent who remains is the Chief<br \/>\nExecutive Officer, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur<br \/>\nwho too is said to have been transferred somewhere else.<br \/>\nBy the order dated 29.11.2001 eight weeks time from the<br \/>\ndate of receipt of the certified copy of the order was<br \/>\ngranted to carry out the earlier directions as were issued<br \/>\nin the judgment and order dated 8.5.2000.  It is submitted<br \/>\nthat this eight weeks period from the date of receipt of<br \/>\nthe certified copy of the Order is going to expire on<br \/>\n8.2.2002.   In this background, Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this<br \/>\ncontempt petition with liberty to file the contempt<br \/>\npetition afresh, if need be.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis contempt petition is accordingly dismissed as<br \/>\nwithdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid in accordance<br \/>\nwith law.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tThe Jaipur Municipal Corporation thereafter filed a review<br \/>\npetition purporting to be under Article 226 of the Constitution read<br \/>\nwith High Court Rules for reviewing the order dated 24.7.2001 passed<br \/>\nin D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.3 of 2001, which was registered<br \/>\nas D.B. Civil Review Petition No.7 of 2002.   The review petition was<br \/>\nbarred by limitation and accordingly notice was issued by the order<br \/>\ndated 4.2.2002 to the respondent (writ petitioner) to show cause why<br \/>\ndelay may not be condoned.  After hearing counsel for the parties,<br \/>\ndelay was condoned and leave was granted to Municipal Corporation<br \/>\nto file the review petition by the order dated 5.2.2002.   The D.B.<br \/>\nCivil Review Petition No.7 of 2002 was thereafter heard on 28.5.2004<br \/>\nand it was dismissed by the following order :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Since contempt proceedings were initiated against<br \/>\ncontemnors in their individual capacity and Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation Jaipur was not the party in the contempt<br \/>\nproceedings, instant petition by the Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation, Jaipur is not maintainable and it stands<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe present appeal has been filed challenging the above quoted<br \/>\norder dated 28.5.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tWe have heard learned counsel for the parties.   It is important<br \/>\nto note that while disposing of the main D.B. Civil Writ Petition<br \/>\nNo.6051 of 1997, the High Court did not record any positive finding<br \/>\non the question as to whether any encroachment has been made on<br \/>\npublic land.  The High Court left it to the Jaipur Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation  to take a decision in that regard within six months and if<br \/>\nit came to a finding that public land had been encroached upon, it was<br \/>\ndirected to take action for removal of the encroachment after issuing<br \/>\nnotice to the parties and in accordance with law.  The Commissioner<br \/>\nof the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, gave a report on 14.9.2000 that<br \/>\nthere was encroachment over the land by Sindhi Panchayat.  However,<br \/>\nthe Committee for Regulations and Bye-Laws of Jaipur Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation re-considered the matter and after a detailed discussion<br \/>\nheld in its report dated 15.2.2001 that there was a public temple and<br \/>\nthe same had not been constructed over any park and there was no<br \/>\nencroachment over public land.   It was further held that a garden had<br \/>\nbeen developed in front of the temple by the members of the public.<br \/>\nIt was thereafter that the writ petitioner, C.L. Mishra, filed D.B. Civil<br \/>\nContempt Petition No. 3 of 2001 wherein the High Court after making<br \/>\nan observation that &#8220;normally the satisfaction of the Commissioner as<br \/>\nto whether the occupation is an encroachment or not is final and<br \/>\nmatter is not referred to a Committee&#8221; passed an order granting one<br \/>\nmonth&#8217;s time to comply with the order in its true letter and spirit.  It is<br \/>\nimportant to note here that while deciding the main writ petition, the<br \/>\nHigh Court had not recorded any finding that there had been<br \/>\nencroachment over public land by the construction of a temple nor it<br \/>\ngave any specific direction for its removal.   On the contrary, the<br \/>\nmatter had been left to be decided by the Jaipur Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation within six months and if the Corporation came to a<br \/>\nfinding that there was any encroachment, the same was to be<br \/>\nremoved.   The important feature of the case is that when the contempt<br \/>\npetition came up for hearing on 28.1.2002, the counsel for the writ<br \/>\npetitioner made a prayer to withdraw the contempt petition with<br \/>\nliberty to file a fresh petition, if need be.   The contempt petition was<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the writ<br \/>\npetitioner to file a fresh petition.   Normally, contempt is a matter<br \/>\nbetween the Court and the alleged contemnor.  The applicant who<br \/>\nfiles the contempt petition does so only for the purpose of bringing it<br \/>\nto the notice of the Court that the order passed by it has not been<br \/>\ncomplied by it.  However, in the present case, the counsel for the writ<br \/>\npetitioner (petitioner in the contempt petition) made a prayer for<br \/>\nwithdrawing the contempt petition and the High Court passed a<br \/>\nspecific order on 28.1.2002 by which D.B. Civil Contempt Petition<br \/>\nNo.3 of 2001 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh<br \/>\ncontempt petition.   Once the contempt petition was dismissed as<br \/>\nwithdrawn, the earlier order passed in the said petition on 24.7.2001,<br \/>\nwherein one month&#8217;s time was given to comply with the order, ceased<br \/>\nto be operative as all interim orders passed in a case ultimately get<br \/>\nmerged with the final order.  The order dated 24.7.2001 cannot have<br \/>\nany independent existence and cannot survive once the contempt<br \/>\npetition itself was withdrawn and was dismissed. The Jaipur<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation was ill-advised to file a review petition<br \/>\nseeking review of the order dated 24.7.2001 when the main contempt<br \/>\npetition itself had been dismissed on the prayer made by the writ<br \/>\npetitioner (petitioner in the contempt petition).   As such there is no<br \/>\noccasion for review of the said order.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tWith the clarification as above, the appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005 Author: G Mathur Bench: Cji R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6588 of 2005 PETITIONER: Jaipur Municipal Corporation RESPONDENT: C.L. Mishra DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/10\/2005 BENCH: CJI R.C. Lahoti,G.P. Mathur &amp; P.K. Balasubramanyan JUDGMENT: J U D [&hellip;]<\/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-179220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-10T21:41:37+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-10T21:41:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2212,\"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\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005\",\"name\":\"Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-10T21:41:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-10T21:41:37+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-10T21:41:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005"},"wordCount":2212,"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\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005","name":"Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-10T21:41:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipur-municipal-corporation-vs-c-l-mishra-on-27-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.L. Mishra on 27 October, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179220","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=179220"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179220\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}