{"id":184441,"date":"1963-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963"},"modified":"2014-12-21T12:14:16","modified_gmt":"2014-12-21T06:44:16","slug":"the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1964 Ori 222<\/div>\n
Author: Narasimham<\/div>\n
Bench: R Narasimham, R Das<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Narasimham, C.J. <\/p>\n
 1. This is an appeal from the award given by the Arbitrator, Hirakud Land Organisation, fixing the amount of compensation payable to the respondents for the acquisition of their lands in village Lapang now submerged in the artificial lake formed by the construction of the Hirakud Dam accross the river Mahanadi. The total extent of the lands acquired is 13.39 acres. The lands consisted of (1) Bahal or first class paddy-lands 9.07 acres : (2) Berna or second class paddy-lands – 2.52 acres, and (3) Mal or 3rd  class paddy-lands — 1.80 , acres.\n<\/p>\n
 2. The lands were acquired under the provisions of Orissa Act XVIII of 1948. Section 7 (1)(e) of that Act says that in fixing the amount of compensation payable, to dispossessed owners, the Arbitrator shall have regard of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act while estimating the” market value.  But the second proviso to Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act says that where tinder any law or custom the lands acquired are not saleable the market value of such lands shall be such multiples as may be prescribed of the deduced rent to be calculated in the prescribed manner, with an addition of 50 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
The’ disputed lands were admittedly ryoti lands in Sambaipur district which are governed by the provisions of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act of 1898 as modified from time to time. Under old Section 46 of that Act there were restrictions on the sale of lands of an occupancy tenant and in estimating the market value of such lands the rules framed by the Government of Orissa from time to time under Orissa Act XVIII of 1948, in exercise of the powers conferred by the 2nd proviso to Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of that Act would undoubtedly have prevailed. But in 1953 the Orissa Legislature amended Section 46 of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act by an amending Act (Orissa Act XIII of 1953).\n<\/p>\n
In consequence of this amendment an occupancy ten
\nant was given complete freedom to transfer his holding
\nor a portion of it to a bona fide agriculturist but if he
\nis a member of a schedule tribe he could not transfer
\nit to a person who is not a member of a schedule Tribe
\nexcept with the previous permission of the Deputy Com
\nmissioner. This restriction has no application here be
\ncause admittedly the respondents are not members of a
\nscheduled tribe. Thus, in consequence of this amendment
\nof 1953 they had complete freedom to transfer lands to
\na bona fide agticulturist. The Arbitrator, therefore held
\nthat the lands ceased to be non-saleable lands, and that
\nconsequently the rules prescribed for estimating the amount
\nof compensation, payable for non-saleable lands would not
\napply.\n<\/p>\n
He then called upon both parties to give their estimate of the net income from the lands and he fixed the compensation payable at 16 times the net annual income and then added 15 per cent by way of solatium for the compulsory nature of the acquisition. He thus estimated the total compensation payable at Rs. 25783.02 nP. though the respondents had claimed only Rs. 34815. 40 nP.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The learned Advocate General challenged the order of the Arbitrator on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
(i) In view of the restriction on the transfer of lands to non-agriculturists the lands should not have: been held to be freely saleable, and consequently the Arbitrator should not have estimated the compensation by capitalising the net annual income at 16 times.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The arbitrator assumed that the cost of cultivation would be only one half of the gross produce. This assumption was not justified in view of the steep increase in the rates of wares paid to agricultural labourers, and in other, expenses incurred in raising crops.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The Arbitrator was wrong in adding a solatium
\nof 15 percent on account of the compulsory nature of the
\nacquisition.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) In any case the Arbitrator should not have awarded more compensation than what was claimed by the respondents themselves.\n<\/p>\n
 4. By virtue of Orissa Act XIII of 1953 the only restriction on the right of transfer, imposed on an occupancy tenant who is not a member of a schedule tribe is the prohibition of transfer to a non-agriculturist. For all practical purposes this restriction may be ignored. In the Hamid Settlement Report (relating to Sambalpur district) it was stated (at page 20) that the census of 1921 showed that out of a population of 7,89,466 the number supported by agriculture was about 6,08,916.\n<\/p>\n
Thus when 80 per cent of people of the district are agriculturists and as amongst agriculturists there is complete freedom of transfer it must be held that for all practical purposes the lands are freely saleable and the principle applicable for estimating compensation in respect of lands which are not saleable cannot apply in the instant case. Though the learned Advocate General accepted this position, he was unable to give any alternative formula for estimating the amount of compensation payable for lands of this type, where there are restrictions on transfers to non-agriculturists.\n<\/p>\n
 5.   Hence,  once   it  is  held  that  the 2nd  proviso  to
\nClause (e)  of Sub-section (1)  of Section  7  of  Orissa  Act XVIII of
\n 1948 has  no application the  arbitrator has  no  option, but
\n to call upon the parties to estimate the value bearing in
\n mind the- principles laid down in Section 23(1) of the Land
\nAcquisition  Act.    It  is well    known  that there  are  two
\n methods of valuation,  one  based on the price of similar
\nlands in the vicinity where there have been  recent: sales
\nand the other based  on a number of years’ purchase of
\nthe actual  or immediately prospective profits of the  land
\nacquired.    Both parties proved certain sale deeds of other
\nlands in the village  but these showed  so  much variation
\nin the sale value per acre that the Arbitrator was justified  in rejecting the same and  in proceeding to ascertain
\nthe  market value  by first estimating the  net annual   in
\ncome and then capitalising it at 16 times by following the
\nsecond  method.\n<\/p>\n
In the Taxation Enquiry Commission Report (as quoted at page 497 — “The law of Land Acquisition and Compensation” by V. G. Ramachandra, Second Edition, (1962) the annual value was estimated as “the gross produce less the cost of production including the value of labour actually expensed by the farmer and his family and the return for enterprise”. This method is very appropriate in the present case. The lands being agricultural lands, a willing buyer would first estimate the net income from the lands and then offer the price on the basis of the capitalised value of that income arrived at by a certain number of years’ purchase of that income. This to some extent will depend on the current rate of interest, but  6 per cent per annum being the rate usually allowed now-a-days, 16 years’ purchase of the annual net income would be a reasonable estimate of the market value. The Advocate-General could not give any other alternative method of estimating the market value.\n<\/p>\n
 6. The learned Arbitrator therefore called upon both parties to give their figures of the gross and net income from the lands. He then proceeded to make an estimate on the assumption that the cost of cultivation would amount to one half of the gross produce. The learned. Advocate-General however, contended that this estimate of the cost of cultivation was too low and that nowadays the cost of cultivation was more than 50 per cent of the gross produce.\n<\/p>\n
In Hamid Settlement Report (page 24), the cost of cultivation was estimated at about one-third of the gross produce. It is true that this Settlement took place in 1924 and that the cost of labour and other expenses of cultivation have definitely gone up since then, but it should be remembered at the same time that the price of agricultural produce has also gone up, and though the increase in the price of foodgrains may not be proportionate to the increase: in the cost of labour etc. the percentage of the cost of cultivation to the total income as estimated in Hamid Settlement Report will have to be increased. But as neither party adduced any satisfactory data on the subject the Arbitrator estimated the cost of cultivation at 50 per cent of the gross produce.\n<\/p>\n
I notice in Daiziel’s Settlement Report (1922-32) that the cost of cultivation in the coastal districts of Orissas. (Cuttack, Puri and Balasorel) was estimated at about 40 per cent of the gross produce.\n<\/p>\n
 7. The learned Advocate-General contended that
\nunder Section 3 of the Orissa Tenants’ Relief Act 1955, a
\nbhag-chasi was not bound to pay more than one fourth
\nof the gross produce to the landlord and that it should
\ntherefore be assumed that the actual expenses of cultivation would be 75 per cent of the gross produce. The
\nobvious answer to this argument is that it was not alleged that any portion of the lands acquired was in the pos
\nsession of Bhagchasis. Moreover, it is fallacious to assume
\nthat when the Legislature provided in Orissa Tenants Relief Act that Bhagchasis should be entitled to three-fourths
\nof the gross produce, it assumed that the entire share of
\nthe Bhagchasis was meant only to cover the cost of cultivation.\n<\/p>\n
There is no justification for such an assumption. On the other hand, as contended by Mr. Misra, for the otherside, the more reasonable view is that the Legislature wanted to give the bhagchasis not only the actual cost of cultivation but something more, by way of return for the labour put in by them in cultivating the lands. Hence it will not be proper to seek the aid of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act for estimating the proportion of the gross produce of an agricultural land which may be reasonably held to cover the actual cost of cultivation.\n<\/p>\n
 8.   The   learned   Advocate   General   then   urged   that the   case  should   be   remanded  to  the  Arbitrator  with   a view to give the State Government an opportunity to adduce evidence  to  show  the  actual   proportion   of  the  cost  of cultivation  to the total  gross produce  in respect of the lands  acquired.     We   are   however  not  inclined  to  grant a remand at this belated stage.    The lends were notified for  acquisition   in   1955   and  the  proceedings  before  the Arbitrator were initiated in 1957 i.e. more than six years ago.\n<\/p>\n
Moreover  the  Arbitrator  on   30-1-1961   directed   both parties to file their calculations to show the  net income from the  lands.    The Government also filed their calculation  statements  and  the   Arbitrator  gave,  his    award  on 24-3-1961.    At that time it was open to the Government to ask for a further adjournment to prove the actual cost of cultivation.   This was not done,    tt will mean unnecessary harassment to the respondents if we permit the case to be  remanded  at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
 9.   The next question is   whether   the   respondents are entitled to a solatium of 15 per cent in view of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.    It is true that in Orissa Act XVIII of 1948 there is no express provision for the payment of such solatium as is provided in the Land Acquisition Act.    It may be an arguable point as to whether  such  solatium  can   be claimed,   as  having  been included   in by the  expression  “fair  amount  of  compensation” occurring in Section 7(1)(b) of the Orissa Act XVIII of 1948.    But any discussion on this point Will be academic bvecause  we   find    that  Government  themselves    in  their letter No. 6002 RVO dated 22-12-55 agreed to pay an additional compensation of 15 per cent in respect of lands acquired for the purpose of Hirakud Dam project.\n<\/p>\n
It is true that in their subsequent letter No. HLA\/ 21-60-1333 RVD dated 29-2-1960 they changed their mind and refused to give this additional fifteen per cent, but this order does not appear to have been given retrospective effect. Here we are concerned with the acquisition that took place in 1955 and when Government in their letter dated 22-12-1955 had definitely made it known that solatiam at 15 per cent would be payable in respect of cases referred to the Arbitrator, the respondents can legitimately claim that amount.\n<\/p>\n
      10.   As regards the last contention  of the Advocate General Mr. Misra for the respondents fairly conceded that he would be satisfied if the valuation given by the State Government  in  their statement  filed  before  the  Arbitrator to taken, as the  basis for any  compensation  payable  to them. It appears that in the valuation statement filed by Government sixteen times the value, of the net annual Income was calculated at Rs. 21516.05 nP. To this may be added the value of trees at Rs. 33.62 nP. Out of the total sum thus arrived at (viz. Rs. 21549.67 nP.) the Government’s share of the income amounting to Rs. 233.60 nP. should be deducted, leaving a balance of Rs. 21316.07 nP. If fifteen per cent is added to this amount by way of solatium the amount of compensation payable will be Rs. 24513.47 nP.\n<\/p>\n
 11. The total amount awarded by the Arbitrator is modified accordingly and the compensation payable is fixed at Rs. 24513.47 nP. The respondents will also be entitled to interest at six per cent per annum from the date of taking over possession till the date of payment.\n<\/p>\n
 Das, J.\n<\/p>\n
 12.    I agree.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963 Equivalent citations: AIR 1964 Ori 222 Author: Narasimham Bench: R Narasimham, R Das JUDGMENT Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from the award given by the Arbitrator, Hirakud Land Organisation, fixing the amount of compensation payable to the […]<\/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":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184441","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963 - 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\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963\" \/>\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=\"1963-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-21T06:44:16+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\\\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-21T06:44:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963\"},\"wordCount\":2219,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963\",\"name\":\"The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-21T06:44:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963 - 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\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-21T06:44:16+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\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963","datePublished":"1963-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-21T06:44:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963"},"wordCount":2219,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963","name":"The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-21T06:44:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-orissa-vs-baishnab-sahu-and-ors-on-11-november-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Orissa vs Baishnab Sahu And Ors. on 11 November, 1963"}]},{"@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\/184441","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=184441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184441\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}