{"id":184610,"date":"1960-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960"},"modified":"2015-12-06T15:10:02","modified_gmt":"2015-12-06T09:40:02","slug":"pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960","title":{"rendered":"Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 343, \t\t 1961 SCR (2) 459<\/div>\n
Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Kapur, J.L., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPANDIT JHANDU LAL & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n16\/11\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nKAPUR, J.L.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  343\t\t  1961 SCR  (2) 459\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1962 SC 764\t (5)\n RF\t    1963 SC 151\t (34)\n R\t    1965 SC 427\t (3)\n RF\t    1965 SC 646\t (9,11)\n RF\t    1966 SC1788\t (18)\n R\t    1970 SC 984\t (6)\n F\t    1977 SC 594\t (3)\n C\t    1980 SC 367\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\nLand  Acquisition--Constitutional  validity   of  enactment-\nConstruction  of  labour colony for a company, if  a  Public\npurpose--Test-Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), ss. 4,\n6, Part VII--Constitution of India, Arts. 31(2), 31(5)(a).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe Punjab Government issued notification under ss. 4 and  6\nof  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and started\t proceedings\nfor  acquisition of lands for the construction of  a  labour\ncolony under the Government sponsored Housing Scheme for the\nworkers of the Thapar Industrial Workers' Co-operative Hous-\ning Society Ltd.  The appellants challenged the\t acquisition\nproceedings  under  Art.  226 of  the  Constitution  on\t the\nground,\t inter alia, that the procedure prescribed  by\tPart\nVII  of the said Act had not been admittedly complied  with.\nThe  Division  Bench  in affirming the\torder  of  dismissal\npassed by the trial judge held that although Art. 31 of\t the\nConstitution   by  prohibiting\tcompulsory  acquisition\t  of\nproperty  except for a public purpose had made Part  VII  of\nthe Act redundant, the present proceedings were saved  since\nthe acquisition was for a public purpose.\nHeld,  that the High Court was in error in holding that\t the\nConstitution  had rendered Part VII of the Land\t Acquisition\nAct, 1894, redundant or null and void, although it was right\nin dismissing the appeal.  That Act, as an existing Act, was\nsaved by Art. 31(5)(a) from being affected by Art. 31(2)  of\nthe Constitution.\nAcquisition  of\t building sites for residential\t houses\t for\nindustrial labour is for a public purpose even apart from s.\n17(2)\n460\n(b)of  the Act as amended by ':the Land Acquisition  (Punjab\nAmendment) Act of 1953.\nBabu  Barkava Thakur v. The State of Bombay<\/a> [1961] 1  S.C.R.\n128, referred to.\nAlthough  in  the  case\t of an\tacquisition  for  a  company\nsimpliciter,  no  declaration under s. 6 of the Act  can  be\nmade  without complying with the provisions of Part  VII  of\nthe Act, it is not correct to say that no acquisition for  a\ncompany\t for a public purpose can be made except under\tPart\nVII  of\t the Act.  If the cost of the acquisition  is  borne\neither\twholly or partially by the Government,\tthe  purpose\nwould  be  a public purpose within the meaning of  the\tAct.\nBut if the cost is entirely borne by the company it would be\nan  acquisition\t for the company simpliciter  and  Part\t VII\nwould apply.\nSince in the instant case a part of the compensation was  to\nbe  borne by the Government, it was not necessary to  comply\nwith the provisions of Part VII of the Act.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1960.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the Judgment and\tOrder  dated
\nJanuary 28, 1959 of the Punjab High Court in Letters  Patent
\nAppeal No. 52 of 1958 arising out of the Judgment and  Order
\ndated February 17, 1958 of the said High Court in Civil Writ
\nApplication No. 124 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
C.   B.\t Aggarwala, Daya Swarup Mehra and R. S.\t Gheba,\t for
\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n
S.   M.\t Sikri,\t Advocate General for the State\t of  Punjab,
\nN.S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for respondent No. 1.
\nC.K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and S. N.  Andley,
\nfor Respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and T.M. Sen,\t for
\nthe Attorney-General for India (Intervener).
\n1960.  November 16.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nSINHA,\tC.  J.-This appeal, by special leave granted on\t May
\n29,  1959, is directed against the decision of\tthe  Letters
\nPatent\tBench  (G.  D. Khosla, C. J., and Dulat,  J.)  dated
\nJanuary 28, 1959, affirming that of the learned single Judge
\n(Bishan\t Narain,  J.) dated February 17,  1958,\t whereby  he
\ndismissed the
\n461<\/span>
\nappellants’   Writ   Petition\tunder  Art.   226   of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
It  appears that the appellants are the owners of,  what  is
\nsaid  to  be, agricultural land, measuring about  86  bighas
\nodd,  in  village  Munda Majra,\t Tehsil\t Jagadhari,  in\t the
\ndistrict  of  Ambala.  On October 27, 1954,  the  Additional
\nDistrict Magistrate of Ambala ordered the land aforesaid  to
\nbe   requisitioned   under  the\t Punjab\t  Requisitioning   &
\nAcquisition of Immoveable Property Act (XI of 1953) for\t the
\nconstruction  of houses by members of the Thapar  Industries
\nCo-operative Housing Society Ltd., Yamuna Nagar.  Possession
\nof the land was taken on November 5, 1954.  The\t appellants,
\nat  once,  instituted a suit on November 14,  1954,  in\t the
\nCourt  of the Subordinate Judge, Jagadhari, challenging\t the
\nrequisition proceedings.  The suit was ultimately decreed by
\nthe  Court  on\tJune 21, 1955, and  the\t possession  of\t the
\nproperty  in question was restored to the  petitioners.\t  On
\nMay  27,  1955, the first respondent, i. e.,  the  State  of
\nPunjab,\t through the Secretary, Labour Department, issued  a
\nnotification  under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act  (1  of
\n1894)  (which hereinafter will be referred to as  the  Act).
\nThe notification, under s. 4 is in these terms.
\n“No. 4850-S-LP-55\/14144.  Whereas it appears to the Governor
\nof  Punjab that land in the locality hereunder specified  is
\nlikely to be needed by the Government for a public  purpose,
\nnamely,\t for the construction of a Labour Colony  under\t the
\nGovernment  sponsored  Housing\tScheme\tfor  the  Industrial
\nWorkers\t of  the  Thapar  Industrial  Workers’\tCo-operative
\nHousing\t Society Limited, Jamna Nagar (District Ambala),  it
\nis  hereby notified that the land described in the  specifi-
\ncations\t below\tis  likely  to be  required  for  the  above
\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n
This notification is made under the provisions of Section  4
\nread  with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,  as
\namended\t by  the Land Acquisition  (Punjab  Amendment)\tAct,
\n1953, to all to whom it may concern and the Collector  shall
\ncause public notice of the substance of this notification to
\nbe given at convenient places in the said locality;\n<\/p>\n
462<\/span><\/p>\n
In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  the  aforesaid
\nsections, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to authorise
\nthe President of the above said Society with the members and
\nservants  to enter upon and survey any land in the  locality
\nand do all other acts required or permitted by that section.
\nFurther\t in exercise of the powers conferred by\t sub-section
\n(4) of Section 17 of the said Act the Governor of Punjab  is
\npleased\t to  direct  that, on the grounds  of  urgency,\t the
\nprovisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act, shall not  apply
\nin regard to this Acquisition”.\n<\/p>\n
Later, the same day, another notification, under s. 6 of the
\nAct, was issued.  This notification, under s. 6, states that
\nit  appeared  to  the Governor of Punjab that  the  land  is
\nrequired  to  be taken by Government for a  public  purpose,
\nnamely,\t for the construction of a Labour Colony  under\t the
\nGovernment  sponsored  Housing Scheme  for  the’  Industrial
\nWorkers\t of  the  Thapar  Industrial  Workers’\tCo-operative
\nHousing\t Society Limited (which is the second respondent  in
\nthis case).  It also says that under the provisions of s.  7
\nof the Act, the Collector, Ambala, is directed to take order
\nfor  the  acquisition  of the land.   The  Patwari  effected
\ndelivery  of  possession  of the lands in  question  to\t the
\nsecond\trespondent  on\tAugust 21, 1955.   Even\t before\t the
\ndelivery  of  possession had been effected,  the  appellants
\npromptly  instituted their suit on August 20, 1955,  in\t the
\nCourt  of  the Subordinate Judge Class 1, Jagadhari,  for  a
\nperpetual injunction restraining the second respondent\tfrom
\nentering upon or taking possession of the land in  question,
\nor  making  any\t construction  thereon.\t  The  trial   Court
\ndismissed  the\tsuit on June 25, 1956,\ton  the\t preliminary
\nground\tthat the suit was not competent in the absence of  a
\nprevious  notice  under\t s. 59 of  the\tPunjab\tCo-operative
\nSocieties Act, 1955 (XIV of 1955).  The appellants  appealed
\nto the Senior Sub-Judge, Ambala, who dismissed their appeal,
\nupholding  the decision of the trial Court that\t the  notice
\nwas  a condition precedent to the institution of  the  suit.
\nTheir  second appeal was dismissed by the Punjab High  Court
\non  February  6,1957.\tDuring the  pendency  of  the  civil
\nlitigation  aforesaid, in spite of the fact that the  second
\nrespondent had
\n463<\/span>
\nobtained  delivery of possession through Government  agency,
\nby an Order of Injunction issued by the Court,\tconstruction
\nhad been stayed.  As soon as the High Court decided the suit
\nin favour of the respondents, the second respondent “started
\nmaking\thuge constructions on the land in dispute in a\tvery
\nspeedy\tmanner”,  as  alleged by  the  appellants  in  their
\npetition  under\t Art. 226 of the  Constitution,\t which\tthey
\nfiled on February 13, 1957.  From the High Court also,\tthey
\nobtained  similar  Stay Orders whereby\tbuilding  operations
\nwere  stopped.\tIn their Writ Petition, the  appellants,  as
\npetitioners  in the High Court, challenged  the\t acquisition
\nproceedings  on\t a number of grounds, of which\tit  is\tonly
\nnecessary  to  notice the one which has formed\tthe  subject
\nmatter\tof  decision  in the High Court,  namely,  that\t the
\nproceedings  were  void\t for want  of  compliance  with\t the
\nprocedure laid down in Chapter VII (mistake for Part VII) of
\nthe  Act.   It\tis  not necessary  to  refer  to  the  other
\ncontentions  raised  in\t the Writ Petition,  because  it  is
\ncommon\tground before us that the whole controversy must  be
\ndetermined  by the answer to the question, ‘whether  or\t not
\nthe proceedings were vitiated by reason of the admitted fact
\nthat no proceedings under Part VII of the Act had been taken
\nin making the acquisition’.\n<\/p>\n
The  matter  was  heard, in the first  instance,  by  Bishan
\nNarain, J. The learned Judge dismissed the petition, holding
\nthat  the  acquisition was by the Government  for  a  public
\npurpose, namely, of construction of tenements for industrial
\nworkers, under a schempeal
\n   against the order to the Collector of the district or such
\n   other officer as may, by notification, be authorised in
\n   this behalf by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
   629<\/span><\/p>\n
    Section 6 imposes a restriction on the transport of
\n   agricultural cattle for slaughter and reads:
\n    “S. 6. No person shall transport or offer for trans
\n   port or cause to be transported any agricultural cattle
\n   from any place within the State to any place outside
\n   the State, for the purpose of its slaughter in contra.
\n   vention of the provisions of this Act or with the
\n   knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so slaugh-
\n   tered.”\n<\/p>\n
    Section 7 prohibits the sale, purchase or disposal
\n   otherwise of certain kinds of animals.  It reads-.
\n    “S. 7. No person shall purchase, sell or otherwise
\n   dispose of or offer to purchase, sell or otherwise dis-
\n   pose of or cause to be purchased, sold or otherwise
\n   disposed of cows, calves of cows or calves of she-
\n   buffaloes for slaughter or knowing or having reason
\n   to believe that such cattle shall be slaughtered.”
\n    Section 8 relates to possession of flesh of agricultu-
\n   ral cattle and is in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
    “S. 8. Notwithstanding anything contained in
\n   any other law for the time being in force, no person
\n   shall have in his possession flesh of any agricultural
\n   cattle slaughtered in contravention of the provisions
\n   of this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
    Section 10 imposes apenalty for a contravention of
\n   s. 4(l)(a) and s. 11 imposes penalty for a contraven-
\n   tion of any of the other provisions of the Act.
\n    On behalf of the petitioners it has been pointed out,
\n   and rightly in our opinion, that cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of
\n   s. 4 of the Act imposes an unreasonable restriction on
\n   the right of the petitioners.  That clause in its first
\n   part lays down that the cattle (other than cows and
\n   calves) must be over 20 years of age and must also be
\n   unfit for work or breeding; and in the second part it
\n   says, “or has become permanently incapacitated from
\n   work or breeding due to age, injury, deformity or an
\n   incurable disease.” It is a little difficult to understand
\n   why the two parts are juxtaposed in the section.  In
\n   any view the restriction that the animal must be over
\n   20 years of age and also unfit for work or breeding is
\n   an excessive or unreasonable restriction as we have
\n   80<\/span>
\n   630<\/span>
\n   pointed out with regard to a similar provision in the
\n   Uttar Pradesh Act.  The second part of the clause
\n   would not be open to any objection, if it stood by it-
\n   self.  If, however, it has to be combined with the age-
\n   limit mentioned in the first part of the clause, it will
\n   again be open to the same objection; if the animal is
\n   to be over 20 years of age and also permanently in-
\n   capacitated from work or breeding etc.,then the age-
\n   limit is really meaningless.\t Then, the expression ‘due
\n   to age’ in the second part of the clause also loses its
\n   meaning.  It seems to us that cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of s. 4
\n   of the Act as drafted is bad because it imposes a dis-
\n   proportionate restriction on the slaughter of bulls,
\n   bullocks and buffaloes it is a restriction excessive in
\n   nature and not in the interests of the general public.
\n   The test laid down is not merely permanent incapa-
\n   city or unfitness for work or breeding but the test is
\n   something more than that, a combination of age and
\n   unfitness’ Learned Counsel for the petitioners has plac-
\n   ed before us an observation contained in a reply made
\n   by the Deputy Minister in the course of the debate
\n   on the Bill in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly (see
\n   Madhya Pradesh Assembly Proceedings, Vol. 5 Serial
\n   no. 34 dated April 14, 1959, page 3201).  He said that
\n   the age fixed was very much higher than the one to
\n   which any animal survived.  This observation has
\n   been placed before us not with a view to an interpre-
\n   tation of the section, but to show what opinion was
\n   held by the Deputy Minister as to the proper age-
\n   limit.  On behalf of the respondent State our atten-
\n   tion has been drawn to a book called The Miracle of
\n   Life (Home Library Club) in which there is a state-
\n   ment that oxen, given good conditions, live about 40
\n   years.  Our attention has also been drawn to certain
\n   extracts from a Hindi book called Godhan by Girish
\n   Chandra Chakravarti in which there are statements
\n   to the effect that cows and bullocks may live up to 20
\n   or 25 years.\t This is an aspect of the case with which
\n   we have already dealt.  The question before us is not
\n   the maximum age upto which bulls, bullocks and
\n   buffaloes may live in rare cases.  The question before
\n   us is what is their average longevity and at what age
\n   631<\/span>
\n    they become useless.  On this question we think that
\n   the opinion is almost unanimous, and the opinion
\n   which the Deputy Minister expressed was not wrong.
\n    Section 5 in so far as it imposes a restriction as to
\n   the time for slaughter is again open to the same ob-
\n   jection as has been discussed by us with regard to a
\n   similar provision in the Uttar Pradesh Act.\tA right
\n   of appeal is given to any person aggrieved by the
\n   order.  In other words, a member of the public, if
\n   he feels aggrieved by the order granting a certificate
\n   for slaughter, may prefer an appeal and hold up for
\n   a long time the slaughter of the animal.  We have
\n   pointed out that for all practical purposes such a
\n   restriction will really put an end to the trade of the
\n   petitioners and we are unable to accept a restriction
\n   of this kind as a reasonable restriction within the
\n   meaning of cl. (6) of Art. 19 of the Constitution.
\n    Section 6 standing by itself, we think, is not open
\n   to any serious objection.  It is ancillary in nature
\n   and tries to give effect to the provision of the Act
\n   prohibiting slaughter of cattle in contravention of the
\n   Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 7 relates to the prohibition of sale, purchase
\n   etc., of cows and calves and inasmuch as a total ban
\n   on the slaughter of cows and calves is valid, no ob-
\n   jection can be taken to s. 7 of the Act.  It merely
\n   seeks to effectuate the total ban on the slaughter of
\n   cows and calves (both of cows and she-buffaloes).  Sec-
\n   tion 8 is also ancillary in character and if the other
\n   provisions are valid no objection can be taken to the
\n   provisions of s. 8. Sections 10 and 11 impose penal-
\n\te subsidised by the Government out  of
\npublic funds; that Part VII of the Act had no application to
\nthe  present  proceedings, and that,  therefore,  the  noti-
\nfication  under\t s.  6\twas  not  invalid.   The  appellants
\npreferred an appeal, under the Letters Patent.\tThe  Letters
\nPatent\tBench  dismissed  the  appeal,\tbut  for   different
\nreasons.   After  an examination of the\t precedents  of\t the
\ndifferent  High Courts, bearing on the controversy  in\tthis
\ncase, the Bench came to the conclusion, which may better  be
\nexpressed in its own words:-\n<\/p>\n
“There is thus considerable authority for the
\n464<\/span>
\nview advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that
\ncompliance with the provisions of Part VII is obligatory  in
\nthe case of all acquisitions for a company.  In the  present
\ncase  the acquisition was undoubtedly for the benefit  of  a
\ncompany.    I  have  given  this  matter  my  most   anxious
\nconsideration,\tand,  with  great  respect  to\tthe  learned
\nJudges, whose decisions have been noted above, I find myself
\nunable\tto  subscribe to the views expressed  by  them.\t  It
\nseems to me that their views were coloured by the background
\nof  the provisions of the Constitution.\t Article 31  of\t the
\nConstitution  prohibits compulsory acquisition\tof  property
\nfor   anything\t except\t a   public   purpose.\t  Therefore,
\nacquisition  for  anything  which is not  a  public  purpose
\ncannot\tnow  be\t done compulsorily, but it  has\t never\tbeen
\ndisputed  that before the Constitution came into force\tland
\ncould  have been acquired compulsorily by Government  for  a
\npurpose which was not public.  There is nothing in the\tLand
\nAcquisition  Act to warrant the assumption that the  embargo
\nplaced by Article 31 of the Constitution found place in\t the
\nAct.   It seems to me that the Land Acquisition Act  contem-
\nplates two categories of acquisitions”.\n<\/p>\n
After an examination of the provisions of the Act, the\tHigh
\nCourt observed that the Land Acquisition Act came into force
\nwhen there was no bar to compulsory acquisition for  private
\npurposes.  Such a bar was only imposed, for the first  time,
\nby Art. 31 of the Constitution.\t After the Constitution came
\ninto force, Part VII of the Act became redundant or null and
\nvoid.  But, in its view, the present acquisition proceedings
\nwere saved from all attack based on non-compliance with\t the
\nprovisions  of\tPart VII of the Act.  The  reason  for\tthis
\nconclusion,  according\tto the High Court, was that  as\t the
\nland was acquired for a public purpose, there was no need to
\ncomply\twith  the provisions of Part VII,  even\t though\t the
\nCompany is to bear all the expenses for the acquisition.
\nIt is manifest that the main point for determination in this
\nappeal\tis: Whether or not the acquisition  proceedings\t had
\nbeen vitiated by reason of the admitted fact that there\t was
\nno attempt made by the
\n465<\/span>
\nGovernment  to comply with the requirements of Part  VII  of
\nthe Act.  It is equally clear that the Letters Patent  Bench
\nof the High Court was misled in its conclusions, because all
\nthe  provisions of Art. 31 of the Constitution had not\tbeen
\nbrought to their notice.  It is not correct to say that Part
\nVII  of\t the Act had become redundant or null and  void,  as
\nsuggested by the High Court, because that Part provided\t for
\nacquisition for a private purpose.  As held by this Court in
\na recent decision, in the case of Babu Barkaya Thakur v. The
\nState  of  Bombay<\/a>  (1),\t the Act deals\twith  two  kinds  of
\nacquisitions:  (1) for a public purpose, at the cost of\t the
\nGovernment, and (2) for a purpose akin to such a purpose, at
\nthe  cost  of  a  Company,  and\t to  the  latter  class\t  of
\nacquisition,  the provisions of Part VII are attracted.\t  It
\nwas further held in that case that acquisition of a site for
\nbuilding  residential  houses for industrial  labour  was  a
\npublic purpose, and that the Land Acquisition Act was immune
\nfrom  attack  based on the provisions of Art. 31(2)  of\t the
\nConstitution, in view of the provisions of cl. 5(a) of\tthat
\nArticle,  which saved an existing law of the nature  of\t the
\nAct  in question.  As will presently appear, the  conclusion
\nof  the High Court is entirely correct, but the\t process  of
\nreasoning  by  which  it  has  reached\tthat  conclusion  is
\nerroneous.   That  process suffers from\t the  initial  error
\narising\t from the fact that the provisions of Art. 31(5)  of
\nthe Constitution had not been brought to the notice of\tthat
\nBench.\t If  the  Bench were cognizant\tof  the\t true  legal
\nposition  that\tthe Land Acquisition Act, in  its  entirety,
\nincluding Part VII dealing with the acquisition of Land\t for
\nCompanies, was not subject to any attack under Art. 31(2) of
\nthe Constitution, it would not have based that conclusion on
\nthat  ratio.   Otherwise, there would be no  answer  to\t the
\ncontention in which the appellants had persisted  throughout
\nthe long course of litigation in which they have indulged in
\ntheir  vain effort to save the land from being used for\t the
\npublic purpose aforesaid.  The Letters Patent Bench has also
\nfallen
\n(1)  [1961] 1 S.C.R. 128.\n<\/p>\n
59<\/span>
\n466<\/span><\/p>\n
into  another error in assuming that “the  compensation\t was
\npaid in its entirety by the Company”.  It is better to clear
\nthe  ground  by showing that this assumption  is  not  well-
\nfounded in fact.\n<\/p>\n
In  their  Writ Petition, as originally filed  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tit  was not categorically stated by  the  appellants
\nthat the compensation in respect of the land in question was
\npaid,  or was to be paid, by the Company.  It may be  stated
\nhere,  by the way, that it is common ground that the  second
\nrespondent is a Company within the meaning of the Act, being
\na  registered society under the Co-operative Societies\tAct.
\nIt is also common ground that the purpose for which the land
\nwas being acquired was for erecting residential quarters for
\nindustrial  labour, which had organised itself into the\t Co-
\noperative  Housing Society, the second respondent.   It\t was
\nonly at a later stage of the proceedings in the High  Court,
\nthat  is to say, in the replication filed on behalf  of\t the
\nappellants to the Written Statement filed by the Government,
\nin  answer to the appellant’s Writ Petition, that,  for\t the
\nfirst  time,  it  was alleged by the  appellants  that\t“the
\nentire\tamount\tof compensation has been borne by  the\tres-
\npondent\t society”.   This  allegation has  not\tbeen  either
\nsupported  or countered by evidence on either side.  But  it
\nhas been pointed out by the learned single Judge that it was
\nclear from the Government Housing Scheme that a\t substantial
\namount\tto  be\texpended on this Scheme\t comes\tout  of\t the
\nRevenues, in the form of subsidies and loans.  It was stated
\nat  the Bar, with reference to the terms and  conditions  of
\nthe  Government Housing Scheme, that 25% to 50% of the\tcost
\nof  land and structures to be built upon the land was to  be
\nadvanced by Government out of public funds, in the shape  of
\nsubsidy\t and  loan.  It would, thus, appear  that  the\tHigh
\nCourt was not right in the assumption made as aforesaid.
\nIt  is clear from the statement of facts on record that\t the
\nrespondent  No. 2 is a ‘Company’, within the meaning of\t the
\nAct;  that  the\t land is acquired for the.  benefit  of\t the
\nCompany, and at its instance, and that a large proportion of
\nthe compensation money was to
\n467<\/span>
\ncome  out of public funds, the other portion being  supplied
\nby the Company or its members.\tThere is also no doubt\tthat
\nthe  structures\t to be made on the land\t would\tbenefit\t the
\nmembers\t of  the  Co-operative Society.\t  But,\tthe  private
\nbenefit\t of  a large number of\tindustrial  workers  becomes
\npublic\tbenefit within the meaning of the  Land\t Acquisition
\nAct.  In this connection, it may be mentioned that s. 17  of
\nthe  Act  was  amended\tby  the\t Land  Acquisition   (Punjab
\nAmendment) Act (11 of 1954) in these terms-
\n“17(2)(b).   Whenever  in the opinion of  the  Collector  it
\nbecomes necessary to acquire the immediate possession of any
\nland   for  the\t purpose  of  any  library  or\t educational
\ninstitution   or  for  the  construction,  ex.\ttension\t  or
\nimprovement  of\t any  building or  other  structure  in\t any
\nvillage\t for  the  common use of  the  inhabitants  of\tsuch
\nvillage, or any godown for any society registered under\t the
\nCo-operative  Societies\t Act,  1912 (II\t of  1912),  or\t any
\ndwelling-house\tfor the poor, or the construction of  labour
\ncolonies under a Government-sponsored Housing Scheme, or any
\nirrigation  tank,  irrigation or drainage  channel,  or\t any
\nwell, or any public road,
\nthe Collector may, immediately after the publication of\t the
\nnotice\tmentioned in sub-section (1), and with the  previous
\nsanction  of the appropriate Government enter upon and\ttake
\npossession   of\t such  land,  which  shall  thereupon\tvest
\nabsolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances”.
\nIt will appear from the (amended) s. 17(2)(b), quoted above,
\nthat   the   construction  of  labour  colonies,   under   a
\nGovernment-sponsored  Housing Scheme, has been\tincluded  in
\nthe  category  of  ‘works of public  utility’.\t As  already
\nindicated,  even  apart\t from the indication  given  by\t the
\n(amended) section 17, quoted above, this Court has held,  in
\nthe  recent  decision  (1)  that  building  of\t residential
\nquarters  for industrial labour is public  purpose.   Hence,
\neven apart from the amended provisions of s. 17, it is clear
\non  the authorities that the purpose for which the land\t was
\nbeing acquired was a public purpose.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1961] 1 S.C.R. 128.\n<\/p>\n
468<\/span><\/p>\n
Having\tcleared the ground, it now remains to  consider\t the
\nterms of s. 6, on which great reliance was placed on  behalf
\nof  the appellants.  There is no doubt that, as pointed\t out
\nin   the  recent  decision  of\tthis  Court  (1),  the\t Act
\ncontemplates  acquisition  for a public purpose\t and  for  a
\nCompany,  thus\tconveying the idea that\t acquisition  for  a
\nCompany\t is not for a public purpose.  It has been  held  by
\nthis  Court, in that decision, that the purposes  of  public
\nutility,  referred to in ss. 40-41 of the Act, are  akin  to
\npublic purpose.\t Hence, acquisition for a public purpose  as
\nalso   acquisitions   for   a  Company\t are   governed\t  by
\nconsiderations of public utility.  But the procedure for the
\ntwo  kinds of acquisitions is different, in so far  as\tPart
\nVII has made substantive provisions for acquisitions of land
\nfor  Companies.\t  Where\t acquisition is made  for  a  public
\npurpose, the cost of acquisition for payment of compensation
\nhas  to be paid wholly or partly out of Public Revenues,  or
\nsome  fund controlled or managed by a local  authority.\t  On
\nthe other hand, in the case of an acquisition for a Company,
\nthe  compensation  has to be paid by the Company.   But,  in
\nsuch a case, there has to be an agreement, under s. 41,\t for
\nthe  transfer of the land acquired by the Government to\t the
\nCompany on payment of the cost of acquisition, as also other
\nmatters not material to our present purpose.  The  agreement
\ncontemplated  by  s. 41 is to be entered  into\tbetween\t the
\nCompany and the Appropriate Government only after the latter
\nis satisfied about the purpose of the proposed\tacquisition,
\nand  subject  to the condition precedent that  the  previous
\nconsent of the Appropriate Government has been given to\t the
\nacquisition.\tThe  `\tprevious  consent’  itself  of\t the
\nAppropriate   Government   is  made  to\t depend\t  upon\t the
\nsatisfaction  of  that Government that the  purpose  of\t the
\nacquisition  was as laid down in s. 40.\t It is, thus,  clear
\nthat  the  provisions  of  ss.\t39-41  lay  down  conditions
\nprecedent  to the application of the machinery of  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Act, if the acquisition is meant for a  Company.
\nNow,  s. 6 itself contains the prohibition to the making  of
\nthe necessary declaration under that section in these terms-
\n(1)  (1961] 1 S.C.R. 128.\n<\/p>\n
469<\/span><\/p>\n
“Provided that no such declaration shall be made unless\t the
\ncompensation  to be awarded for such property is to be\tpaid
\nby a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues  or
\nsome fund controlled or managed by a local authority”.
\nSection\t 6 is, in terms, made subject to the  provisions  of
\nPart VII of the Act.  The provisions of Part VII, read\twith
\ns.  6 of the Act, lead to this result that  the\t declaration
\nfor  the acquisition for a Company shall not be made  unless
\nthe  compensation  to be awarded for the property is  to  be
\npaid by a company.  The declaration for the acquisition\t for
\na  public  purpose,  similarly, cannot be  made\t unless\t the
\ncompensation, wholly or partly, is to be paid out of  public
\nfunds.\t Therefore,  in\t the case of an\t acquisition  for  a
\nCompany simpliciter, the declaration cannot be made  without
\nsatisfying the requirements of Part VII.  But, that does not
\nnecessarily  mean  that an acquisition for a Company  for  a
\npublic\tpurpose\t cannot\t be made otherwise  than  under\t the
\nprovisions of Part VII, if the cost or a portion of the cost
\nof the acquisition is to come out of public funds.  In other
\nwords, the essential condition for acquisition for a  public
\npurpose is that the cost of the acquisition should be borne,
\nwholly\tor  in\tpart,  out  of\tpublic\tfunds.\t Hence,\t  an
\nacquisition  for  a Company may also be made  for  a  public
\npurpose,  within  the meaning of the Act, if a part  or\t the
\nwhole  of  the cost of acquisition is met by  public  funds.
\nIf,  on the other hand, the acquisition for a Company is  to
\nbe made at the cost entirely of the Company itself, such  an
\nacquisition  comes under the provisions of Part VII.  As  in
\nthe  present instance, it appears that part at any  rate  of
\nthe  compensation  to be awarded for the acquisition  is  to
\ncome eventually from out of public revenues, it must be held
\nthat  the acquisition is not for a Company simpliciter.\t  It
\nwas  not, therefore, necessary to go through  the  procedure
\nprescribed  by\tPart  VII.  We, therefore,  agree  with\t the
\nconclusion  of\tthe  High Court, though\t not  for  the\tsame
\nreasons.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
470<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 343, 1961 SCR (2) 459 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Kapur, J.L., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N. PETITIONER: PANDIT JHANDU LAL & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE […]<\/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-184610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960 - 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\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-06T09:40:02+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-06T09:40:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960\"},\"wordCount\":4533,\"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\\\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960\",\"name\":\"Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-06T09:40:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960\"}]},{\"@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":"Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960 - 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\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-06T09:40:02+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960","datePublished":"1960-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-06T09:40:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960"},"wordCount":4533,"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\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960","name":"Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-06T09:40:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-jhandu-lal-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-november-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 November, 1960"}]},{"@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\/184610","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=184610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184610\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}