{"id":186804,"date":"2004-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004"},"modified":"2015-09-16T07:33:50","modified_gmt":"2015-09-16T02:03:50","slug":"b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"B.E.M.L. Employees House &#8230; vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">B.E.M.L. Employees House &#8230; vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Srikrishna<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, B.N. Srikrishna<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6288 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nB.E.M.L. Employees House Bld.Co-op.Society Ltd.\t\t\t\t\t   \n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka &amp; Ors.\t\t\t\t              \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nShivaraj V. Patil &amp; B.N. Srikrishna\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>SRIKRISHNA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court<br \/>\ndismissing the writ appeal of the appellant is impugned here.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant is a cooperative society of the employees of a public<br \/>\nsector company known as &#8216;Bharat Earth Movers Limited&#8217; in Bangalore.  The<br \/>\nappellant society moved the State Government for acquisition of land for the<br \/>\npurpose of construction of residential houses for its members.  The State<br \/>\nGovernment decided to acquire a large tracts of land inclusive of land in<br \/>\nSurvey No. 11 of Thubarahalli Village, Verthur Holli, Bangalore South<br \/>\nTaluka. We are only concerned here with fifth Respondent<br \/>\n(G. Ramaiah Reddy), whose land to an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas in Survey<br \/>\nNo. 11 was also acquired by the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land<br \/>\nAcquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called &#8216;the Act&#8217;)  issued on 26.3.1990.<br \/>\nSeveral land owners including the fifth Respondent filed objections to the<br \/>\nproposal of acquisition of their lands.  One of the grounds urged by the fifth<br \/>\nRespondent  was that he had put up houses on his land proposed to be<br \/>\nacquired and also that he had sunk a bore well on it.   An enquiry was held<br \/>\nunder Section 5A of the Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer<br \/>\n(SLAO) after which the SLAO submitted a report.  As far as the land of the<br \/>\nfifth Respondent is concerned, the SLAO reported:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Houses with ACC roofing have come up to the extent of<br \/>\n1 acre and 24 guntas and is located in the western side of<br \/>\nthe proposed layout and is at the end of the same.  Hence,<br \/>\nif this part is dropped from the acquisition it would not<br \/>\ndisturb the layout.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The SLAO, however, overruled the objections made by the fifth Respondent<br \/>\nwith regard to acquisition of his land in Survey No. 22\/3.  In the said report<br \/>\nthe SLAO had made similar recommendations for deleting certain other<br \/>\nlands from acquisition.  When the notification under Section 6 was<br \/>\npublished on 15.8.1991, it was found that the State Government had<br \/>\naccepted the recommendations of  the SLAO for exclusion from acquisition<br \/>\nof several other lands, but not with regard to the land of the fifth Respondent<br \/>\nsituated on Survey No. 11.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFifth Respondent and five other land owners challenged the<br \/>\nacquisition by writ petitions filed before the High Court of Karnataka.  Fifth<br \/>\nRespondent&#8217;s writ petition was W.P. 3057 of 1992. Although, a number of<br \/>\ncontentions were urged in support of the writ petitions, it is not necessary to<br \/>\ndeal with them as the learned Single Judge who heard the writ petitions<br \/>\nrejected all the contentions except the one based on Article 14, urged in Writ<br \/>\nPetition No. 3057\/1992 by the present fifth Respondent. Consequently, the<br \/>\nlearned Single dismissed all the writ petitions except writ petition No.<br \/>\n3057\/1992 filed by the fifth Respondent which came to be allowed and the<br \/>\nacquisition which was the subject matter of the said writ petition was<br \/>\nquashed in toto.\n<\/p>\n<p>The present appellant challenged the judgment and order of the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge by  writ appeal No. 67 of 1997.  The Division Bench<br \/>\ndismissed the writ appeal and upheld the judgment of the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge. Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tA perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge indicates that<br \/>\nthe challenge to acquisition proceedings based on several grounds were<br \/>\nnegatived and, thus, six out of the seven writ petitions failed.  As far as  the<br \/>\npresent Respondent No. 5 is concerned, the learned Single Judge upheld the<br \/>\nchallenge as he found that the State Government had accepted and acted<br \/>\nupon the Land Acquisition Officer&#8217;s report under Section 5A of the Act for<br \/>\ndropping the acquisition proceedings in respect of several similarly situated<br \/>\ncases, but only in the case of the fifth Respondent, despite a<br \/>\nrecommendation to drop the acquisition proceedings, the Government had<br \/>\ngone ahead with the acquisition proceedings. No plausible reasons for such<br \/>\ndiscriminative action against the fifth Respondent&#8217;s  land were placed on<br \/>\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is the case of the fifth Respondent that all the cases where Land<br \/>\nAcquisition Officer had recommended dropping of acquisition proceedings<br \/>\nwere similarly situated and there was no reasonable ground, whatsoever, for<br \/>\nmaking a discrimination in his case to continue with the acquisition<br \/>\nproceedings.  It was urged before the learned Single Judge that the State<br \/>\nGovernment had acted arbitrarily by failure to apply the same yardstick in<br \/>\nrespect of the fifth Respondent&#8217;s land.  The Division Bench has accepted this<br \/>\nreasoning of the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that whatever be<br \/>\nthe recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer in his report under<br \/>\nSection 5A, they were merely recommendations and the State Government<br \/>\nwas not bound to accept them.  The State Government had wide discretion to<br \/>\naccept or reject the said report under Section 5A of the Act and take<br \/>\nindependent decision to continue or discontinue the acquisition proceedings<br \/>\nin respect of any particular land proposed to be acquired.  Wide, the<br \/>\ndiscretion may be; but, not wild. All exercise of statutory discretion must be<br \/>\nbased on reasonable grounds and cannot lapse into arbitrariness or caprice<br \/>\nwhich is anathema to the Rule of Law envisaged in Article 14 of the<br \/>\nConstitution. The facts placed on record do not indicate that the case of the<br \/>\nfifth Respondent was similar, if not identical, to that of the other land<br \/>\nowners, whose lands were dropped from the acquisition proceedings.<br \/>\nNeither the appellant, nor the State Government has been able to show  us<br \/>\nany rational distinction between the case of the fifth Respondent and the<br \/>\ncases of the other land owners, whose lands were excluded from the<br \/>\nacquisition.  When this is so, it appears to us that the vice of hostile<br \/>\ndiscrimination infects and vitiates the decision taken by the State<br \/>\nGovernment to continue with the acquisition against the fifth Respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nland.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tA faint argument was made by the learned counsel for the State<br \/>\nGovernment that inasmuch as the Government&#8217;s files had been called for<br \/>\nand perused, there might have been some reason on the file justifying the<br \/>\nnon-exclusion of the fifth Respondent&#8217;s land from the acquisition<br \/>\nproceedings. It is difficult to accept the suggestion, for if there was any such<br \/>\nreason the High Court would not have struck down the acquisition<br \/>\nproceedings as hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.  In any event, to put the<br \/>\nmatter beyond cavil, we adjourned the matter twice to enable the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the State Government to produce the relevant files before us.<br \/>\nDespite the adjournments granted, no such files have been produced and we<br \/>\nwere informed that the files are &#8220;not traceable&#8221;.  In this state of record, we<br \/>\nfind it difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the State<br \/>\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned counsel for the appellant alternatively argued that even if<br \/>\nthe fifth Respondent succeeded in establishing discrimination in his case, the<br \/>\nHigh Court was not justified in quashing the preliminary notification under<br \/>\nSection 4(1) of the Act.  He reiterated the argument that, at the most, the<br \/>\nfinal notification could have been quashed and the authorities under the Act<br \/>\ndirected to proceed afresh from the stage of submitting a report under<br \/>\nSection 5A of the Act.  He also contended that the report under Section 5A<br \/>\nhad not been accepted, as the Revenue Secretary had made a spot inspection<br \/>\nand decided not to agree with the report of the Land Acquisition Officer.  As<br \/>\nwe have already pointed out, we have no material placed on record to show<br \/>\nas to what really moved the Revenue Secretary or the State Government to<br \/>\noverrule the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer only with<br \/>\nrespect to the land of the fifth Respondent.  Nor, are we impressed by the<br \/>\nargument that only the final notification had to be quashed and the matter be<br \/>\nremitted to the authorities below.  Once it is held that the action was<br \/>\ndiscriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, then the<br \/>\nHigh Court was justified in quashing the whole proceedings, including the<br \/>\nnotification under Section 4(1), as prayed for by the fifth Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the result, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the<br \/>\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>There is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tNo order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India B.E.M.L. Employees House &#8230; vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004 Author: Srikrishna Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, B.N. Srikrishna CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6288 of 1999 PETITIONER: B.E.M.L. Employees House Bld.Co-op.Society Ltd. RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka &amp; Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/09\/2004 BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil &amp; B.N. [&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-186804","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>B.E.M.L. Employees House ... vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004 - 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\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.E.M.L. Employees House ... vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-16T02:03:50+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.E.M.L. Employees House &#8230; vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-16T02:03:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1408,\"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\\\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004\",\"name\":\"B.E.M.L. Employees House ... vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-16T02:03:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.E.M.L. Employees House &#8230; vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"B.E.M.L. Employees House ... vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004 - 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\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.E.M.L. Employees House ... vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-16T02:03:50+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.E.M.L. Employees House &#8230; vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-16T02:03:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004"},"wordCount":1408,"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\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004","name":"B.E.M.L. Employees House ... vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-16T02:03:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-e-m-l-employees-house-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.E.M.L. Employees House &#8230; vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 10 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/186804","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=186804"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186804\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}