{"id":191097,"date":"1975-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975"},"modified":"2017-10-30T08:53:04","modified_gmt":"2017-10-30T03:23:04","slug":"visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975","title":{"rendered":"Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 2172, \t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 544<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nVISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPALITY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKANDREGULA NUKARAJU &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/08\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 2172\t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 544\n 1975 SCC  (2) 773\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1984 SC 583\t (20,21)\n\n\nACT:\n     Andhra Pradesh  District Municipalities Act (6 of 1965)\nss. 3,\t81, 83\tand  Schedule\t 9,  Clause  12\t   Scope  of\nInclusion of  new areas\t  within  municipality Imposition of\nproperty tax  on residents  of those areas without following\nprocedure in s. 81  Property.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Under s.  4(1)(c) of  the District\t Municipalities Act,\n1920, the State Government declared its intention to include\nwithin the  limits of  the appellant  municipality the local\nareas comprised\t in two villages. 'The 1920 Act was repealed\nby the\tAndhra Pradesh\tMunicipalities Act,  1965 which came\ninto force on April 2, 1965. Section 3(1)(b) of the 1965 Act\ncorresponds to s. 4(1)(c) of the repealed Act. Under s.3(3),\nthe Government\tmay include  within a  municipality a  local\narea after  considering\t any  objections  submitted  by\t the\nresidents of  the local are: Under s. 3(4) the provisions of\nthe 1965-Act  come into\t force in  that area  on  the  first\nApril, if  that is the date of the notification under sub-s.\n(3)  and   in  any  other  cases  the  first  day  of  April\nimmediately succeeding. The State Government, in exercise of\nits  power  under  s.  3(3)  of\t the  1965-Act,\t issued\t the\nnotification in\t March 1966  including within  the limits of\nthe appellant  municipality the\t areas comprised  in the two\nvillages with  effect from  April  1,  1966.  In  1971,\t the\nMunicipal Council  after considering  objections,  passed  a\nresolution for levying property tax on land and buildings in\nthe two\t villages with effect from October 1, 1970, but, The\nmunicipality issued  notices to\t the respondents,  who\twere\nresidents of  those two villages, demanding the property tax\nfrom them  from April  1, 1966\tthe date of inclusion of the\nvillages. The  respondents thereupon challenged the levy and\nthe High Court upheld the challenge.\n     In appeal\tto this\t Court, it  was contended  that\t the\nappellant municipality\twas entitled  to demand the tax even\nfrom April  1, 1966, under cl. 12 of Schedule 9 of the 1965-\nAct. This  clause provided  that any  tax  which  was  being\nlawfully levied by the municipal council at the commencement\nof the\t1965-Act and which may be lawfully levied under that\nAct shall  continue to\tbe levied  by the council unless the\nGovernment by general or special order directs otherwise.\n     Dismissing the appeal to this Court,\n^\n     HELD :(1)\tThe inclusion of the two villages within the\nlimits of  the appellant  municipality is in order, because,\nunder cl.  13 of Schedule 9 of the 1965-Act the notification\nissued under  s. 4(1) of the 1920-Act must be deemed to have\nbeen issued under s. 3 (1) of the 1965-Act. [547 D-F]\n     (2) However, clause 12 of Schedule 9 cannot justify the\nimposition of  the tax\tunder the repealed Act of 1920, from\nApril 1,  1966, on  property situate  in the  newly included\nareas. [548 B-C]\n     (a) The  clause is\t of a  transitional nature  and\t its\nobject is  to authorise\t the levy  of taxes  which,  at\t the\ncommencement of\t the 1965-Act were levied under the repealed\nlaw. That is, in the present case, if any tax etc. was being\nlawfully levied\t by the\t appellant on  April 1, 1966, (which\nwas the date of commencement of the Act in the two villages)\nand if\tit can be lawfully levied under the 1965-Act, it can\ncontinue to  be levied. But on April 1, 1966, no tax at all.\nwas being  levied by  or on  behalf of\tthe appellant on the\nproperty situate  in the  two villages\tincluded within\t the\nmunicipality on\t that date.  Therefore, the appellant had no\noccasion or power to direct that a property tax may continue\nto be  levied on  those properties,  and hence cl. 12 has no\napplication. [548 C-E]\n     (b) It  cannot be\turged that because the appellant was\nlevying property  tax on  property situate within its limits\n(other than  the 2  villages) the property tax was not being\nlevied for the first time. Qua the two villages newly\n545\nincluded in  the municipal limits, the tax was being imposed\nfor the first time, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the\nmunicipality to follow the procedure prescribed by the first\nproviso to  s. 81(2),  because, the residents of these areas\nhad no opportunity to object lo the imposition of tax or for\nthe municipality  to invite  objections and  consider  them.\n[549 C-E]\n     (3) The  first proviso  to s.  81 requires\t that before\npassing a  resolution imposing\ta tax for the first time the\ncouncil\t shall\tpublish\t a  notice,  invite  objections\t and\nconsider the objections received within the stipulated time.\nSince the procedure was not followed in regard to the period\nprior to  October 1,  1970 the\tlevy of\t property tax on the\nproperties of  the respondents\tfor that  period is  without\nauthority of  law and  consequently illegal. By s. 83 when a\ncouncil determines  to levy any tax for the first time or at\na  new\t rate  the   Secretary\tshall  forthwith  publish  a\nnotification in\t the prescribed\t manner specifying  the rate\nand the\t date from which the tax shall be levied. Section 83\nis expressly subject to s. 81 and under the latter provision\nno tax\tcan  be\t imposed  for  the  first  time\t unless\t the\nprocedure prescribed therein is followed [548G-549 B]\n     (4) When  the State  Government issued the notification\ndeclaring   its intention to include the two villages within\nthe  limits   of  the  municipality  the  residents  had  an\nopportunity to\tobject, not to the imposition of the tax but\nonly to\t \"any thing  contained\ttherein\",  meaning  anything\ncontained in  the notification,\t that is  to  the  inclusion\nwithin the municipality. The question of imposition of a tax\nwithin the  included areas,  arises  only  after  the  final\nnotification under s. 3(3) followed by a resolution under s.\n81 (1) . [547F-550 B]\n     (5) It  could not also be contended that mere inclusion\nof two\tvillages with  in the  municipal area  automatically\nattracts the tax. On the contrary, what s. ..(4) provides is\nthat  once  a  notification  including\tany  area  within  a\nmunicipality is\t published under  s. 3(3), the provisions of\nthe Act,  that is,  ss. 81  and 83, shall come into force in\nthat area  from the  first day\tof  April,  and\t hence,\t the\nprocedure prescribed  therein will  have to be followed.[550\nF-H]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/1185215\/\">Atlas Cycle  Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana &amp; Anr.<\/a>\n[1972] 1 S.C.R. 127, explained.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1157 of<br \/>\n1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t judgment and  order<br \/>\ndated the  20th June,  1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court<br \/>\nin Writ Appeal No. 411 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n<p>     F.S. Nariman and P. P. Rao, for the appellant.<br \/>\n     A. Subba  Rao, for respondents Nos. 1-10, 12-31, 33 and\n<\/p>\n<p>36.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     CHANDRACHUD, J.-The  Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act.<br \/>\nVI of  1965, (hereinafter  called &#8220;the Act&#8221;) came into force<br \/>\non April  2, 1965.  Section 3(1)(a)  of the Act empowers the<br \/>\nState  Government   to\tconstitute   a\tlocal\tarea  as   a<br \/>\nmunicipality. Section  3(1)(b) empowers\t the Government,  by<br \/>\nnotification in\t the Gazette  &#8220;to declare  its intention  to<br \/>\ninclude within a municipality any local area in the vicinity<br \/>\nthereof and  defined in\t such notification&#8221;. Section 3(1)(c)<br \/>\nconfers\t power\t on  the   Government  to   exclude  from  a<br \/>\nmunicipality any local area comprised therein and defined in<br \/>\nsuch notification.  Under section  3(2), any  resident of  a<br \/>\nlocal area  or taxpayer\t of a  municipality, in\t respect  of<br \/>\nwhich a\t notification under  section 3(1) is published, may,<br \/>\nif he  desires to  object  to  anything\t therein  contained,<br \/>\nsubmit his objection in writing to the Government within six<br \/>\nweeks from the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">546<\/span><br \/>\npublication of\tthe notification and the Government is under<br \/>\nan   obligation\t  to   take   all   such   objections\tinto<br \/>\nconsideration. Under  section 3(3)  after the  expiry of the<br \/>\naforesaid  period  o  six  weeks  and  on  considering\tthe<br \/>\nobjections,  the  Government  may  by  notification  in\t the<br \/>\nGazette declare\t to be\ta  municipality\t or  include  in  or<br \/>\nexclude from  a municipality,  the local area or any portion<br \/>\nthereof. By  section 3(4),  the provisions  of the  Act come<br \/>\ninto force  in or cease to apply to and municipality or part<br \/>\nthereof, as  the case  may be, on the date of publication of<br \/>\nnotification under sub-section (3) if such date is the first<br \/>\nday of\tApril, or  in any  other case,\ton the\tfirst day of<br \/>\nApril immediately  succeeding the  &#8216;date of  publication  of<br \/>\nsuch notification.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Respondents 1  to 36  are\tresidents  of  two  villages<br \/>\ncalled Ramakrishnapuram\t and Sriharipuram. Prior to the year<br \/>\n1966, the  area comprised in these villages was not included<br \/>\nwithin\t the   municipal   limits   of\t the   Visakhapatnam<br \/>\nMunicipality.  Most  of\t these\trespondents  own  properties<br \/>\nsituated within the limits of the two villages but they were<br \/>\nnot assessed  to  property  tax\t under\tthe  Andhra  Pradesh<br \/>\n(Andhra Area)  District Municipalities Act 1920 which was in<br \/>\nforce until  the introduction  of the  Act. They used to pay<br \/>\ntaxes to the village Panchayat. .\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t exercise   of\t the   powers\tconferred   by\t the<br \/>\ncorresponding provision\t of the District Municipalities Act,<br \/>\n1920, namely  section  4(1)(c),\t the  Government  of  Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh declared  its intention to include within the limits<br \/>\nof Visakhapatnam  Municipality the  local area\tcomprised in<br \/>\nthe  villages  of  Ramakrishnapuram  and  Sriharipuram.\t The<br \/>\ndistrict Municipalities\t Act, 1920  was repealed  by section<br \/>\n391(1) of  the Act which, as stated earlier, came into force<br \/>\non April 2, 1965. On March 24, 1966 the Government of Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh acting\tin  the\t exercise  or  powers  conferred  by<br \/>\nsection 3(3)  of the  Act issued  a  notification  including<br \/>\nwithin the limits of the Visakhapatnam Municipality the area<br \/>\ncomprised  in\tthe   villages\t of   Ramakrishnapuram\t and<br \/>\nSriharipuram with effect from April 1, 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>     on March  24, 1970\t and June  10,\t1970  the  Municipal<br \/>\nCouncil declared  its intention\t to levy property tax in the<br \/>\nareas newly  included within  the  municipal  limits.  After<br \/>\nconsidering the\t objections, the Council passed a resolution<br \/>\non August  28, 1970  confirming the  levy of property tax on<br \/>\nbuildings and  lands situated  within the  municipal limits,<br \/>\nwith effect  from October 1, 1970. However, the municipality<br \/>\nissued notices to respondents 1 to 36 demanding property tax<br \/>\nfrom them  not from  October 1, 1970 but from April 1, 1966,<br \/>\nthat is\t to say, with effect from the date when the villages<br \/>\nof Ramakrishnapuram  and Sriharipuram  were included  within<br \/>\nthe municipal  limits. These  notices would  appear to\thave<br \/>\nbeen issued on the supposition that taxes leviable under the<br \/>\nDistrict Municipalities\t Act, 1920  could  be  levied  under<br \/>\nclause 12,  Schedule IX\t of the\t Act, unless  the Government<br \/>\ndirected otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On January\t 24, 1971  respondents 1  to 36\t filed\twrit<br \/>\npetition 442  of 1971  in the  High Court  of Andhra Pradesh<br \/>\nagainst the State of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">547<\/span><br \/>\nAndhra Pradesh and the Visakhapatnam Municipality asking for<br \/>\na declaration  that  the  levy\tof  property  tax  on  their<br \/>\nproperties for\tthe period  prior to  October  1,  1970\t was<br \/>\nillegal. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single<br \/>\nJudge on the view that it was competent to the municipality,<br \/>\nunder the District Municipalities Act 1920, to levy property<br \/>\ntax on\tproperties situated in the newly included areas from<br \/>\nApril 1, 1966 to October 1, 1970.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Respondents 1  to 36  filed writ  appeal  411  of\t1972<br \/>\nagainst the  decision on the Single Judge, which was allowed<br \/>\nby a  Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated<br \/>\nJune 13,  1972. lt  held that  the provisions  contained  in<br \/>\nclause 12  of Schedule IX had no application and that it was<br \/>\nincompetent to\tthe municipality  to impose the property tax<br \/>\non the\tnewly included areas without following the procedure<br \/>\nprescribed by sections 81 and 83 of the Act. The correctness<br \/>\nof that view is challenged by the Visakhapatnam Municipality<br \/>\nin this appeal by special leave. The State of Andhra Pradesh<br \/>\nis respondent No. 37 to the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The   circumstance\t  that\t whereas   the\t preliminary<br \/>\nnotification declaring the intention of the State Government<br \/>\nto include  new areas within the municipal limits was issued<br \/>\nunder  the  District  Municipalities  Act  1920,  the  final<br \/>\nnotification confirming\t that intention was issued under the<br \/>\nAct presents  no difficulty. In so far as relevant, Schedule<br \/>\nIX clause  13 of  the Act, read with clause 1, provides that<br \/>\nany action taken under the District Municipalities Act, 1920<br \/>\nby any\tauthority before  the commencement of the Act shall,<br \/>\nunless inconsistent  with the  Act be  deemed to  have\tbeen<br \/>\ntaken by  the authority\t competent to take such action under<br \/>\nthe Act.  The preliminary  notification, though issued under<br \/>\nsection 4(1) (c) of the 1920 Act must therefore be deemed to<br \/>\nhave been  issued under\t section 3(1)(b)  of  the  Act.\t The<br \/>\ninclusion  of\tthe   villages\t of   Ramakrishnapuram\t and<br \/>\nSriharipuram  within   the  limits   of\t the   Visakhapatnam<br \/>\nMunicipality is accordingly in<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The true  question for our consideration is whether the<br \/>\nproperty tax  which  could  lawfully  be  levied  under\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Municipalities\t Act, 1920  can be levied, after the<br \/>\nrepeal of  that Act,  on properties  situated in  the  areas<br \/>\nincluded within\t the municipal limits after the constitution<br \/>\nof the\tmunicipality. Section  391(1) of  the Act  expressly<br \/>\nappeals the  District Municipalities Act, 1920 from which it<br \/>\nmust follow  that ordinarily,  no action  can be taken under<br \/>\nthe Act\t of 1920  after April  1,1966 when the repeal became<br \/>\neffective on the coming into force of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     But counsel  for the  appellant  municipality  contends<br \/>\nthat clause  12 of Schedule IX of the Act keeps the repealed<br \/>\nenactments  alive   for\t tax   purposes\t and  therefore\t the<br \/>\nmunicipality has  authority to impose the property tax under<br \/>\nthe Act\t of 1920,  notwithstanding its\trepeal by  the\tAct.<br \/>\nSchedule  IX   appears\t under\t the   title   &#8220;Transitional<br \/>\nProvisions&#8221; and clause 12 thereof reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">548<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;12. Continuance  of existing taxes, etc. Any tax,<br \/>\n     cess   or fee  which was being lawfully levied by or on<br \/>\n     behalf of\tany council  at the commencement of this Act<br \/>\n     and which may be lawfully levied under this Act, shall,<br \/>\n     notwithstanding any  change in  the method or manner of<br \/>\n     assessment or  levy of  such tax, cess or fee, continue<br \/>\n     to be  levied by  or on  behalf of\t the council for the<br \/>\n     year in  which this  Act is  brought into\t. force, and<br \/>\n     unless the\t Government  by\t general  or  special  order<br \/>\n     otherwise direct, for subsequent years also.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     This provision  cannot justify  the imposition  of\t tax<br \/>\nunder the repealed Act of 1920 on properties situated in the<br \/>\nnewly included\tareas. In the first place, as the very title<br \/>\nof Schedule  IX\t shows,\t the  provisions  contained  in\t the<br \/>\nSchedule are  of a transitional nature. They are intended to<br \/>\napply during  the period  of transition\t following upon\t the<br \/>\nrepeal of old municipal laws and the introduction of the new<br \/>\nlaw. Some time must necessarily elapse before a municipality<br \/>\ncan act under the new law but taxes have all the same to the<br \/>\nimposed and  collected during the interregnum. The object of<br \/>\nclause 12  of Schedule\tIX is to authorise the levy of taxes<br \/>\nwhich, on the commencement of the Act, were levied under the<br \/>\nrepealed laws.\tThe material  date for\tthis purpose  is the<br \/>\ndate of\t the commencement  of the  Act, namely April 1, 1966<br \/>\nand the\t legality of  the exercise of the power conferred by<br \/>\nclause 12  is to  be judged  in reference  to that  date. In<br \/>\nother words,  if any  tax, cess\t or fee\t was being  lawfully<br \/>\nlevied by  or on  behalf of any council on April 1, 1966 and<br \/>\nif it  can be lawfully levied under the Act, it can continue<br \/>\nto be  levied notwithstanding  any change  in the  method or<br \/>\nmanner of  assessment or  levy of  such tax, cess or fee. On<br \/>\nApril 1, 1966 no tax at all was being levied by or on behalf<br \/>\nof any\tcouncil on  properties situated\t in Ramakrishnapuram<br \/>\nand Sriharipuram  and therefore\t the appellant\tmunicipality<br \/>\nhad no occasion or power to direct that the property tax may<br \/>\n&#8220;continue to be levied&#8221; on those properties. &#8220;Continuance of<br \/>\nexisting taxes&#8221;, after the commencement of the Act being the<br \/>\ntheme of clause 12 and since the property tax was not levied<br \/>\nby or  on behalf  of any  council at the commencement of the<br \/>\nAct on\tthe properties\tsituated in the two villages, clause<br \/>\n12 has no application.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Imposition of  certain kinds  of taxes is an obligatory<br \/>\nfunction of  municipal\tcouncils,  under  the  Act.  Section<br \/>\n81(1)(a) provides  that every  council shall, by resolution,<br \/>\nlevy a\tproperty tax,  a profession  tax, a tax on carriages<br \/>\nand carts  and a  tax on  animals. under.  section  81(2)  a<br \/>\nresolution of  a  council  determining\tto  levy  tax  shall<br \/>\nspecify the  rate at  which and\t the date from which the tax<br \/>\nshall be  levied. The  first  proviso  to  this\t sub-section<br \/>\nrequires that  &#8220;before passing\ta resolution  imposing a tax<br \/>\nfor the\t first time&#8221;  or increasing  the rate of an existing<br \/>\ntax, the  council shall\t publish a  notice in the prescribed<br \/>\nmanner declaring  the requisite\t intention The\tcouncil\t has<br \/>\nfurther to  invite objections  and it is under an obligation<br \/>\nto consider  the objections  received within  the stipulated<br \/>\ntime. By  section 83,  when a council determines, subject to<br \/>\nthe provisions\tof section 81, to levy any tax for the first<br \/>\ntime or at a new rate, the Secretary shall forthwith publish<br \/>\na<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">549<\/span><br \/>\nnotification in the prescribed manner specifying the rate at<br \/>\nwhich, the  date from  which and the period of levy, it any,<br \/>\nfor which,  such tax  shall be\tlevied. Section\t 83 is\tthus<br \/>\nexpressly  subject  to\tsection\t 81  and  under\t the  latter<br \/>\nprovision no  tax can be imposed &#8220;for the first time&#8221; unless<br \/>\nthe procedure  prescribed therein  is  followed.  Since\t the<br \/>\nprocedure prescribed  by the  first proviso to section 81(2)<br \/>\nwas not followed in regard to the period prior to October 1,<br \/>\n1970  the   levy  of  property\ttax  on\t the  properties  of<br \/>\nrespondents 1 to 36 for that period is without the authority<br \/>\nof law and consequently illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was  urged on behalf of The appellant that the first<br \/>\nproviso to  section 81(2)  would apply\tonly when  a tax was<br \/>\nimposed for  the first\ttime &#8216;\tand  since    appellant\t was<br \/>\nlevying properly  tax long  before  its\t imposition  on\t the<br \/>\nproperties of  respondents 1  to 36,  it was  unnecessary to<br \/>\nfollow the  procedure prescribed  by the  proviso. It is not<br \/>\npossible to  accept this  submission. The Municipality might<br \/>\nhave been  levying property  tax since\tlong  on  properties<br \/>\nsituated within\t its limits  but until\tApril  1,  1966\t the<br \/>\nvillages of Rarmakrishnapuram and Shriharipuram were outside<br \/>\nthose limits.  Qua  the\t areas\tnewly  included\t within\t the<br \/>\nmunicipal limits,  the tax  was being  imposed for the first<br \/>\ntime and  therefore it\twas incumbent on the Municipality to<br \/>\nfollow the  procedure prescribed  by the  first\t proviso  to<br \/>\nsection 81(2).\tResidents and taxpayers of those areas, like<br \/>\nrespondents 1  to 36,  never had an opportunity to object to<br \/>\nthe imposition\tof the\ttax and\t that  valuable\t opportunity<br \/>\ncannot\tbe  denied  to\tthem.  It  is  obligatory  upon\t the<br \/>\nMunicipality not  only to  invite objections to the proposed<br \/>\ntax but\t also to  consider the\tobjections  received  by  it<br \/>\nwithin\tthe   specified\t period.   Such\t period\t has  to  be<br \/>\nreasonable, not being less than one month. The policy of the<br \/>\nlaw is\tto afford  to those  likely to\tbe affected  by\t the<br \/>\nimposition of  the tax a reasonable opportunity to object to<br \/>\nthe proposed levy.\n<\/p>\n<p>     According\tto   the   appellant,\tthe   residents\t  of<br \/>\nRamakrishnapuram and  Sriharipuram  had\t an  opportunity  to<br \/>\nobject\tto   the  imposition  of  the  tax  when  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment issued  a notification  under section  3(1)(b) of<br \/>\nthe Act\t declaring its intention to include the two villages<br \/>\nwithin the limits of the municipality. It is not possible to<br \/>\naccept this  submission either.\t When the  State  Government<br \/>\nissues a  notification under  any of  the clauses of section<br \/>\n3(1), any  resident of\tthe local  area concerned or any tax<br \/>\npayer of  the municipality  can &#8220;object to  anything therein<br \/>\ncontained&#8221;  meaning   thereby,\tanything  contained  in\t the<br \/>\nnotification. A\t notification issued under section 3 (1) (b)<br \/>\ncontains only  the declaration of the Government&#8217;s intention<br \/>\n&#8220;to include  within a  municipality any\t local area  in\t the<br \/>\nvicinity thereof  and defined  in  such\t notification&#8221;.\t The<br \/>\nright  of  objection  would  therefore\tbe  limited  to\t the<br \/>\nquestion whether  a particular\tarea should, as proposed, be<br \/>\nincluded within\t the municipal limits. It would be premature<br \/>\nat that\t stage to  offer objections to the imposition of any<br \/>\ntax because  it is  only after\tthe  final  Notification  is<br \/>\nissued under  section 3(3)  that the  question would  at all<br \/>\narise as  regards the  imposition of  a\t tax  on  the  newly<br \/>\nincluded areas.\t A notification under section 3(3) has to be<br \/>\nfollowed by a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">550<\/span><br \/>\nresolution under  section 81(1) if the municipality wants to<br \/>\nimpose a   tax,\t and for the resolution to be effective, the<br \/>\nprocedure prescribed  by the  first proviso to section 81(2)<br \/>\nhas  to\t be  followed.\tThe  appellant\tmunicipality  short-<br \/>\ncircuited this\tmandatory  procedure  and  thereby  deprived<br \/>\nrespondents 1  to 36  of the  valuable right of objecting to<br \/>\nthe imposition of the tax.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Finally, relying  on section  3(4) of  the Act, learned<br \/>\ncounsel for  the appellant  contended that  the inclusion of<br \/>\nthe two\t villages within  the municipal area attracts of its<br \/>\nown force  every provision  of the  Act with effect from the<br \/>\ndate on\t which the  final notification\tis published  by the<br \/>\nGovernment under section 3(3). This argument is said to find<br \/>\nsupport\t in   a\t decision  of  this  Court  in\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1185215\/\">Atlas  Cycle<br \/>\nIndustries Ltd.\t v. State  of Haryana  &amp; Anr.<\/a>(1).  Far\tfrom<br \/>\nsupporting the argument, we consider that the decision shows<br \/>\nhow a  provision like  the one\tcontained  in  Section\t3(4)<br \/>\ncannot have  the effect\t contended for\tby the &#8220;appellant in<br \/>\nthe  Atlas   Cycle  case,   section  5(4)   of\tthe   Punjab<br \/>\nMunicipality Act. 1911 provided that when any local area was<br \/>\nincluded in a municipality, &#8220;this Act and&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; all<br \/>\nrules, bye  laws, orders, directions and powers made, issued<br \/>\nor conferred  under this  Act and  in force  throughout\t the<br \/>\nwhole municipality  at the time, shall apply to such areas&#8221;.<br \/>\nThe industrial\tarea within  which the\tfactory of the Atlas<br \/>\nCycle was situated was by a notification included within the<br \/>\nmunicipality  of   Sonepat.  The   municipality\t  thereafter<br \/>\npurported to  impose octroi  duty on the goods manufactured,<br \/>\nby the company without following the procedure corresponding<br \/>\nto that\t prescribed by sections 81 and 83 of the Act. It was<br \/>\nheld by this Court that since section 5(4) of the Punjab Act<br \/>\ndid not,  significantly, refer\tto notifications  and  since<br \/>\nsection 62(10) of the Punjab Act spoke of &#8220;notification&#8221; for<br \/>\nthe imposition\tof  taxes,  it\twas  not  competent  to\t the<br \/>\nmunicipality to\t levy and collect octroi from the company on<br \/>\nthe strength  merely of\t the provision\tcontained in section<br \/>\n5(4) of\t the Punjab  Act. Tn  the instant case, what section<br \/>\n3(4) provides is that once a notification including any area<br \/>\nwithin a municipality is published under section  3(3), &#8220;The<br \/>\nprovisions of  this Act\t shall come into force into &#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\nany municipality  or part  thereof..  &#8230;..on  the  date  of<br \/>\npublication of\tthe notification  under sub-section  (3), if<br \/>\nsuch date  is the  first day of April, or in any other case,<br \/>\non the first day of April immediately succeeding the date of<br \/>\npublication of\tsuch notification&#8221;.  Thus. by  section 3(4),<br \/>\nonce a\tnotification is\t issued under  section 3(3), all the<br \/>\nprovisions of  the Act\tcome into  force.  That\t means\tthat<br \/>\nsections 81  and 83, which are a part of the act, would also<br \/>\napply to  the  entire  Municipal  area.\t It  would  then  be<br \/>\nobligatory for\tthe municipality  to  follow  the  procedure<br \/>\nprescribed in these sections. Taxes can be imposed under the<br \/>\nAct only  by passing  appropriate resolutions  under section\n<\/p>\n<p>81. Section 3(4) does not provide that on the inclusion of a<br \/>\nnew area  within a  municipality, the  resolutions passed by<br \/>\nthe   municipal\t  council   before   such   inclusion\twill<br \/>\nautomatically apply  to the  new   area. Plainly, such could<br \/>\nnot be the intention of the legislature in<br \/>\n(1) [1972] 1 S.C.R. 127.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">551<\/span><\/p>\n<p>view of the importance which it has attached to the right of<br \/>\nthe citizens  to object to the imposition of a proposed tax.<br \/>\nThough, therefore,  by reason of section 3(4) the provisions<br \/>\nof the\tAct would  apply to  the new areas included within a<br \/>\nmunicipality, it  is not  competent to\tthe municipality  to<br \/>\ntake resourse  to the  resolution passed for imposing tax on<br \/>\nthe old areas for the purpose of levying taxes on new areas.<br \/>\nThe procedure  prescribed by  section  81  and\t83  must  be<br \/>\nfollowed if a tax is proposed to be levied on the new areas.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For these\treasons we  confirm the judgment rendered by<br \/>\nthe Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss this appeal<br \/>\nwith costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">552<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 2172, 1976 SCR (1) 544 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. PETITIONER: VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. RESPONDENT: KANDREGULA NUKARAJU &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/08\/1975 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN CITATION: [&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-191097","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>Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - 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\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-30T03:23:04+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-30T03:23:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2893,\"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\\\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975\",\"name\":\"Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-30T03:23:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - 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\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-30T03:23:04+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975","datePublished":"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-30T03:23:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975"},"wordCount":2893,"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\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975","name":"Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-30T03:23:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visakhapatnam-municipality-vs-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-on-29-august-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju &amp; Ors on 29 August, 1975"}]},{"@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\/191097","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=191097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}