{"id":195973,"date":"1995-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995"},"modified":"2018-02-27T00:42:44","modified_gmt":"2018-02-26T19:12:44","slug":"sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995","title":{"rendered":"Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr … vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr … vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 209, \t\t 1995 SCC (2) 452<\/div>\n
Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSRI BAGAWATI TEA ESTATES LTD. & ANR ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA  & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/02\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nSEN, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR  209\t\t  1995 SCC  (2) 452\n JT 1995 (2)   274\t  1995 SCALE  (1)429\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
1.   The  Kerala  Private Forests (Vesting  and\t Assignment)
\nAct,  (Act  26\tof  197\t 1  )  was  enacted  by\t the  Kerala
\nLegislature to acquire forest lands held on janmam right  as
\na  measure of agrarian reform.\tThe Act did not provide\t for
\nany compensation being paid  to the owners of these  private
\nforests.   The\tforest lands so vesting in  government\twere
\nintended  to  be  assigned to  landless\t agriculturists\t and
\nagricultural labourers for cultivation.\t Sub-section (1)  of
\nSection 10 says that the government shall first reserve such
\nextent of the private forests vesting in the government\t un-
\nder  the  Act  as may be  necessary  for  purposes  directed
\ntowards\t the promotion of agriculture or the welfare of\t the
\nagricultural  population or for purposes ancillary  thereto.
\nBalance\t extent\t of the vested private forests\twere  to  be
\nassigned   on\tregistry   or\tlease\tto   agriculturists,
\nagricultural  labourers,  members of  Scheduled\t Castes\t and
\nScheduled  Tribes who are willing to take up agriculture  as
\nmeans  of their livelihood and other categories\t of  persons
\nmentioned therein.  Section 11 expected that such assignment
\n“shall,\t as far as may, be completed within two\t years\tfrom
\nthe date of publication of this Act in the Gazette”\n<\/p>\n
2.   Soon after the Act was made, which had  the  effect  of
\nvesting the ownership and     possession of private  forests
\nin the government, the affected owners filed writ  petitions
\nin  the\t Kerala High Court  challenging\t the  constitutional
\nvalidity of the enactment.  A Full Bench of the Kerala\tHigh
\nCourt  struck  down  the Act holding it to  be\toutside\t the
\nprotective  umbrella of Article 3 1 A of  the  Constitution,
\nwhich  decision\t is reported in A.I.R. 1973  Kerala  63.  He
\nState  of Kerala questioned the said judgment in this  court
\nwhich,\tby its judgment and order dated September 18,  1973,
\nallowed\t the appeals, set aside the judgment of\t the  Kerala
\nHigh  Court and upheld the validity of the  enactment.\t The
\ndecision  of this court is reported in State of\t Kerala\t and
\nAnother\t v. Gwalior Rayons Silk Manufacturing Company<\/a>  (1974
\n(1) S.C.R.671). The main judgment of the Constitution  Bench
\nwas  delivered by Palekar,J., while V.R.Krishna Iyer,j.\t de-
\nlivered a separate concurring judgment.\n<\/p>\n
3.   After  the\t judgment of this court, the  Government  of
\nKerala\tconstituted  a\tcommittee  comprising  certain\thigh
\nofficials  to  study  the  forest  areas  and  to  formulate
\nguidelines for the assignment of the vested forests.   After
\nreceiving  the report of the said committee, the  government
\nsays, it started the process of assignment.  It is
\n277<\/span>
\nstated in the counter-affidavit that out of a total area  of
\n2,26,975  hectares vesting in the government under the\tAct,
\n4000  hectares has been given to tribals,  cooperatives\t and
\nagricultural  reforms  and  an\tadditional  area  of   6,878
\nhectares has been handed over to the revenue department\t for
\nbeing distributed.  An extent of 8000 hectares is said to be
\nunder the possession of encroachers.\n<\/p>\n
4.   While   so,   the\t Parliament   enacted\tthe   Forest
\n(Conservation) Act, 1980 by virtue of Entry 17A of  List-III
\nof  the\t Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.\t It  may  be
\nrecalled  that the subject-matter of forests was  originally
\nin List-II but by virtue of the 42nd (Amendment) Act to\t the
\nConstitution,  it was deleted from List-II and\tinserted  in
\nList-III.   Section  2\tof  the\t Forest\t (Conservation)\t Act
\nprovides  that “(N)otwithstanding anything contained in\t any
\nother  law for the time being in force in a State, no  State
\nGovernment  or other authority shall make, except  with\t the
\nprior\tapproval  of  the  Central  Government,\t any   order
\ndirecting  (i) that any reserved forest (within the  meaning
\nof the expression “reserved forest’ in any law for the\ttime
\nbeing in force in that State) or any portion thereof,  shall
\ncease  to  be  reserved; (ii) that any forest  land  or\t any
\nportion\t thereof  may be used for any  non-forest  purpose”.
\nThe  explanation to Section 2 says that for the\t purpose  of
\nSection\t 2  ‘non  -forest purposes’  means  breaking  up  or
\nclearing  of  any  forest land or portion  thereof  for\t any
\npurpose\t other than reafforestation.  The enactment  of\t the
\nConservation  Act certainly placed an hurdle in the  way  of
\nthe  implementation  of\t the objectives of  the\t Kerala\t Act
\ninasmuch  as  one of the main objectives was  assignment  of
\nsaid  forest  land  for cultivation  and  cultivation  meant
\nclearance’  of\tforest growth – and no\tsuch  clearance\t was
\npossible   without  the\t prior\tapproval  of   the   Central
\nGovernment.   No  doubt, the forest land could\tprobably  be
\nassigned as such, i.e., with the forest growth but this\t was
\nnot  done.   In the year 1988, the  Parliament\tamended\t the
\nForest (Conservation) Act prohibiting the leasing of  forest
\nland or any portion thereof to any private person or to\t any
\nauthority, corporation, agency or any other Organisation not
\nowned,\tmanaged\t or  controlled\t by  the  government.\t The
\nexplanation  to\t Section 2 was also substituted\t which\tsays
\ninter alia that ‘non-forest purpose’ means any purpose other
\nthan reafforestation.  Be that as it may,, the fact  remains
\nthat the private forests acquired under the Kerala Act could
\nnot be reserved or assigned so far, as contemplated by\tSec-
\ntion  IO  of the Act, except assignment of a  small  portion
\nmentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Having failed to challenge successfully the validity of
\nthe  Act, some of the affected owners applied for  exemption
\nof certain portions of the private forests under Section  3.
\nTheir  applications were rejected against which\t they  filed
\nappeals\t which too were dismissed.  Some of them  approached
\nthis  court  by way of Special\tLeave Petitions\t which\twere
\ndismissed.  It is then that some of them have come.  forward
\nwith these writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The relief sought for by the petitioners in these\twrit
\npetitions  is  for  a declaration that\tthe  Kerala  Act  is
\nunconstitutional  and for a direction restraining the  State
\nof Kerala and its officers from enforcing the provisions  of
\nthe  said Act with respect to the private forests  owned  by
\nthem  prior to their vesting in the government.\t It is\talso
\nprayed\tthat  the  possession  of  the\tprivate\t forests  be
\nrestored to the
\n\t\t\t    278<\/span>
\nerstwhile owners.  The main ground urged in support of these
\nwrit  petitions\t is this: the Act is a measure\tof  agrarian
\nreform; because it was supposed to be a measure of  agrarian
\nreform,\t it  was  held protected by Article 3  1  A  of\t the
\nConstitution  though it provided no compensation  whatsoever
\nto  the deprived owners.  The Act contemplates\tdistribution
\nof  the forest lands so acquired to specified categories  of
\npersons for the purposes of cultivation.  Though a period of
\nmore  than twenty years has elapsed since the said  Act\t was
\nenforced,  the\tforest\tlands  have  not  been\tassigned  as
\ncontemplated by Section 10, except perhaps a minor  portion.
\nThe  government\t is deriving income from the  forest  wealth
\njust as the owners were doing prior to their vesting in\t the
\ngovernment.   In  other words, the government is  using\t the
\nsaid  forest  lands for augmenting its income.\t It  is\t not
\nreally\tinterested in distribution\/assignment of  the  land.
\nMoreover,  with the enactment of the  Forest  (Conservation)
\nAct,  1980,  the assignment of the forest  land\t has  become
\nimpossible.   It  is  idle  to\tpresume\t that  that  Central
\nGovernment would permit the clearance of such vast tracts of
\nforests.  Since clearance of forest growth from such a large
\nextent\tof land would affect the ecology and environment  of
\nthe  State, the Central Government would never agree to\t it,
\nwhich  means  that the object of the  enactment\t has  become
\nimpossible to achieve.\tSince the main objective of the\t Act
\nhas  failed,  the entire Act falls and the  private  forests
\nmust  be restored to their erstwhile owners.  The  inclusion
\nof  the\t Act in the Ninth Schedule to the  Constitution\t (at
\nSl.No.146) by Constitution 40th (Amendment) Act, does in  no
\nmanner\tstand in the way of the above submission.  Not\tonly
\nhas it been included in the Ninth schedule by a post-Bharati
\nAmendment  Act, the protection afforded by Article 3 1 B  is
\nno answer to the submission of the petitioners.\t The counsel
\nfor the petitions submitted further that the Kerala Act\t and
\nthe  Forest (Conservation) Act are repugnant to\t each  other
\nand  that  in  any event until the  prior  approval  of\t the
\nCentral Government is granted, the inconsistency remains.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Section  3\t of  the Kerala Act vests  all\tthe  private
\nforests in the State in the government on the appointed day.
\n“Appointed  day” means 10th day of May, 1971 as\t per  clause\n<\/p>\n
(a)  of\t Section  2.  The  constitutional  validity  of\t the
\nenactment  was\tquestioned by the affected owners  but\tthey
\nfailed\tultimately as stated hereinbefore.  The decision  of
\nthis court upholding the validity of the Act was rendered in
\nSeptember 1973.\t Having waited for about sixteen years, some
\nof the owners have come forward with the present writ  peti-
\ntions  again  impugning the constitutional validity  of\t the
\nsaid  enactment, no doubt on a different ground.   The\tmain
\nground\tnow  urged, in substance, is that  inasmuch  as\t the
\nacquired forest lands have not been assigned as contemplated
\nby  Section 10 of the Act inspite of more than twenty  years
\nhaving\telapsed, the main objective of the Act\thas  failed.
\nIt is submitted that the, enactment of Forest (Conservation)
\nAct by the Parliament in the year, 1980 and its\t  subsequent
\namendment in 1988 has made the achievement of the  objective
\nof  the Act impossible.\t In other words, they say,  the\t Act
\nhas  failed as a measure of agrarian reform.  It has  turned
\nout  to\t be  a mere and sheer measure  of  expropriation  of
\nprivate property.  The Act incorporates a composite  scheme;
\nif  one part falls, the whole scheme\/enactment fails, it  is
\nsubmitted.  It\tdoes not even appear, say the counsel for
\n279<\/span>
\nthe  petitioners,  that the Government of  Kerala  had\tever
\napplied\t for  the prior approval of the\t Central  Government
\nunder Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which
\nfact  according to them establishes that the  government  is
\nnever minded to enforce the Act.  Since it is sitting pretty
\nupon the forest wealth and deriving income therefrom, it has
\nno  inclination\t to distribute the land, they  say.   Strong
\nreliance  is placed upon the following observations  in\t the
\nopinion of Krishna Iyer,J. in Gwalior Rayons:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  may,\t however,  point out  here  that  in
\n\t      ascertaining  whether the\t impugned  enactment
\n\t      outlines\ta blueprint for agrarian reform\t the
\n\t      Court  will  look\t to  the  substance  of\t the
\n\t      statutory\t proposal and not its  mere  outward
\n\t      form.  The Court will closely study to see  if
\n\t      the  legislation\tmerely\twears  the  mask  of
\n\t      agrarian\treform or it is in reality such.   A
\n\t      label  cannot  salvage  a\t statute  from\t the
\n\t      clutches of constitutional limitations if\t the
\n\t      agrarian reform envisaged by it is “a  teasing
\n\t      illusion or promise of unreality”.  The  Court
\n\t      should not be too gullible to accept a  scheme
\n\t      of  agrarian reform when it is nothing  but  a
\n\t      verbal  subterfuge, but at the same  time\t the
\n\t      Court should not be too astute to reject\tsuch
\n\t      a scheme because it is not satisfied with\t the
\n\t      wisdom   of  the\tscheme\tor   its   technical
\n\t      soundness.    Can\t the  State  take  over\t  an
\n\t      industrial  unit\tor  a  business\t undertaking
\n\t      without payment of compensation and claim\t the
\n\t      protection  of  art.31A by  stating  that\t the
\n\t      profit  arising from such industrial  unit  or
\n\t      business\tundertaking  would be  utilised\t for
\n\t      purposes directed to agriculture or welfare of
\n\t      the  rural  population?  Such  an\t acquisition
\n\t      would  obviously\tnot be\tan  acquisition\t for
\n\t      carrying\tout  a\tscheme\tof  agrarian  reform
\n\t      because there will be no direct nexus  between
\n\t      the    subject-matter   acquired\t  and\t its
\n\t      utilisation for agrarian reform.\tIt would not
\n\t      be enough merely to say that the income of the
\n\t      property\tacquired  is  to  be  utilised\t for
\n\t      purposes\tof  agrarian reform.   The  property
\n\t      itself must be acquired for carrying out\tsuch
\n\t      a\t reform.  This requirement is  satisfied  in
\n\t      the present case because forest lands reserved
\n\t      under  s. 10 are to be utilised “for  purposes
\n\t      directed\tto the promotion of  agriculture  or
\n\t      for the welfare of the agricultural population
\n\t      or for purposes ancillary thereto.” We do\t not
\n\t      think it would have been sufficient merely  to
\n\t      provide  that the income from the\t produce  of
\n\t      the forests shall be utilised for promotion of
\n\t      agriculture or the welfare of the agricultural
\n\t      population,  but the forest lands need not  be
\n\t      so  utilised.  That would have been  merely  a
\n\t      devise  for  augmenting the  revenues  of\t the
\n\t      State   though  with  a  direction  that\tsuch
\n\t      addition to the revenue shall be expended only
\n\t      on purposes of promotion of agriculture or the
\n\t      welfare  of the agricultural population.\t But
\n\t      here  it is clear on a reading of s.  IO\tthat
\n\t      the  forests and not merely the income are  to
\n\t      be   devoted  to\tor  directed   towards\t the
\n\t      promotion of agriculture or the welfare of the
\n\t      agricultural population or for ancillary\tuses
\n\t      closely  related\tto  agrarian   reform.\t The
\n\t      details  of the scheme of\t agrarian reform  to
\n\t      which the acquired forests would be  subjected
\n\t      cannot  obviously be embodied in\tthe  statute
\n\t      and  they\t are left to be\t provided  by  rules
\n\t      which  are  to  be made under s.\t17  for\t the
\n\t      purpose of carrying out the provisions of\t the
\n\t      statute.\tNo rules could so far be made by the
\n\t      State  Government, it is said,  because  there
\n\t      was  a stay against the implementation of\t the
\n\t      Act  when\t the petition was  pending  in\t the
\n\t      Kerala  High Court and thereafter the Act\t was
\n\t      declared\tto  be ultra vires and void  by\t the
\n\t      judgment\tof  the Kerala High Court  which  is
\n\t      under  appeal before us.\tNow that the Act  is
\n\t      being  declared  by  us  as   constitutionally
\n\t      valid, the State Government will have to\tmake
\n\t      rules  setting  out the precise  programme  of
\n\t      agrarian\treform\twhich  is  intended  to\t  be
\n\t      carried out.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      280<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Counsel for the forest owners has expressed an
\n\t      apprehension   before   us  that\t the   State
\n\t      Government  may keep the forests as  they\t arc
\n\t      for  a long number of years and namely  go  on
\n\t      augmenting  the  revenues\t of  the  state\t  by
\n\t      cutting and selling timber growing on them and
\n\t      thereby  defeat  the  rationale  of  art.\t 3lA
\n\t      itself But there is no basis or  justification
\n\t      for  this apprehension because we are  of\t the
\n\t      view  that the agrarian project would have  to
\n\t      be  spelt out concretely by the State  Govern-
\n\t      ment within the prescribed period of two
\n\t       years  or at  any rate  within  a  reasonable
\n\t      time  thereafter.\t  If  the  State  Government
\n\t      merely  goes  on making money by\tcutting\t and
\n\t      selling  the  timber  grown  on  the   forests
\n\t      without implementing the definite proposals of
\n\t      agrarian reform contemplated in s. IO within a
\n\t      reasonable  period  of  time, it\twould  be  a
\n\t      subversion  of the statute and in such a\tcase
\n\t      it would be competent to the aggrieved parties
\n\t      to  take legal action compelling the State  to
\n\t      make good the statutory promise and to act  in
\n\t      terms of s. IO and if the forests are diverted
\n\t      for  uses outside the scope of s.10 the  court
\n\t      could  restrain the State from such  illegiti-
\n\t      mate adventures.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the
\npetitioners.   While we see the force of the  argument\tthat
\nthe Government of Kerala has, to a large extent, failed.  in
\ncarrying out the objectives of the enactment as contemplated
\nby  Section  10,  we see no ground  for\t holding  that\tsuch
\nfailure\t of the government renders the enactment  void.\t  It
\nhas never been held by any court that failure to fully carry
\nout  the  objectives of an enactment renders  the  enactment
\nvoid or unconstitutional.  There is no such principle  known
\nto  law.   We are equally unable to agree  that\t the  Forest
\n(Conservation) Act has made the Kerala Act unworkable.\t The
\nConservation Act does not prohibit the clearance of  forests
\naltogether.   All  that it says is that\t no  such  clearance
\nshall  take place without the prior approval of the  Central
\nGovernment.   The  bar is not absolute\tone  but  qualified.
\nEven  the 1988 Amendment to Forest (Conservation)  Act\tdoes
\nnot make the implementation of the State Act impossible.  It
\nmay  be\t remembered  that Section 10  does  not\t contemplate
\nassignment  or distribution of entire private  forest  lands
\n(vesting in the government under the Act) but only a portion
\nof  it.\t  First, it requires the government  to\t reserve  an
\nappropriate  portion  of the acquired forests  for  purposes
\ndirected  towards  the promotion of  agriculture  and  other
\nmatters\t mentioned  therein.  The remaining land has  to  be
\ngiven\tout   on  lease\t or  registry  to   individuals\t  or
\ncooperatives.  All this can still be done without  violating
\nthe provisions of the Act.  It is also not possible to agree
\nwith   the  submission\tOf  the\t learned  counsel  for\t the
\npetitioners that the Central Government is bound to  decline
\nprior approval under Section 2 of the Forest  (Conservation)
\nAct.  We cannot decide for the Central Government nor can we
\npresume so and invalidate the Act on that ground.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Indeed, the very observations in the opinion of Krishna
\nIyer,J.\t in  Gwalior Rayons, quoted  hereinbefore,  militate
\nagainst\t the  contention of the\t petitioners.\tThe  learned
\nJudge  observed\t that  if  the\tState  Government  fails  in
\ncarrying   out\tthe  provisions\t of  Section  10  within   a
\nreasonable  period, it would be competent to  the  aggrieved
\nparties\t to take legal action compelling the State  to\tmake
\ngood  the statutory promise and to act in terms\t of  Section
\n10″.  The petitioners cannot be treated as aggrieved parties
\ncontemplated  by  the learned Judge.  In  the  context,\t the
\nexpression means those persons who stand to
\n281<\/span>
\ngain  if  the  forest  land  is\t reserved  or  assigned\t  as
\ncontemplated  by  Section IO.  The learned  Judge  had\talso
\nobserved that “if the forests are diverted for uses  outside
\nthe scope of Section 10, the court could restrain the  State
\nfrom such illegitimate adventures” All that can be done,  if
\na  proper  party  comes\t to court, will\t be  to\t direct\t the
\nGovernment  of Kerala to make good the statutory promise  by
\nacting in terms of Section 10.\n<\/p>\n
10.We must also mention that the counsel for the petitioners
\ncould not bring to our notice any decision of this Court  or
\nof any other Court where such acquisition was invalidated on
\nthe ground that the objects of acquisition were not achieved
\nwithin\ta reasonable period or that  permission\/approval  of
\nsome other authority has to be obtained before taking  steps
\nfor implementation of its objectives.\n<\/p>\n
11.Learned  counsel for the petitioners relied upon  certain
\nobservations  in  Bhim\tSinghji\t v.  Union  of\tIndia<\/a>  (1985
\nSuppl.S.C.R.862) to say that inclusion in the Ninth Schedule
\ndoes  not save an Act if it damages the basic  structure  of
\nthe Constitution.  We see no relevance of those observations
\nherein, in view of what we have said hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
12.For\tthe above reasons, the writ petitions fall  and\t are
\ndismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 1986:\n<\/p>\n
13.This\t appeal\t is preferred against the  judgment  of\t the
\nKerala\tHigh Court allowing a review petition filed  by\t the
\nState and setting aside its earlier judgment dated August 3,
\n1983.\n<\/p>\n
14.  The appellant states that he entered into an  agreement
\non  August 7, 1963 with the karta and the senior members  of
\nthe  Venkunadu Kovilkam to take on lease 550 acres  of\tland
\nbelonging  to  the  said Kovilkam  in  janmam,\tsituated  in
\nNeelamala  Palghat  district.  He says that he, was  put  in
\npossession of the entire extent and that he raised coffee on
\n215 acres and Cardamom on 225 acres before May 10, 1971, the
\ndate  on which the Kerala Forests (Vesting  and\t Assignment)
\nAct,  1971 came into force, The appellant further says\tthat
\nhe  has\t been  paying land tax and basic tax  for  the\tsaid
\nplantation  from  1974 onwards, i.e., after  the  plantation
\nstarted\t yielding.   Contending\t that the  said\t extent\t had
\nvested\tin  the government under Section 2 of  the  Act,  he
\nsays, the authorities encroached upon the said extent where-
\nupon  he instituted O.A.139 of 1977 under Section 8  of\t the
\nAct before the appropriate Tribunal.  His contention  before
\nthe  Tribunal  was that the said land did not  vest  in\t the
\ngovernment  under Section 3 for the reason that well  before
\nthe  date of coming into force of the Act it had ceased\t  to
\nbe a private forest within the meaning of Section 2(f).\t  By
\nits order dated May 25, 1981, the Forest Tribunal upheld the
\nappellant’s claim against which the State of Kerala filed an
\nappeal,\t M.F.A.No.1  of\t 1982 before the  High\tCourt.\t The
\nDivision Bench which heard the appeal dismissed the same  on
\nAugust 3, 1983 affirming the findings of the Tribunal.\t One
\nof  the contentions urged by the State before  the  Division
\nBench  was  that  the said agreement of\t lease\thaving\tbeen
\nentered\t into  without obtaining previous  sanction  of\t the
\nCollector, as required by the Madras Preservation of Private
\nForests\t Act, the lease is not only void but the  said\tfact
\nalso  establishes  that the alleged agreement of  lease\t and
\ndelivery of possession pleaded by the
\n282<\/span>
\nappellant  is not true.\t This argument was rejected  by\t the
\nDivision Bench relying upon A-20, the report of the receiver
\nappointed  in O.S.1\/64 on the file of the  learned  District
\nJudge,\tPalghat\t and upon the recitals in the  formal  lease
\ndeed Exh.A21 executed pursuant to the agreement of lease  in
\nthe year 1973.\tIn addition to the above, the Division Bench
\nalso relied upon Exh.A-8, the rent receipt dated November 9,
\n1963  issued  by  the  Kariastha  of  the  Kovilkam  to\t the
\nappellant.  He Bench held that the appellant had indeed come
\ninto  possession of the said land on August 7, 1963 and\t had
\nalso converted the said extent into plantation prior to\t May
\n10,  1971.   This  order  became  final,  not  having\tbeen
\nquestioned by the State in this Court or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
15.On  November 18, 1983, the Governor of Kerala  issued  an
\nordinance  being Ordinance No.39 of 1983 amending Section  8
\nof the Act and inserting new Sections 8-B, 8-C and 8-D after
\nSection 8-A in the Principal Act.  Section 8-B extended\t the
\nperiod of limitation for the State to apply for review of  a
\njudgment  rendered by the Tribunal on the grounds  specified
\ntherein.    Section  8-C(3),  which  is\t relevant  for\t our
\npurposes, extended the period of limitation for the State to
\napply for review of judgment delivered by the High Court  on
\nthe  grounds  specified therein.  For the  purpose  of\tthis
\ncase, it is enough to notice sub-section (3) of Section 8-C.
\nIt reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(3)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in
\n\t      this  Act\t or  in\t the  Limitation  Act,\t1963
\n\t      (Central Act 36 of 1963), or in any other\t law
\n\t      for  the\ttime  being  in\t force,\t or  in\t any
\n\t      judgment,\t decree\t or order of  any  Court  or
\n\t      other  authority, the Government, if they\t are
\n\t      satisfied\t that  any judgment or\torder  other
\n\t      than  an order referred to in  subsection\t (2)
\n\t      passed  by the High Court in  any\t proceeding,
\n\t      relates to any land which is a private  forest
\n\t      and  that\t such  judgment or  order  has\tbeen
\n\t      passed due to suppression or misrepresentation
\n\t      of  facts\t or due to the\tfailure\t to  produce
\n\t      relevant data or other particulars or that  an
\n\t      appeal  against such judgment or\torder  could
\n\t      not  be  filed  by  reason  of  the  delay  in
\n\t      applying for and, obtaining an certified\tcopy
\n\t      of  such\tjudgment or order, may,\t within\t six
\n\t      months  from  the commencement of\t the  Kerala
\n\t      Private\tForests\t (Vesting  and\t Assignment)
\n\t      Amendment Ordinance, 1983, make an application
\n\t      to the High Court for review of such  judgment
\n\t      or order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t   (Quoted from the Paper Book)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.\tIt is brought to our notice that after the lapse  of
\nthe  original ordinance, successive ordinances\twere  issued
\nfrom time to time.  Be that as it may, taking advantage,  of
\nSection\t 8-C(3),  the State of Kerala filed a  petition\t for
\nreviewing  the\tjudgment of the High Court dated  August  3,
\n1983.\tIt was posted before Thommen,J., who was one of\t the
\ntwo  members of the Division Bench which had  dismissed\t the
\nappeal\ton  August 3, 1983.  The learned Judge\tallowed\t the
\nreview\tpetition and restored the appeal to file  under\t the
\nimpugned order dated September 17, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
17.A reading of Section 8-C(3) shows that the High Court can
\nreview its order on any of the following three grounds:
\n(1)\tthat such judgment or order has been passed  due  to
\nsuppression or misrepresentation of facts;
\n(2)that\t such judgment or order has been passed due  to\t the
\nfailure to produce relevant data or other particulars; or
\n(3)  that an appeal against such judg-\n<\/p>\n
283<\/span><\/p>\n
ment  or order could not be filed by reason of the delay  in
\napplying for or obtaining a certified copy of such  judgment
\nor order.\n<\/p>\n
18.  The review petition filed by the State  was based\tupon
\nthe second ground, viz., failure  of  the State\t to  produce
\nrelevant  data\tor other particulars,  a  fact\tspecifically
\nnoted  in  the very first paragraph of the  impugned  order.
\nThe  contention\t urged on behalf of the\t Government  Pleader
\nbefore the learned Judge was that it was not brought to\t the
\nnotice\tof  the High Court that prior to  the  execution  of
\nExh.A-5\t in 1963. the sanction of the District Collector  as
\nrequired  under\t Section  3 of the  Madras  Preservation  of
\nPrivate\t Forests  Act had not been  obtained.\tThe  learned
\nJudge  took note of the fact that this contention was  urged
\nbefore\tthe Division Bench when it heard the appeal and\t had
\nrejected  it.\tEven so the learned  Judge  observed,  after
\nnoticing Section 3 of the Madras Act, that according to\t the
\nsaid provision any alienation without the previous  sanction
\nof the District Collector is null and void and that the said
\ncircumstance  raises  several questions\t for  consideration,
\nviz.,  whether the agreement-of lease amounts to  alienation
\nwithin the meaning of Section 3 of the Madras Act and if  so
\nwhether\t it was entered into with the previous\tsanction  of
\nthe  Collector and further whether such\t alienation  without
\nsuch previous permisSion can constitute a foundation for ex-
\ncluding\t the  land from the purview of the  Kerala  Act\t and
\ncertain\t other questions.  What is of relevance is that\t the
\nlearned Judge did not say or find that the order of the High
\nCourt  was made, or vitiated, due to the failure to  produce
\nrelevant data or other particulars.  Indeed, no such data or
\nparticulars were placed before the Court by the State in the
\nreview petition.  On the same material, which was on  record
\nin the appeal, the impugned order has been made.  We are  of
\nthe  opinion  that  the words “due  to\tfailure\t to  produce
\nrelevant data or other particulars” mean what they say.\t  It
\nmust  be a failure to produce relevant data or\tparticulars;
\nit cannot mean a mere change of opinion on the same material
\nor on the same evidence.  We are, therefore, of the  opinion
\nthat  the ground on which the review petition was filed\t was
\nnot made out and hence the order dated August 3, 1983  could
\nnot have been reviewed and set aside.  It is true that under
\nthe impugned order the learned Judge has merely restored the
\nappeal to file after setting aside the order dated August 3,
\n1983,  which meant that appeal is yet to be heard,  but,  in
\nour  opinion,  the  very setting aside of  the\torder  dated
\nAugust\t3, 1983 was not called for until and unless  one  or
\nthe other ground specified by statute is made out.\n<\/p>\n
19.  In\t view of the above, it is not necessary to  consider
\nthe other question raised in this appeal, viz., the validity
\nof   the  successive  ordinances  inserting  the   aforesaid
\nsections in the Kerala Act.\n<\/p>\n
20.  Accordingly,  we  allow the appeal and  set  aside\t the
\nimpugned  judgment and restore the judgment of the  Division
\nBench  dated  August  3, 1983.\tIt is  made  clear  that  if
\npursuant to the order impugned herein, any orders are passed
\nin the appeal, whether interim or final, they shall  equally
\nstand set aside.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
285<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr … vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 209, 1995 SCC (2) 452 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: SRI BAGAWATI TEA ESTATES LTD. & ANR ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & […]<\/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-195973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr ... vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995 - 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\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr ... vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-26T19:12:44+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr … vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-26T19:12:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995\"},\"wordCount\":4536,\"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\\\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995\",\"name\":\"Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr ... vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-26T19:12:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr … vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr ... vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995 - 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\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr ... vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-26T19:12:44+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr … vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995","datePublished":"1995-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-26T19:12:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995"},"wordCount":4536,"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\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995","name":"Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr ... vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-26T19:12:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-bagawati-tea-estates-ltd-anr-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-3-february-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Bagawati Tea Estates Ltd. & Anr … vs Government Of India & Ors on 3 February, 1995"}]},{"@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\/195973","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=195973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}