{"id":204122,"date":"1961-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961"},"modified":"2018-07-30T10:18:07","modified_gmt":"2018-07-30T04:48:07","slug":"raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961","title":{"rendered":"Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition … on 30 March, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition … on 30 March, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1500, \t\t 1962 SCR (1) 676<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJA HARISH CHANDRA RAJ SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE DEPUTY LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n30\/03\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1500\t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 676\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1963 SC1604\t (1,5)\n D\t    1969 SC 323\t (8)\n RF\t    1970 SC 214\t (13)\n R\t    1974 SC 923\t (45A)\n R\t    1975 SC2085\t (9)\n RF\t    1976 SC2101\t (11)\n RF\t    1979 SC 404\t (17)\n R\t    1980 SC  15\t (1)\n R\t    1980 SC 775\t (11)\n APL\t    1981 SC 427\t (5)\n R\t    1986 SC1164\t (5)\n RF\t    1986 SC1805\t (5)\n D\t    1989 SC 239\t (3,4,5)\n RF\t    1991 SC2141\t (10)\n\n\nACT:\nLimitation-Land\t Acquisition-Award  by\tCollector-Notice  Of\naward not given-Application for reference to Court-Time\t for\nmaking-Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), s. r8.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nCertain\t lands belonging to the appellant were\tcompulsorily\nacquired.   The Collector made an award with respect to\t the\namount of compensation, signed and filed it in his office as\nrequired by S. 12(1) Land Acquisition Act on March 19, 1950.\nBut  no\t notice of the award, as required by s.\t 12(2),\t was\ngiven  to the appellant.  The appellant came to know of\t the\naward  on  or about January 13, 1953, and  on  February\t 24,\n1953, he filed an application under s. 18 requiring that the\nmatter be referred for the determination of the Court.\t The\nproviso to s. 18 prescribes that in cases where a person was\nnot present or represented at the time of the making of\t the\naward  the application under s. 18 shall be made within\t six\nweeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector  under\ns. 12(2), or \"within six months from the date of the award\",\nwhichever  shall expire first.\tThe appellant's\t application\nwas dismissed as time barred on the ground that it was\tmade\nbeyond six months of the date of the award.\nHeld, that the application made by the appellant under s. 18\nof the Act was not beyond time.\t The award of the  Collector\nwas not a decision but an offer of compensation on behalf of\nthe  Government to the owner of the property and it was\t not\neffective  until  it  was communicated to  the\towner.\t The\nmaking\tof the award did not consist merely in the  physical\nact  of writing the award or signing it or filing it in\t the\noffice of the Collector; it also involved the  communication\nof the award to the owner either actually or constructively.\nConsequently, the expression \"the date of the award\" in\t the\nproviso\t to  s.\t 18  meant  the\t date  when  the  award\t was\ncommunicated to the owner or is known by him either actually\nor constructively.  The application in the present case\t was\nmade within six months of the date when the appellants\tcame\nto know of the award and was within the period prescribed.\nEzra v. The Secretary of State, (1903) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 36 and\nEzra v. Secretary of State for India, (1905) I.L.R. 32\tCal,\n605, applied.\nMagdonald  v. The Secretary of State for India\tin  Council,\n(1905)\t4  Ind.\t C. 914 and Hari Das Pal  v.  The  Municipal\nBoard, Lucknow, (1914) 22 Ind.\tC. 652, approved.\n\t\t\t    677\nJahangir Bemanji v. G.\tD. Gaikwad, A.I.R. 1954 Bom. 419 and\nState of Travancore Cochin v. Narayani Amma Ponnamma, A.I.R.\n1958 Kerala 272, disapproved.\nO.   A.\t O.  A. M. Muthia Chettiar v.  The  Commissioner  of\nIncome-tax,  Madras, I.L.R.<\/a> 195i Mad. 815, Annamalai  Chetti\nv.  Col. T. G. The Cloeta, (1883) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 189. and  E.\nV. E. Swaminathan.The Alias Chidambaram Pillai v. Letchmanan\nChettiar, (1930) I.L.R.Acqu 53 Mad. 491, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 25 and  26
\nof 1958.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated August 7,  1956,
\nof the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 151\t and
\n152 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
C.   B.\t Agarwala, A. N. Goyal and Mohan Lal  Agarwala,\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Gopi Nath Dikshit and C. P. Lal, for the respondents.
\n1961.  March 30.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-These two appeals arise out Gajen, of two
\nwrit  petitions filed by the appellant Raja  Harish  Chandra
\nRaj   Singh   against  the  respondents\t the   Deputy\tLand
\nAcquisition Officer and another in the Allahabad High  Court
\nand they were based on the same facts and asked for the same
\nrelief.\t  Both\tof  them raise a short\tcommon\tquestion  of
\nlimitation  the\t decision  of which would  depend  upon\t the
\ndetermination  of the scope and effect of the provisions  of
\nthe  proviso to s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of\t1894
\n(hereafter  called  the Act).  Since the facts in  both\t the
\nappeals\t are  substantially the same we would refer  to\t the
\nfacts in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1958.  The decision in\tthis
\nappeal would govern the decision of the other appeal,  Civil
\nAppeal No. 26 of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\tRaja  Harish  Chandra  Raj  Singh  was\t the
\nproprietor of a village Beljuri in the District of Nainital.
\nIt  appears that proceedings for compulsory  acquisition  of
\nland  including the said village for a public  purpose\twere
\ncommenced  by  respondent  2, the State\t of  Uttar  Pradesh;
\nnotifications  under ss. 4 and 6 of the Act were  issued  in
\nthat behalf, and the
\n678<\/span>
\nprovisions of s. 17 were also made applicable.\tAccordingly,
\nafter  the notice under s. 9(1) of the Act  was\t   published
\npossession  of land was taken by the Collector on March\t 19,
\n1960.\t Thereupon  the\t appellant  filed   his\t  claim\t  to
\ncompensation  for the land acquired in\t  accordance with s.
\n9(2),\tand  proceedings  were\theld  by  the  Deputy\tLand
\nAcquisition  Officer,  respondent  1,  for  determining\t the
\namount\t of   compensation.   It  appears  that\t  in   these
\nproceedings  an\t award\twas made, signed and  filed  in\t his
\noffice by respondent I on March 25, 1951.  No notice of this
\naward was, however, given to the appellant as required by s.
\n12(2)  and it was only on or about January 13, 1953 that  he
\nreceived  information  about the making of the\tsaid  award.
\nThe appellant then filed an application on February 24, 1953
\nunder  a. 18 requiring that the matter be referred  for\t the
\ndetermination of the Court, as, according to the  appellant,
\nthe compensation amount determined by respondent I was quite
\ninadequate.  Respondent I took the view that the application
\nthus made by the appellant was beyond time under the proviso
\nto s. 18 and so he rejected it.\t The appellant then filed  a
\nwrit  petition\tin  the Allahabad  High\t Court\ton  December
\n21,1953\t in which he claimed appropriate reliefs in  respect
\nof the order passed by respondent I on his application\tmade
\nunder  a. 18.  This petition was heard by Mehrotra,  J.\t and
\nwas  allowed.\tThe learned Judge directed respondent  1  to
\nconsider the application made by the appellant on the merits
\nand  deal with it in accordance with law.  He held  that  in
\ndealing with the said application respondent 1 should  treat
\nthe application as filed in time.  Against this decision the
\nrespondents  preferred an appeal to a Division Bench of\t the
\nsaid  High  Court.  Mootham, C. J. and Chaturvedi,  J.,\t who
\nheard  this appeal took the view that the application  filed
\nby the appellant under s. 18 of the Act was barred by  time,
\nand  so they allowed the appeal, set aside the order  passed
\nby Mehrotra, J. and dismissed the writ petition filed by the
\nappellant.   The  appellant then moved for  and\t obtained  a
\ncertificate  from  the said High Court and it is  with\tthis
\ncertificate that he has come to this
\n670<\/span>
\nCourt in the present appeal; and so the short question which
\nthe  appellant\traises\tfor  our  decision  is\twhether\t the
\napplication filed by him under s. 18 of the Act( was in time
\nor not.\n<\/p>\n
Before proceeding to construe the material provisions of  s.
\n18  it\tis necessary to refer very briefly  to,\t some  other
\nsections  of  the  Act\twhich  are  relevant  in(  order  to
\nappreciate the background of the scheme in relation to\tland
\nacquisition   proceedings.    Section  4  deals\t  with\t the
\npublication  of the preliminary notification and  prescribes
\nthe powers of the appropriate officers.\t Whenever it appears
\nto  the appropriate Government that land in any locality  is
\nneeded for any public purpose a notification to that  effect
\nshall  be  published in the official gazette  and  a  public
\nnotice of its substance shall be given at convenient  places
\nin  the said locality; that is the effect of s. 4(1).\tSec-
\ntion   4(2)  deals  with  the  powers  of  the\t appropriate
\nauthorities.   Section\t5-A  provides  for  the\t hearing  of
\nobjections filed by persons interested in any land which has
\nbeen notified under s. 4(1).  After the objections are\tthus
\nconsidered a declaration that land is required for a  public
\npurpose\t follows under s. 6(1).\t Section 6(2)  provides\t for
\nthe  publication of the said declaration; and s. 6(3)  makes
\nthe declaration conclusive evidence that the land is  needed
\nfor  a public purpose.\tSection 9 requires the Collector  to
\ngive public notice in the manner specified stating that\t the
\nGovernment intend to take possession of the land and calling
\nfor  claim,% to compensation in respect of all interests  in
\nsuch land.  Section 9(2) prescribes the particulars of\tsuch
\nnotice, and s. 9(3) an 4) provide for the manner of  serving
\nsuch notice.  Section II deals with the enquiry and provides
\nfor the making of the award by the Collector.  Section 12(l)
\nthen  lays  down that the award when made by  the  Collector
\nshall be filed in his office, and shall, except as otherwise
\nprovided,  be final and conclusive evidence as\tbetween\t the
\nCollector  and\tthe  persons interested\t whether  they\thave
\nrespectively  appeared before the Collector or not,  of\t the
\ntrue  area and value of the land, and the  apportionment  of
\nthe compensation
\n680<\/span>
\namong  the persons interested.\tSection 12(2) is  important.
\nIt makes it obligatory on the Collector to give\t   immediate
\nnotice of his award to such of the persons interested as are
\nnot present personally or by their  representatives when the
\naward is made.\tIt is common ground that no such notice\t was
\ngiven by respondent 1 to the appellant.\t That briefly is the
\nscheme\tof  the relevant provisions of Part II of  the,\t Act
\nwhich deals with acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
Part  III which deals with reference to Court and  procedure
\nthereon\t opens with s. 18.  Section 18(1) provides that\t any
\nperson\tinterested  who has not accepted the award  may,  by
\nwritten\t application  to  the Collector,  require  that\t the
\nmatter\tbe referred by him for determination of\t the  Court,
\ninter  alia, whether the amount of compensation is  adequate
\nor not.\t It is under this provision that the appellant\tmade
\nan  application\t from  which  the  present  appeal   arises.
\nSection 18(2) requires that the application shall state\t the
\ngrounds\t on  which objection to the award is  taken.   These
\ngrounds\t  have\t been  stated  by  the\tappellant   in\t his
\napplication.   The proviso to s. 18 deals with the  question
\nof  limitation.\t It prescribes that every  such\t application
\nshall  be  made (a) if the person making it was\t present  or
\nrepresented  before the Collector at the time when  he\tmade
\nhis award within six weeks from the date of the\t Collector’s
\naward; (b) in other cases within six weeks of the receipt of
\nthe notice from the Collector under s. 12(2), or within\t six
\nmonths\tfrom  the date of the  Collector’s  award  whichever
\nshall  first expire.  The appellant’s case falls  under\t the
\nlatter part of el. (b) of the proviso.\tIt has been held  by
\nthe Allahabad High Court that since the application made  by
\nthe appellant before respondent I was made beyond six months
\nfrom  the date of the award in question it was beyond  time.
\nThe  view  taken by the High Court proceeds on\tthe  literal
\nconstruction  of  the relevant clause.\tAs we  have  already
\nseen  the  award was signed and delivered in his  office  by
\nrespondent  1 on March 25, 1951 and the application  by\t the
\nappellant was made under s. 18 on February 24, 1953.  It has
\nbeen held that the effect of the relevant
\n681<\/span>
\nclause\tis  that the application made by  the  appellant  is
\nplainly\t beyond the six months permitted by the said  clause
\nand  so respondent I was right in rejecting it as barred  by
\ntime.  The question which arises for our decision is whether
\nthis  literal and mechanical way of construing the  relevant
\nclause is justified in A law.  It is obvious that the effect
\nof this construction is that if a person does not know about
\nthe making of the award and is himself not to blame for\t not
\nknowing\t about\tthe award his right to make  an\t application
\nunder  s. 18 may in many cases be rendered ineffective.\t  If
\nthe  effect  of the relevant provision unambiguously  is  as
\nheld by the High Court the unfortunate consequence which may
\nflow from it may not have a material or a decisive  bearing.
\nIf, on the other hand, it is possible reasonably to construe
\nthe  said  provision so as to avoid such  a  consequence  it
\nwould  be  legitimate  for  the Court to  do  so.   We\tmust
\ntherefore enquire whether the relevant provision is  capable
\nof  the construction for which the appellant  contends,\t and
\nthat naturally raises the question as to what is the meaning
\nof the expression “the day of the Collector’s award”.
\nIn dealing with this question it is relevant to bear in mind
\nthe legal character of the award made by the Collector under
\ns. 12.\tIn a sense it is a decision of the Collector reached
\nby  him after holding an enquiry as prescribed by  the\tAct.
\nIt  is a decision, inter alia, in respect of the  amount  of
\ncompensation  which should be paid to the person  interested
\nin  the property acquired; but legally the award  cannot  be
\ntreated\t as a decision; it is in law an offer or  tender  of
\nthe compensation determined by the Collector to the owner of
\nthe  property under acquisition.  If the owner\taccepts\t the
\noffer  no  further proceeding is required to be\t taken;\t the
\namount\tis paid and compensation proceedings are  concluded.
\nIf, however, the owner does not accept the offer s. 18 gives
\nhim the statutory,, right of having the question  determined
\nby  Court, and’ it is the amount of compensation  which\t the
\nCourt may determine that would bind both the owner and
\n86<\/span>
\n682<\/span>
\nthe  Collector.\t  In  that case it is  on  the\tamount\tthus
\ndetermined judicially that the acquisition proceedings would
\nbe  concluded.\t It is because of this nature of  the  award
\nthat  the award can be appropriately  described as a  tender
\nor offer made by the Collector\ton behalf of the  Government
\nto the owner of the property for his acceptance.  In Ezra v.
\nThe  Secretary\tof State (1).  It has been  held  that\t“the
\nmeaning\t to be attached to the word “award” under s. 11\t and
\nits  nature and effect must be arrived at not from the\tmere
\nuse  of the same expression in both instances but  from\t the
\nexamination  of\t the provisions of the law relating  to\t the
\nCollector’s  proceedings  culminating  in  the\taward.\t The
\nconsiderations to which we have referred satisfy us that the
\nCollector  acts\t in  the  matter  of  the  enquiry  and\t the
\nvaluation of the land only as an agent of the Government and
\nnot  as a judicial officer; and that consequently,  although
\nthe  Government\t is bound by his  proceedings,\tthe  persons
\ninterested  are not concluded by his finding  regarding\t the
\nvalue  of the land or the compensation to be awarded.”\tThen
\nthe  High  Court  has added that such tender  once  made  is
\nbinding on the Government and the Government cannot  require
\nthat the value fixed by its own officer acting on its behalf
\nshould\tbe open to question at its own instance\t before\t the
\nCivil  Court.\tThe  said case was taken  before  the  Privy
\nCouncil\t in Ezra v. Secretary of State for India (2  ),\t and
\ntheir Lordships have expressly approved of the\tobservations
\nmade  by  the  High Court to which we  have  just  referred.
\nTherefore;  if the award made by the Collector is in law  no
\nmore than an offer made on behalf of the Government to,\t the
\nowner  of  the\tproperty then the making  of  the  award  as
\nproperly  understood must involve the communication  of\t the
\noffer\tto  the\t party\tconcerned.   That  is\tthe   normal
\nrequirement under the contract law and its applicability  to
\ncases  of  award  made under the Act  cannot  be  reasonably
\nexcluded.   Thus considered the date of the award cannot  be
\ndetermined solely by reference to the time when the award is
\nsigned\tby the Collector or delivered by him in his  office;
\nit must
\n(1) (1903) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 36, 86.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1905) I.L.R. 32 Cal. 605.\n<\/p>\n
683<\/span><\/p>\n
involve the consideration of the question as to when it\t was
\nknown\tto   the   party  concerned   either   actually\t  or
\nconstructively.\t  If  that  be the true\t position  then\t the
\nliteral\t and mechanical construction of the words “the\tdate
\nof the award” occurring in the relevant section would not be
\nappropriate.\n<\/p>\n
There  is  yet\tanother\t point\twhich  leads  to  the\tsame
\nconclusion.   If the award is treated as  an  administrative
\ndecision  taken\t by  the  Collector in\tthe  matter  of\t the
\nvaluation of the property sought to be acquired it is  clear
\nthat the said decision ultimately affects the’ rights of the
\nowner of the property and in that sense, like all  decisions
\nwhich  affect persons, it is essentially fair and just\tthat
\nthe said decision should be communicated to the said  party.
\nThe  knowledge\tof the party affected by  such\ta  decision,
\neither\tactual\tor constructive, ‘is  an  essential  element
\nwhich  must be satisfied before the decision can be  brought
\ninto force.  Thus considered the making of the award  cannot
\nconsist\t merely in the physical act of writing the award  or
\nsigning it or even filing it in the office of the Collector;
\nit  must involve the communication of the said award to\t the
\nparty  concerned either actually or constructively.  If\t the
\naward  is  pronounced  in the presence of  the\tparty  whose
\nrights\tare  affected  by it  can be said to  be  made\twhen
\npronounced.  If the date for the pronouncement of the  award
\nis   communicated  to  the  party  and\tit  is\t accordingly
\npronounced  on\tthe date previously announced the  award  is
\nsaid  to be communicated to the said party even if the\tsaid
\nparty\tis  not\t actually  present  on\tthe  date   of\t its
\npronouncement.\t Similarly if without notice of the date  of
\nits pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is\t not
\npresent\t the  award  can  be said to  be  made\twhen  it  is
\ncommunicated to the party later.  The knowledge of the party
\naffected by the award, either actual or constructive,  being
\nan  essential requirement of fair-play and  natural  justice
\nthe  expression “the date of the award” used in the  proviso
\nmust mean the date when the award is either communicated  to
\nthe   party   or  is  known  by\t him  either   actually\t  or
\nconstructively.\t  In  our opinion, therefore,  it  would  be
\nunreasonable to
\n684<\/span>
\nconstrue the words “from the date of the Collector’s  award”
\nused in the proviso to s. 18 in a literal or mechanical way.
\nIn  this connection it is material to recall the fact\tthat
\nunder  s. 12(2) it is obligatory on the Collector  to\tgive
\nimmediate notice of the award to the persons interested\t a,,
\nare not present personally or by their representatives\twhen
\nthe  award is made.  This requirement itself postulates\t the
\nnecessity  of  the communication of the award to  the  party
\nconcerned.   The Legislature recognised that the  making  of
\nthe award under s. 11 followed by its filing under s.  12(1)
\nwould  not meet the requirements of justice before  bringing
\nthe award into force.  It thought that the communication  of
\nthe award to the party concerned was also necessary, and  so
\nby the use of the mandatory words an obligation is placed on
\nthe  Collector to communicate the award immediately  to\t the
\nperson\tconcerned.   It\t is  significant  that\tthe  section
\nrequires   the\tCollector  to  give  notice  of\t the   award
\nimmediately  after making it.  This provision lends  support
\nto  the view which we have taken about the  construction  of
\nthe  expression “from the date of the Collector’s award”  in
\nthe  proviso to s. 18.\tIt is because communication  of\t the
\norder  is regarded by the Legislature as necessary  that  s.
\n12(2) has imposed an obligation on the Collector and if\t the
\nrelevant clause in the proviso is read in the light of\tthis
\nstatutory requirement it tends to show that the literal\t and
\nmechanical  construction of the said clause would be  wholly
\ninappropriate.\t It  would indeed be a very  curious  result
\nthat   the  failure  of\t the  Collector\t to  discharge\t his
\nobligation  under  s.  12(2) should directly  tend  to\tmake
\nineffective  the right of the party to make  an\t application
\nunder  s. 18, and this result could not possibly  have\tbeen
\nintended by the legislature.\n<\/p>\n
It may now be convenient to refer to some judicial decisions
\nbearing\t on  this point.  In Magdonald v. The  Secretary  of
\nState,\tfor India in Council (1) Rattigan and Shah Din,\t JJ.
\nheld  that  under  the proviso to s. 18 until  an  award  is
\nannounced or communicated to the parties concerned it cannot
\nbe said to be legally made.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  (1005) 4 Ind.  C. 914.\n<\/p>\n
685<\/span><\/p>\n
An award under the Act, it was observed in the judgment,  is
\nin  the\t nature of a tender and obviously no tender  can  be
\nmade unless it is brought to the(-, knowledge of the  person
\nto  whom it is made.  The learned Judges observed that\tthis
\nproposition  seemed  to them to be self-evident.   The\tsame
\nview has been expressed by the Oudh Judicial Commissioner in
\nHari Das Pal v. The Municipal Board, Lucknow (1).
\nOn the other hand, in Jehangir Bomanji v. G. D. Gaikwad\t (2)
\nthe Bombay High Court has taken the view that the element of
\nnotice is only an essential ingredient of the first part  of
\ncl.  (b) of the proviso to s.18 which prescribes the  period
\nof  limitation as six weeks from the date of the receipt  of
\nthe notice from the Collector, not of the second part  which
\nprescribes the maximum period of six months from the date of
\nthe Collector’s award in absolute terms.  According to\tthat
\ndecision, as far as the limitation under the latter part  is
\nconcerned it runs from the date of the award and the date of
\nthe award has nothing whatever to (lo with the notice  which
\nthe  Collector has to give under s. 12(2).  In\tour  opinion
\nthis decision is based on a misconstruction of the  relevant
\nclause\tin the proviso to s. 18.  The same comment falls  to
\nbe  made in regard to the decision of the Kerala High  Court
\nin State of Travancore-Cochin v. Narayani Amma Ponnamma (3).
\nIt  may, however, be pertinent to point out that the  Bombay
\nHigh  Court has taken a somewhat different view\t in  dealing
\nwith the effect of the provision as to limitation prescribed
\nby  s. 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.  This  provision
\nprescribes limitation for an application by an assessee\t for
\nthe  revision of the specified class of orders, and it\tsays
\nthat such an application should be made within one year from
\nthe date of the order.\tIt is significant that while provid-
\ning for a similar period of limitation s. 33(1) specifically
\nlays  down  that  the  limitation  of  sixty  days   therein
\nprescribed  is to be calculated from the date on  which\t the
\norder in question is communicated to the
\n(1) (1914) 22 Ind.  C. 652.  (2) A.I.R. 1954 Bom. 419,
\n(3) A.I.R. (1958) Kerala 272.\n<\/p>\n
686<\/span><\/p>\n
assessee.  In other words, in prescribing limitation s. 33(1)
\nexpressly provides for the commencement\t of  the period from
\nthe date of the communication\tof the\torder,\twhereas\t  s.
\n33A(2) does not refer to any  such    communication;\t and
\nnaturally the argument was that communication was irrelevant
\nunder  s. 33A(2) and limitation would commence as from\t‘the
\nmaking of the order without reference to its  communication.
\nThis  argument was rejected by the Bombay High Court and  it
\nwas  hold  that it would be a reasonable  interpretation  to
\nhold that the making of the order implies notice of the said
\norder, either actual or constructive, to the party  affected
\nby it.\tIt would not be easy to reconcile this decision\t and
\nparticularly  the  reasons  given in its  support  with\t the
\ndecision  of  the same High Court in the  case\tof  Jehangir
\nBomanji\t (1).\tThe relevant clause under s. 33A(2)  of\t the
\nIndian\tIncome-tax Act has also been similarly construed  by
\nthe  Madras High Court in O.A.O.A.M. Muthia Chettiar v.\t The
\nCommissioner  of  Income-tax, Madras<\/a> (2).  “If a  person  is
\ngiven a right to resort to a remedy to get rid of an adverse
\norder within a prescribed time”, observed Rajamannar,  C.J.,
\n“limitation should not be computed from a date earlier\tthan
\nthat on which the party aggrieved actually knew of the order
\nor  had an opportunity of knowing the order,  and  therefore
\nmust  be presumed to have the knowledge of the\torder”.\t  In
\nother  words the Madras High Court has taken the  view\tthat
\nthe   omission\t to  use  the  words  “from  the   date\t  of
\ncommunication”\tin s. 33A(2) does not mean  that  limitation
\ncan  start  to\trun against a party even  before  the  party
\neither\tknew or should have known about the said order.\t  In
\nour opinion this conclusion is obviously right.
\nA  similar  question arose before the Madras High  Court  in
\nAnnamalai  Chetti v. Col.  J. G. Cloete(3).  Section  25  of
\nthe  Madras  Boundary Act XXVIII of 1860  limited  the\ttime
\nwithin which a suit may be brought to set side the  decision
\nof the settlement officer to two months from the date of the
\naward, and
\n(1) A.I.R 1954 Bom. 419.    (2) I.L.R. 1951 Mad. 815.
\n(3) (1883) I.L. R. 6 Mad. 1 89.\n<\/p>\n
687<\/span><\/p>\n
so  the\t question arose as to when the time would  begin  to
\nrun.   The  High Court held that the time can begin  to\t run
\nonly from the date on which the decision is communicated  to
\nthe parties.  “If there was any decision at all in the sense
\nof  the Act”, says the judgment, “it could not date  earlier
\nthan  the  date of the communication of it to  the  parties;
\notherwise  they might, be barred of their right,  of  appeal
\nwithout\t any knowledge of the decision having been  passed”.
\nAdopting the same principle a, similar construction has been
\nplaced\tby  the Madras High Court in K.\t V.  E.\t Swaminathan
\nalias Chidambaram Pillai v. Letchmanan Chettiar (1).  On the
\nlimitation  provisions contained in ss. 73(1) and  77(l)  of
\nthe  Indian Registration Act XVI of 1908.  It was held\tthat
\nin  a case where an order was not passed in the presence  of
\nthe  parties  or after notice to them of the date  when\t the
\norder  would  be passed the expression “within\tthirty\tdays
\nafter  the  making of the order” used in the  said  sections
\nmeans  within  thirty  days  after the\tdate  on  which\t the
\ncommunication  of the order reached the parties affected  by
\nit.  These decisions show that where the rights of a  person
\nare  affected by any order and limitation is prescribed\t for
\nthe  enforcement  of  the remedy  by  the  person  aggrieved
\nagainst\t the  said order by reference to the making  of\t the
\nsaid order, the making of the order must mean either  actual
\nor constructive communication of the said order to the party
\nconcerned.  Therefore, we are satisfied that the High  Court
\nof  Allahabad was in error in coming to the conclusion\tthat
\nthe  application  made\tby  the\t appellant  in\tthe  present
\nproceedings  was  barred under the proviso to s. 18  of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result we allow the appeal, set  aside\t the  orders
\npassed\tby  Mootham, C. J. and Chaturvedi, J.,\tand  restore
\nthose  of  Mehrotra, J. In the circumstances  of  this\tcase
\nthere would be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) (1930) I.L.R. 53 Mad- 491.\n<\/p>\n
688<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition … on 30 March, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1500, 1962 SCR (1) 676 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: RAJA HARISH CHANDRA RAJ SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: THE DEPUTY LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/03\/1961 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, […]<\/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-204122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRaja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition ... on 30 March, 1961 - 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\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition ... on 30 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-30T04:48:07+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition … on 30 March, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T04:48:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961\"},\"wordCount\":3983,\"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\\\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961\",\"name\":\"Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition ... on 30 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T04:48:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition … on 30 March, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition ... on 30 March, 1961 - 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\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition ... on 30 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-30T04:48:07+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition … on 30 March, 1961","datePublished":"1961-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T04:48:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961"},"wordCount":3983,"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\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961","name":"Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition ... on 30 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T04:48:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-harish-chandra-raj-singh-vs-the-deputy-land-acquisition-on-30-march-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition … on 30 March, 1961"}]},{"@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\/204122","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=204122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}