{"id":207401,"date":"1988-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988"},"modified":"2019-02-21T08:41:10","modified_gmt":"2019-02-21T03:11:10","slug":"gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988","title":{"rendered":"Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: ILR 1988 KAR 998, 1988 (1) KarLJ 263<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Jois<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R Jois, Balakrishna<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>Rama Jois, J.<\/p>\n<p>1. These appeals are presented by the appellants against the common<br \/>\norder of the learned Single Judge made in the Writ Petitions in which<br \/>\nthe acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of a Bus Stand<br \/>\nby the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was challenged.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows; A notification<br \/>\nunder Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894<br \/>\n(in short &#8216;the Act&#8217;) was issued proposing to acquire the land<br \/>\nbelonging to the appellants situate at Sindhanoor Town, Raichur<br \/>\nDistrict, for a public purpose, viz., for construction of a Bus Stand,<br \/>\nby the K.S.R.T.C. The Preliminary Notification was published in the<br \/>\nOfficial Gazette on 10-3-1977. After following the prescribed<br \/>\nprocedure under Section 6 of the Act, the final notification was<br \/>\nissued. Questioning the legality of the said acquisition, the<br \/>\nappellants preferred the Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions were<br \/>\ndismissed, by a common order made by the learned Single Judge on<br \/>\n24-10-1986. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have presented<br \/>\nthese appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The main contention of the appellant in W.A. No. 3437 of 1986 is<br \/>\nthat service of individual notice on the owner of the land was<br \/>\nmandatory and as no individual notice was served on the appellant, the<br \/>\nentire acquisition proceedings were contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act prescribes two mandatory<br \/>\nconditions regarding publication of the preliminary notification. They<br \/>\nare:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) Publication of the preliminary notification in the Official<br \/>\nGazette; and<\/p>\n<p>(ii) Publication of the substance of the preliminary notification<br \/>\nin the locality concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 4(1) of the Act also provides that the Deputy Commissioner<br \/>\nmay also cause the copy of such notification to be served on the<br \/>\nowner, or where the owner is not the occupier on the occupier of the<br \/>\nland. The question as to whether the service of individual notice is<br \/>\nalso mandatory or not, was the subject matter for consideration, by a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA &amp; OTHERS v.<br \/>\nKEMPAIAH &amp; OTHERS, 1984(1) KLJ 521. The Division Bench, disagreeing<br \/>\nwith the view taken in an earlier case, by a learned Single Judge,<br \/>\nheld that the requirement was not mandatory. The conclusion is found<br \/>\nat paragraph-28 of the Judgment. It reads:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;On the above discussion, with respect to our learned<br \/>\nBrother, we are of the opinion that the requirement of Section 4(1) of<br \/>\nthe Act providing for service of a copy of the preliminary<br \/>\nnotification is not mandatory and cannot be construed as &#8216;shall&#8217; and<br \/>\nthe word &#8216;may&#8217; has to be construed as &#8216;may&#8217; only or permissible and<br \/>\ndirectory only.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Sri V.T. Rayareddi, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted<br \/>\nthat the said view has to yield to the ratio of the decision of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/892303\/\">STATE OF MYSORE &amp; OTHERS v. V.K. KANGAN &amp; OTHERS,<\/a> . The learned Counsel pointed out that Rule 3(b) of the<br \/>\nLand Acquisition Rules framed by the Former State of Madras which had<br \/>\ncontinued in the concerned area of the new State after the<br \/>\nreorganisation of the State, was held to be mandatory and therefore,<br \/>\nthe provisions of the third requirement of Section 4(1) should also be<br \/>\nheld to be mandatory.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. In our view, the ratio of the said decision is not at all<br \/>\napposite to this case. In that case, the question for consideration<br \/>\nwas whether non-compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition<br \/>\nRules which made obligatory for the Inquiring Authority to issue<br \/>\nnotice to the acquiring body, rendered the acquisition invalid. The<br \/>\nSupreme Court held that the provisions of the said Rule made it<br \/>\nobligatory for the Officer holding enquiry under Section 5(A) of the<br \/>\nAct to issue notice to the body at whose instance, the land was<br \/>\nproposed to be acquired and therefore, non-compliance of the said rule<br \/>\nrendered the acquisition invalid. Section 4(1) of the Act has not been<br \/>\ninterpreted in that case, and therefore the said decision does not in<br \/>\nany way affect the ruling of this Court in Kempaiah&#8217;s case 1984(1) KLJ\n<\/p>\n<p>521.<\/p>\n<p>7. In Kempaiah&#8217;s case, 1984(1) KLJ 521, the Division Bench pointed<br \/>\nout that whereas the earlier part of Section 4(1) provided that the<br \/>\npreliminary notification shall be published in the Official Gazette<br \/>\nand shall also be published in the locality concerned the latter part<br \/>\nof the same section only provided that the Deputy Commissioner may<br \/>\nalso cause the copy of such notification to be served on the owner or<br \/>\nwhere the owner is not the occupier on the occupier of the land<br \/>\nconcerned. After applying the relevant principles required to be<br \/>\napplied to find out as to whether a statutory provision is mandatory<br \/>\nor directory, the Division Bench concluded that the requirement of<br \/>\nissuing individual notice was not mandatory. We are in respectful<br \/>\nagreement with the view taken by the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. The learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of the Bombay High<br \/>\nCourt in AJIT SINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1972 Bombay 1977 in which the Bombay<br \/>\nHigh Court had held that the service of individual notice was<br \/>\nmandatory. As can be seen from the said decision, the Government of<br \/>\nMaharashtra had framed Rules in exercise of the power under Section 55<br \/>\nof the Land Acquisition Act and the Rule made it obligatory for the<br \/>\nInquiring Authority to serve individual notice. There is no such rule<br \/>\nframed by the Government. On the other hand, Rule 3 of the Rules,<br \/>\nframed by the Government is also similarly worded as Sub-section (1)<br \/>\nof Section 4. Therefore, the said decision is of no assistance to the<br \/>\nappellants. Further it should be pointed out that this decision was<br \/>\nconsidered by the Division Bench before coming to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe requirement of individual notice was not mandatory. For the same<br \/>\nreason the decision of the Gujarat High Court in MEGANBHAI VANASHIBHAI<br \/>\nPATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; OTHERS,  is also of no assistance for,<br \/>\nthe rule interpreted in that decision is the same which was<br \/>\ninterpreted by the Bombay High Court. In the circumstances, we are of<br \/>\nthe view that the acquisition in question cannot be set aside on the<br \/>\nground that no individual notice had been served on the<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. The learned Counsel for the appellants next contended that there<br \/>\nwas a difference in the description of the land acquired in the final<br \/>\nnotification and the preliminary notification. He submitted that in<br \/>\nthe preliminary notification Sy. No. was given correctly and in the<br \/>\nfinal notification a wrong Sy. No. had been given. We have looked into<br \/>\nthe final notification, a photostat copy of which was produced by the<br \/>\nlearned Counsel. There is no such misdescription. According to the<br \/>\nfinal notification the plot belonging to the appellant was acquired.<br \/>\nThe northern, southern, eastern and western boundaries of the plot<br \/>\nacquired are specified. It is not the case of the appellant that the<br \/>\nland belonging to the petitioner does not fall within the four<br \/>\nboundaries specified therein. The learned Counsel submitted that<br \/>\nactually an award had been made for an area of 60 x 220&#8242; whereas the<br \/>\narea mentioned in the final notification was East to West &#8211; 40&#8242; and<br \/>\nNorth to South &#8211; 200&#8242;. Even on the basis that in specifying area there<br \/>\nhas been a mistake, i.e., instead of mentioning 60&#8242; x 220&#8242; it was<br \/>\nmentioned as 40&#8242; x 200&#8242;, that mistake cannot constitute a ground for<br \/>\nsetting aside the acquisition for the reason the entire plot belonging<br \/>\nto the appellant with the four boundaries mentioned in the<br \/>\nnotification has been acquired. It is also well settled position in<br \/>\nlaw that wherever there is inconsistency between the area and the<br \/>\nboundary the latter prevails. If we look into the boundaries specified<br \/>\nin the final notification, the plot belonging to the appellant has<br \/>\nbeen acquired. Hence there is no substance in the objection.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. In the other appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellants<br \/>\nurged two grounds:\n<\/p>\n<p> (i) No opportunity of hearing was given; and (it) There was no<br \/>\ncommunication to the appellants as to the submission of the report of<br \/>\nenquiry under Section 5A of the Act to the Government as required<br \/>\nunder the provisions of the Act. As far as the first ground is<br \/>\nconcerned, as can be seen from the order of the learned Single Judge<br \/>\non a perusal of the record, it was found that everyone of them had<br \/>\nengaged Advocate, who had appeared before the Inquiring Authority and<br \/>\nthe Advocate had been heard. Therefore, the said contention is<br \/>\nuntenable.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. As far as the second ground is concerned, no such ground was<br \/>\nurged before the learned Single Judge. Even in the petitions it<br \/>\nappears that no such ground has been raised. The question as to<br \/>\nwhether there had been a communication about the Submission of the<br \/>\nreport to the Government, is a question of fact and it cannot be<br \/>\npermitted to be raised in the appeals as the same was not raised in<br \/>\nthe Writ Petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. In the result, we make the following order :\n<\/p>\n<p> Writ Appeals are dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Karnataka High Court Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988 Equivalent citations: ILR 1988 KAR 998, 1988 (1) KarLJ 263 Author: R Jois Bench: R Jois, Balakrishna JUDGMENT Rama Jois, J. 1. These appeals are presented by the appellants against the common order of the learned Single Judge made in the Writ Petitions [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-21T03:11:10+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-21T03:11:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1511,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988\",\"name\":\"Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-21T03:11:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-21T03:11:10+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988","datePublished":"1988-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-21T03:11:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988"},"wordCount":1511,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988","name":"Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-21T03:11:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-5-february-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 1988"}]},{"@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\/207401","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=207401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207401\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}