{"id":208571,"date":"2010-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-04T07:07:03","modified_gmt":"2016-12-04T01:37:03","slug":"nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010<\/div>\n
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                         Civil Review No. 64 of 2008\n\n              ( Lal Brajeshwar Nath Sahadeo Vrs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & ors.\n                                  With\n                           Civil Review No. 65 of 2008\n              (Santosh Mahto Vrs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & ors.)\n                                  With\n                           Civil Review No. 66 of 2008\n               Nepal Baitha Vrs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & ors. )\n                                     ....\n\n\n              CORAM :                 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n                                 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY\n\n                                           ......\n          For the petitioners              : M\/s Subhro Sanyal & Sunil Kr.Mahto\n          For the State                    : Mr.P.A.S.Pati,JC to A.G. &\n                                              Mr.Rajesh Kumar Mehtha\n          For the H.E.C.                   : Mr.Abhay Kr.Mishra\n                                           .....\n\n12\/6.4.2010<\/pre>\n
            These three review petitions have been filed against the judgment and<\/p>\n
              order dated 6.11.2007 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 503 of 1007<\/p>\n
              alongwith LPA No. 504 of 2006 and LPA No. 505 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
                          All the aforesaid appeals were directed against a common judgment<\/p>\n
              and order passed in three writ petitions which had been heard collectively and<\/p>\n
              had been disposed of by a common order , against which these Review<\/p>\n
              petitions have been filed.\n<\/p>\n
                           The petitioners had come up with a case that although the land<\/p>\n
              belonging to them had been acquired by the then State of Bihar in the year<\/p>\n
              1960, yet the land belonging to them should be ordered to be re-<\/p>\n
              conveyed\/returned to them as according to the petitioners’ case, the<\/p>\n
              Government of Bihar has already taken a policy decision to return the land to<\/p>\n
              the original land owners.\n<\/p>\n
                             It is an admitted position that a large tract of land had been<\/p>\n
              acquired in the year 1960 by the erstwhile State of Bihar for the benefit and use<\/p>\n
              of   a    Public   Sector    Undertaking   namely    M\/s    Heavy    Engineering<\/p>\n
              Corporation(HEC in short) and while the Undertaking was set up on the land<\/p>\n
              acquired, the petitioners came up with a case that large area comprising<\/p>\n
              2555.71 decimals of land were lying unutilised. The petitioners, therefore, filed<\/p>\n
              three writ petitions separately before the learned Single Judge for return of the
\n                     2.<\/span><\/p>\n
land to the petitioners, on the ground that the lands were lying unutilised as also<\/p>\n
on the ground that the Government of Bihar had already taken a policy decision<\/p>\n
to return or reconvey the unutilised land to its original owners which were<\/p>\n
initially acquired for the purpose of use by HEC.\n<\/p>\n
      The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge relying<\/p>\n
upon the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Government of<\/p>\n
A.P. Vrs. Syed Akbar, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 558, wherein it has been held<\/p>\n
that the lands acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all<\/p>\n
encumbrances. In the same judgment, it was further held that the land acquired<\/p>\n
for the public purpose, could be utilised for any other public purpose and it was<\/p>\n
still further held that the acquired lands which were vested in the Government<\/p>\n
free from all encumbrances, cannot be reassigned or reconveyed to the original<\/p>\n
owners merely on the basis of an executive order.\n<\/p>\n
         It is on this premise that the writ petitions were filed for return\/<\/p>\n
reconveyance of the land but the same were dismissed. The petitioners<\/p>\n
thereafter preferred three Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
this Court, which also were dismissed by the judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
6.11.2007, already indicated hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
         The petitioners thereafter preferred Special Leave Petitions before the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court bearing S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 8395-8397 of 2008 vide Annexure-2<\/p>\n
to the review petitions and it was contended before the Supreme Court by the<\/p>\n
petitioners that although acquisition of the land had taken place , the<\/p>\n
possession was not taken from them either by the State or the beneficiary i.e.<\/p>\n
HEC. The Special Leave petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, granting<\/p>\n
liberty to the petitioners to file an application for recall of the order for<\/p>\n
considering whether the averment of the petitioners that the acquired land had<\/p>\n
not been taken from them after acquisition, was correct or not and whether<\/p>\n
compensation were also paid to the land owners. The petitioners thereafter did<\/p>\n
not file any application for recall but have filed these three review petitions,
\n                            3.<\/span><\/p>\n
wherein it has been asserted that the land which were lying unutilised , should<\/p>\n
be reconveyed to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
           The review petitions obviously can be entertained only if there is an<\/p>\n
error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be expected to investigate<\/p>\n
or adjudicate whether the petitioners are still in occupation of the land in<\/p>\n
question as it would clearly depend on a scrutiny of evidence which cannot be<\/p>\n
permitted to be adduced by way of a review petition. However, even if it were<\/p>\n
to be entertained to consider whether the averment of the petitioners to the<\/p>\n
effect that they are still in possession of the lands which were acquired , it<\/p>\n
cannot be overlooked that they have already received compensation, which<\/p>\n
could not have been paid without delivery of possession to the State . Hence<\/p>\n
the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench<\/p>\n
vide the impugned judgment and order to the effect that acquisition could not be<\/p>\n
reconveyed by virtue of an executive order on the plea that a policy decision<\/p>\n
had been taken, is not erroneous in any manner. The view taken by the learned<\/p>\n
Division Bench as also the learned Single Bench to the effect obviously implies<\/p>\n
that if a policy decision, at all has been taken by the Government, the same<\/p>\n
had to be incorporated in the form of a Government notification and unless a<\/p>\n
notification to that effect is issued by the State , which is now the State of<\/p>\n
Jharkhand after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the claim of the petitioners<\/p>\n
for re-conveying the alleged unutilised land cannot be entertained.<\/p>\n
      Besides this, the averment of the petitioners before the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
to the effect that the petitioners are still in possession of the land and had not<\/p>\n
been paid compensation is also factually not sustainable . On the contrary,<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the fact that the petitioners had<\/p>\n
already received compensation and the land had also been taken over by the<\/p>\n
State Government wherein the HEC for whom the acquisition had been made,<\/p>\n
is in occupation and possession of the land after its acquisition. Thus, the<\/p>\n
petitioners apparently did not make a correct statement before the learned<\/p>\n
Judges of the Supreme Court to the effect that they are still in occupation and
\n                                      4.<\/span><\/p>\n
         possession of the unutilised land, nor it was correct for them to assert that they<\/p>\n
         had not received any compensation, due to which liberty was granted to the<\/p>\n
         petitioners to file an application for recall of the order, which also was not done<\/p>\n
         but in lieu of the same , these review petitions have been filed.<\/p>\n
                These review petitions, therefore, are not fit to be entertained , in<\/p>\n
         absence of any factual or error apparent on the face of the record.<\/p>\n
                Even at the risk of repetition, we may record that the petitioners have<\/p>\n
         miserably failed to support their averments, which they had made before the<\/p>\n
         Supreme Court to the effect that they are in occupation and possession of the<\/p>\n
         unutilised land and they have also not stated before this Court that they have<\/p>\n
         not received compensation for the land which had been acquired .<\/p>\n
                  However, counsel for the petitioners still insisted that at least some of<\/p>\n
         the petitioners are in occupation of the land without denying that they have<\/p>\n
         received compensation. In any case, it is not possible for this Court to hold a<\/p>\n
         factual enquiry as to whether some of the land holders who might not even be<\/p>\n
         the petitioners herein, are still in actual physical possession of the acquired land<\/p>\n
         which took place way back in the year 1960 as that would require adducing of<\/p>\n
         evidence which is not available on record and rightly so as the same could not<\/p>\n
         have been permitted under writ jurisdiction, much less while entertaining<\/p>\n
         review petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                Accordingly, all the review petitions are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     ( Gyan Sudha Misra,C.J.)<\/p>\n
                                     ( Amareshwar Sahay , J. )<\/p>\n
G.Jha\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 64 of 2008 ( Lal Brajeshwar Nath Sahadeo Vrs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & ors. With Civil Review No. 65 of 2008 (Santosh Mahto Vrs. State of […]<\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010 - 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\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-04T01:37:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-04T01:37:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1250,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-04T01:37:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010 - 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\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-04T01:37:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-04T01:37:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010"},"wordCount":1250,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010","name":"Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-04T01:37:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-baitha-vs-state-of-bihar-now-jharkhand-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nepal Baitha vs State Of Bihar ( Now Jharkhand on 6 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/208571","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=208571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}