{"id":211058,"date":"1995-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995"},"modified":"2018-02-23T05:41:23","modified_gmt":"2018-02-23T00:11:23","slug":"dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995","title":{"rendered":"Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 5 December, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 5 December, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (1) 531, \t JT 1995 (9)\t244<\/div>\n
Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDINA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/12\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nFAIZAN UDDIN (J)\nKIRPAL B.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (1) 531\t  JT 1995 (9)\t244\n 1995 SCALE  (7)330\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     By order  dated July  28, 1992,  a Bench  of two Judges
\nreferred the  matter to a Bench of three Judges doubting the
\ncorrectness of\tthe decision  in Bhartu\t v. Randhir  Singh &
\nOrs.<\/a> [(1985)  2 SCR  638]. The\tadmitted facts\tare that the
\nappellant-tenant was  sought to be ejected by petition dated
\nJanuary, 29,  1996 from\t 47 Bighas  13\tBiswas\tsituated  in
\nvillage Burj  Baghelsinghwala, Distt.  Sangrur on the ground
\nthat the  period of  three years of the lease had expired by
\nthat dated and that, therefore, he was liable to be ejected.
\nThe Assistant Collector Grade I by order dated July 30, 1996
\nordered ejectment  of the  appellant under  S.8 of the Pepsu
\nTenancy & Agricultural Lands Act as amended by Act No.15\/56,
\n(for short “the Amendment Act”). It was confirmed on appeal.
\nWhen it\t was questioned in writ petition, the learned single
\nJudge following the Full Bench decision of the High Court in
\nPiara Singh  v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab,
\nChandigarh &  Ors. [AIR\t 1978 Punjab  76]  held\t that  after
\nexpiry of  three years,\t under Section\t8 the  appellant  is
\nliable to ejectment. Thus this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     The only question is whether the landlord, after expiry
\nof three  years’ lease\tgets right of ejectment of a tenant,
\nunder Section  8  without  recourse  to\t the  provisions  of
\nSections 7  and 7A  of the  Act. Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the
\nAct read as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “7.  Termination  of  tenancy.  –\t(1)No
\n     tenancy shall  be terminated  except  in
\n     accordance with  the provisions  of this
\n     Act or  except on\tany of\tthe following
\n     grounds, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)   (Omitted  by Pepsu  Act  No.15  of
\n     1956).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   that\t the tenant has failed to pay
\n     rent within a period of six months after
\n     it falls due:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that no tenant shall be ejected
\n     under this\t clause unless\the  has\t been
\n     afforded  an   opportunity\t to  pay  the
\n     arrears of\t rent within a further period
\n     of six  months  from  the\tdate  of  the
\n     decree or\torder directing his ejectment
\n     and he  has failed\t to pay\t such arrears
\n     during that period;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)    that  the  tenant,\tnot  being  a
\n     widow, a  minor, an  unmarried woman,  a
\n     member of\tthe Armed Forces of the Union
\n     or a  person  incapable  of  cultivating
\n     land by  reason of\t physical  or  mental
\n     infirmity, has after commencement of the
\n     President’s  Act,\t sublet\t without  the
\n     consent in writing of the landowner, the
\n     land comprising  his tenancy or any part
\n     thereof;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)    that   the\ttenant\thas,  without
\n     sufficient cause,\tfailed\tto  cultivate
\n     opersonally such land, in the manner and
\n     to the  extent customary in the locality
\n     in which such land is situated;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)   that the tenant has used such land
\n     or any part thereof in a manner which is
\n     likely to\trender the land unfit for the
\n     purpose for which it was leased to him;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f)   that\t the  tenant,  on  demand  in
\n     writing by\t the landowner has refused to
\n     execute a Kabuliyat agreeing to pay rent
\n     in respect\t of his tenancy in accordance
\n     with the provisions of ss.9 and 10.
\n     7(2) (Omitted  by\tPepsu  Act  No.15  of
\n     1956.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     70A Additional ground for termination of
\n     tenancy in certain cases: (1) Subject to
\n     the provisions  of sub-ss.(2) and (3), a
\n     tenancy subsisting\t at the\t commencement
\n     of the  Pepsu Tenancy  and\t Agricultural
\n     Lands (Second  Amendment) Act, 1956, may
\n     be terminated  on the  following grounds
\n     in addition  to the grounds specified in
\n     s.7, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)    that   the\tland  comprising  the
\n     tenancy  has   been  reserved   by\t  the
\n     landowner for  his personal  cultivation
\n     in accordance  with  the  provisions  of
\n     Chapter II;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   that\t the  landowner\t owns  thirty
\n     standard acres  or less  of land and the
\n     land fells within his permissible limit;
\n\t  Provided that\t no tenant other than
\n     a tenant of a landowner who is member of
\n     the Armed\tForces of  the Union shall be
\n     ejected under this sub-section –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)   from\t any area of land if the area
\n     under the\tpersonal cultivation  of  the
\n     tenant does  not  exceed  five  standard
\n     acres, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)  from\t an  area  of  five  standard
\n     acres, if\tthe area  under the  personal
\n     cultivation of  the tenant\t exceeds five
\n     standard acres,  until he is allotted by
\n     the State Government alternative land of
\n     equivalent value in standard acres.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)     No\t  tenant,   who\t  immediately
\n     preceding\tthe   commencement   of\t  the
\n     President’s  Act\thas  held   any\t land
\n     continuously  for\ta  period  of  twelve
\n     years or  more under  the same landowner
\n     or his  predecessor in  title, shall  be
\n     ejected on the grounds specified in sub-
\n     s.(1) –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)   from any area of land, if the area
\n     under the\tpersonal cultivation  of  the
\n     tenant does  not exceed fifteen standard
\n     acres, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   from\t any area of fifteen standard
\n     acres, if\tthe area  under the  personal
\n     cultivation  of   the   tenant   exceeds
\n     fifteen standard acres;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t nothing in this sub-
\n     section shall  apply to  the tenant of a
\n     landowner who,  both at the commencement
\n     of the  tenancy and  the commencement of
\n     the President’s  Act,  was\t a  widow,  a
\n     minor, an\tunmarried woman,  a member of
\n     the Armed\tForces\tof  the\t Union\tor  a
\n     person incapable  of cultivating land by
\n     reason of physical or mental infirmity.
\n     Explanation. –  In computing  the period
\n     of twelve years, the period during which
\n     any land  has been\t held under  the same
\n     landowner or his predecessor-in-title by
\n     the father, brother or son of the tenant
\n     shall be included.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)   For the purpose of computing under
\n     sub-ss.(1) and (2) the area of lan under
\n     the personal  cultivation of  a  tenant,
\n     any area  of lan owned by the tenant and
\n     under his\tpersonal cultivation shall be
\n     included.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     x\t   x\t  x\t x\tx     x\t    x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.\t    Security  of  tenure  to  certain
\n     tenants. –\t Subject to the provisions of
\n     s.7, every\t tenant\t admitted  after  the
\n     commencement of  the Pepsu\t Tenancy  and
\n     Agricultural  Lands  (Second  Amendment)
\n     Act, 1956, shall hold land for a minimum
\n     term of three years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that nothing herein shall apply
\n     to the  tenant of\ta  person  who\tis  a
\n     widow, a  minor, an  unmarried woman,  a
\n     member of\tthe Armed Forces of the Union
\n     or a  person  incapable  of  cultivating
\n     land by  reason of\t physical  or  mental
\n     infirmity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The contention\tof Mr.\tH.K. Puri,  learned counsel  for the
\nappellant is  that Section  8, in the light of the Statement
\nof Objects  and Reasons\t for introducing  the Amendment Act,
\ngives protection  of minimum  tenure to\t the tenant.  If the
\nlandlord seeks\tejectment of the tenant, necessarily, he has
\nto  fall  back\tupon  satisfying  conditions  enumerated  in
\nSection 7  and 7-A.  On expiry of three years, the tenant is
\nnot automatically  liable to  be ejected,  unless he commits
\nany one\t of the contraventions mentioned in Section 7 or the
\nlandlord requires  the land  as enumerated in Section 7-A of
\nthe Act.  Shri Dua,  the learned  counsel appearing  for the
\nlandlord contended  that the  object of the Amendment Act is
\nnot only  to give  protection to  the tenant  and small land
\nholders to  augment their  holding but also to give right to
\nthe  small   tenure  holders  to  have\tthe  tenant  ejected
\nirrespective  of   applicability  of   all  or\tany  of\t the
\nprovisions enumerated  in Section  7 or\t Section 7-A  of the
\nAct. The  question, therefore, is whether the interpretation
\ngiven to  Section 7,  7-A and  8 by this Court is correct in
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
     The objects and reasons have been enumerated thus:
\n     “The necessity  for introducing  certain
\n     agrarian reforms,\tparticularly  with  a
\n     view to  protecting the  tenants against
\n     eviction  and   fixing  for  allotees  a
\n     higher limit for reservation of land for
\n     personal cultivation, was being felt for
\n     sometime  past.   This  Bill   seeks  to
\n     achieve the object by amending the Pepsu
\n     Tenancy  and   Agricultural  Lands\t Act,
\n     1955.”\n<\/p>\n
The object  and reasons enumerates twin purposes, namely, to
\ngive minimum  period of\t tenancy and  to protect the tenants
\nagainst unreasonable  eviction and fix for allotees a higher
\nlimit for  reservation of  land\t for  personal\tcultivation.
\nThese objects  were sought  to be  achieved by Section 8 and
\nSection\t 7-A   respectively.  Section\t8  accords  solitary
\nprotection to  the tenant  of minimum tenure of three years.
\nIt says\t that subject  to the provisions of Section 7, every
\ntenant admitted\t after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy
\nand Agricultural  Lands Act,  (Second Amendment) Bill, 1956,
\nshall hold land for a minimum term of three years. The other
\npart of\t the provision\tis not\tnecessary for the purpose of
\nthis case  and so  we need not again produce it. The object,
\nthereby, clearly  indicates that  the tenant  shall hold the
\nland for  a minimum  term of  three years  but such  holding
\nshould be subject to his abiding the provisions of Section 7
\nwhich enumerates diverse conditions subject to which tenancy
\nmay be\tterminated by  the landlord.  As seen,\tSection\t 7-A
\ngives additional  grounds to  terminate the  tenancy in\t the
\ncases enumerated  thereunder. We  are not concerned with the
\neffect of the provisions contained in Section 7-A.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  contended in  the High  Court that\t despite the
\ncontravention of  any one  or all  the grounds\tprovided  in
\nSection 7,  a tenant is entitled to remain in a fixed tenure
\nfor three  years which\twas rightly  rejected. It   does not
\nappear to  be a correct reading of Section 8. Though Section
\n8 gives\t right to  the tenant  of the  fixity of  tenure  of
\nminimum three  years, it  would be subject to the conditions
\nenumerated in Section 7. If a tenant commits any one or some
\nor all\tthe contraventions  enumerated in Section 7, despite
\nthe fact  that Section\t8 guarantees  minimum term  of three
\nyears, he  is liable  to be  ejected. In other words, though
\nminimum three  years’ tenancy  right is\t protected, it casts
\ncorresponding duty  on the  tenant to abide by law mentioned
\nin Section  7. Equally\tlandlord is entitled to avail of the
\nbenefit\t under\tSection\t 7A  to\t have  the  tenant  ejected.
\nOtherwise, as  stated by  this Court  in  Bhartu’s  case,  a
\ntenant may  cause damage  to the demised land and yet remain
\nin  occupation\t of  the  land\tfor  three  years  which  is
\ninconsistent with the object of Sections 7 and 8. This Court
\nin Bhartuls  case (supra)  considered the  effect of  it and
\nheld that the tenant is liable to comply with the provisions
\nof Section 7. To that extent, we are in respectful agreement
\nwith the  ratio in  Bhartu’s case.  But on  expiry of  three
\nyears’ tenure,\ta tenant  is not  automatically liable to be
\nejected or  merely because  the\t landlord  happens  to\thold
\nlesser holding\tor on  any other ground, The tenant would be
\nliable to  ejectment only on proof of one or some or all the
\nconditions mentioned  in Section 7 or Section 7-A are proved
\nby  the\t landlord  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  competent
\nauthority\/officer. If  the landlord  wants to  avail of\t the
\nright  under  Section  7-A,  he\t necessarily  has  to  prove
\ncompliance of  the conditions  enumerated in  Section 7A and
\nhave the  tenant ejected  on proof of the grounds enumerated
\ntherein. Accordingly,  we are of the considered view that de
\nhors Sections  7 and  7-A,  Section  8\tdoes  not  give\t any
\nindependent right to the landlord to have the tenant ejected
\non mere expiry of three years’ term mentioned in Section 8.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t are  of  the  considered  view\t that  law  was\t not
\ncorrectly laid\tdown in\t Bhartu’s case\t\/ by the majority in
\nPiars Singh’s case.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is accordingly\t allowed. The  orders of the
\ntribunals below\t directing ejectment of the appellant is set
\naside. The writ petition stands allowed and the rule nisi is
\nmade  absolute.\t But,  in  the\tcircumstances,\tparties\t are
\ndirected to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 5 December, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (1) 531, JT 1995 (9) 244 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: DINA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/12\/1995 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) KIRPAL B.N. […]<\/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-211058","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDina vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 5 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 5 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-23T00:11:23+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 5 December, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T00:11:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995\"},\"wordCount\":1907,\"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\\\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995\",\"name\":\"Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 5 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T00:11:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 5 December, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 5 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 5 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-23T00:11:23+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 5 December, 1995","datePublished":"1995-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T00:11:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995"},"wordCount":1907,"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\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995","name":"Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 5 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T00:11:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dina-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-5-december-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dina vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 5 December, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211058","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=211058"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211058\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}