{"id":213058,"date":"2011-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-10-28T01:09:40","modified_gmt":"2016-10-27T19:39:40","slug":"tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: R.V.Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                                                              Reportable\n\n                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.10187  OF 2010\n\n\n\n\nTata Motors Ltd.                                                        ... Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nTalathi of Village Chikhali & Ors.                                      ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.      Under   Lease   Deed   dated   3.1.1995,   Pimpri-Chinchwad   New   Town <\/p>\n
Development Authority (6th respondent herein – for short `the Development <\/p>\n
Authority’) granted a lease of land measuring 164.5 acres in Sectors No.15 <\/p>\n
and   15A   in   Village   Chikhali,   Taluka   Haveli,   District   Pune,   converted   to <\/p>\n
industrial use,   to the appellant  herein for a term of 99 years commencing <\/p>\n
from   21.11.1994.   The   consideration   for   the   lease   was   a   premium   of <\/p>\n
Rs.17,91,40,500\/-   (at   the   rate   of   Rs.25\/-   per   sq.ft.)   paid   by   the   appellant <\/p>\n
apart from a yearly rent of rupee one. The appellant utilized the said plot and <\/p>\n
                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
adjoining plot obtained on lease from Maharashtra Industrial Development <\/p>\n
Corporation (for short `MIDC’) for construction of its factory. The appellant <\/p>\n
commenced   construction   of   its   plant   in   or   about   the   year   1997   and   on <\/p>\n
completion, commenced actual use for industrial purpose, in the year 1999.\n<\/p>\n
2.       The   appellant   was  served   with   a  demand  notice   dated   26.2.2002  by <\/p>\n
the Gar Kamgar Talathi, Chikhali, demanding payment of Rs.45,25,538\/- as <\/p>\n
non-agricultural   cess   and   additional   non-agriculture   cess,   for   the   period <\/p>\n
1995-96   to   2001-02.   As   the   said   payment   was   not   made,   default   notices <\/p>\n
dated   1.3.2002   and   5.3.2002   were   issued   under   Section   174   of   the <\/p>\n
Maharasthra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (`Code’ for short) informing that if <\/p>\n
the amount demanded was not paid within seven days, the amount due will <\/p>\n
be   recovered   with   25%   of   the   amount   due   as   penalty.   At   that   stage   the <\/p>\n
appellant  filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court for quashing <\/p>\n
the   demand   notice   26.2.2002,   1.3.2002   and   5.3.2002.   The   appellant <\/p>\n
contended that it was a “government lessee”. Alternatively, it was contended <\/p>\n
that it was the tenant of the Development Authority. It was submitted  that <\/p>\n
neither a government lessee nor a tenant of the Development Authority was <\/p>\n
liable   to   pay   the   non-agricultural   assessment   under   the   provisions   of   the <\/p>\n
Code.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
3.      The High Court, by judgment dated 4.7.2007 rejected the contention <\/p>\n
that   appellant   was   a   government   lessee.   It   held   that   as   lessee   under   the <\/p>\n
Development Authority, the appellant was liable to pay the non-agricultural <\/p>\n
assessment. The High Court however held that having regard to section 115 <\/p>\n
of   the   Code,   non-agricultural   assessment   could   be   levied   only   with   effect <\/p>\n
from   the   date   on   which   the   land   was   actually   used   for   non-agricultural <\/p>\n
purpose, and as appellant commenced actual non-agricultural use in the year <\/p>\n
1999, the non-agricultural assessment  was due by it only from 1999-2000.\n<\/p>\n
As a consequence, the High Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashed <\/p>\n
the demand relating to the period 1995-96 to 1998-99 and upheld the claim <\/p>\n
for the non-agricultural assessment from the year 1999-2000 onwards. The <\/p>\n
said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave contending that it is <\/p>\n
not liable to pay the non-agricultural assessment as it is a government lessee.\n<\/p>\n
Alternatively   it   is   contended   that   being   the   tenant   of   the   `occupant’,   it   is <\/p>\n
liable   to   pay   the   land   revenue,   as   only   the   `occupant’   is   liable   to   pay   the <\/p>\n
land revenue under section 39 of the said Code. On the contentions raised, <\/p>\n
the following questions arise for consideration:\n<\/p>\n
(i)         Whether the petitioner is a `government lessee’ and therefore not <\/p>\n
            liable to pay the non-agricultural assessment?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)        Whether the appellant being a tenant of the Development Authority, <\/p>\n
            the demand for non-agricultural assessment could be made only on <\/p>\n
            the Development Authority and not against the tenant?\n<\/p>\n
                                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
The relevant statutory provisions<\/p>\n
4.     The   answers   to   the   aforesaid   two   questions   would   depend   upon   the <\/p>\n
provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Section 39 makes <\/p>\n
the occupant liable to pay the land revenue and the said section is extracted <\/p>\n
below:\n<\/p>\n
       “39.   Occupant   to  pay   land   revenue   and   Government   lessee   to   pay   rent  <\/p>\n
       fixed. <\/p>\n
\n
       Every occupant shall pay as land revenue the assessment fixed under the <\/p>\n
       provisions of this Code and rules made thereunder; and every Government <\/p>\n
       lessee shall pay as land revenue lease money fixed under the terms of the <\/p>\n
       lease.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                             (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The   term   “land   revenue”   and   “occupant”   referred   in   the   said   section   are <\/p>\n
defined   in   Section   2(19)   and   section   2(23)   and   the   said   definitions   are <\/p>\n
extracted below:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
       “(19) – “land revenue” means all sums and payments, in money received <\/p>\n
       or   legally   claimable   by  or   on  behalf   of   the   State   Government   from   any <\/p>\n
       person on account of any land or interest in or right exercisable over land <\/p>\n
       held by or vested in him, under whatever designation  such sum may be <\/p>\n
       payable and any cess or rate authorised by the State Government under the <\/p>\n
       provisions of any law for the time being in force; and includes premium, <\/p>\n
       rent,   lease   money,   quit   rent,  judi  payable   by   a  inamdar  or   any   other <\/p>\n
       payment provided under any Act, rule, contract or deed on account of any <\/p>\n
       land;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       “(23)   –   “occupant”   means   a   holder   in   actual   possession   of   unalienated <\/p>\n
       land,  other  than   a tenant   or Government   lessee  ;  provided  that,  where  a <\/p>\n
       holder   in   actual   possession   is   a   tenant,   the   land   holder   or   the   superior <\/p>\n
       landlord, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the occupant;<\/p>\n
                                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The expressions “to hold land” or “to be a land holder or holder of land” is <\/p>\n
defined   in   section   2(12)   and   mean   to   be   lawfully   in   possession   of   land, <\/p>\n
whether such possession is actual or not.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
The   term   “tenant”   and   “government   lessee”   referred   in   the   definition   of <\/p>\n
“occupant”   are   defined   in   Section   2(40)   and   Section   2(11)   and   they   are <\/p>\n
extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
       “(40)   “tenant”   means   a   lessee,   whether   holding   under   an   instrument,   or <\/p>\n
       under an oral agreement, and includes a mortgagee of a tenant’s rights with <\/p>\n
       possession; but does not include a lessee holding directly under the State <\/p>\n
       Government;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       (11) “Government lessee” means a person holding land from Government <\/p>\n
       under a lease as provided by section 38″.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section   38   referred   in   the   definition   of   `Government   Lessee’   is   extracted <\/p>\n
below :\n<\/p>\n
       “It   shall   be   lawful   for   the   Collector   at   any   time   to   lease   under  grant   or <\/p>\n
       contract any unalienated unoccupied land to any person, for such period, <\/p>\n
       for such purpose and on such conditions as he may, subject to rules made <\/p>\n
       by the State Government in this behalf, determine, and in any such case <\/p>\n
       the land shall, whether a survey settlement has been extended to it or not, <\/p>\n
       be   held   only   for   the   period   and   for   the   purpose   and   subject   to   the <\/p>\n
       conditions so determined. The grantee shall be called a Government lessee <\/p>\n
       in respect of the land so granted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Chapter   XI   of   the   Code   deals   with   realization   of   land   revenue   and   other <\/p>\n
revenue demands. Section 168 in Chapter XI of the Code dealing with the <\/p>\n
liability for land revenue is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
       “168. Liability for land revenue.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (1)   In the case of <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (a)   unalienated   land,   the   occupant   or   the   lessee   of   the   State <\/p>\n
                  Government, <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (b) alienated land, the superior holder, and <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (c)       land in the possession of a tenant, such tenant if he is liable to <\/p>\n
           pay   land   revenue   therefor   under   the   relevant   tenancy   law,   shall   be <\/p>\n
           primarily liable to the State Government for the payment of the land <\/p>\n
           revenue,   including   all   arrears   of   land   revenue,   due   in   respect   of   the <\/p>\n
           land. Joint occupants and joint holders who are primarily liable under <\/p>\n
           this section shall be jointly and severally liable. <\/p>\n
       (2)   In   case   of   default   by   any   person   who   is   primarily   liable   under   this <\/p>\n
       section,   the   land   revenue,   including   arrears   as   aforesaid,   shall   be <\/p>\n
       recoverable from any person in possession of the land. <\/p>\n
       Provided that, where such person is a tenant, the amount recoverable from <\/p>\n
       him   shall   not   exceed   the   demands   of   the   year   in   which   the   recovery   is <\/p>\n
       made.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Provided further that, when land revenue is recovered under this section <\/p>\n
       from any person who is not primarily liable for the same, such person shall <\/p>\n
       be allowed credit for any payments which he may have duly made to the <\/p>\n
       person   who   is   primarily   liable,   and   shall   be   entitled   to   credit,   for   the <\/p>\n
       amount recovered from him, in account with the person who is primarily <\/p>\n
       liable”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
5.     It is not in dispute that the land in question is unalienated land and that <\/p>\n
in   regard   to   such   land,   only   the   `occupant’   as   defined   in   the   Code   is <\/p>\n
primarily   liable   to   pay   the   non-agricultural   assessment   to   the   state <\/p>\n
government. Section 2(23) makes it clear that where the land is in the actual <\/p>\n
possession of a tenant, the superior landlord or the land holder is deemed to <\/p>\n
                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
be the occupant. It is also not in dispute that the Development Authority is <\/p>\n
the `occupant’ and the appellant is not the occupant, but only a tenant under <\/p>\n
the occupant.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Question (i)<\/p>\n
6.     There is no dispute that a government lessee is not liable to pay any <\/p>\n
land   revenue.   Section   2(11)   read   with   section   38   defines   a   `government <\/p>\n
lessee’   as   a   lessee   under   a   lease   granted   by   a   Collector   in   regard   to <\/p>\n
unalienated  unoccupied land belonging to the government. In this case the <\/p>\n
lands   in   question   for   which   the   non-agricultural   assessment   has   been <\/p>\n
demanded, were not leased by the Collector to the appellant. The lease deed <\/p>\n
states that the lands leased were held by the Development Authority, and the <\/p>\n
lessor   is   the   Development   Authority.   Therefore   the   leased   lands   were   not <\/p>\n
government   lands   and   the   lessor   was   not   the   government.   There   is   also <\/p>\n
nothing   to   show   that   the   lands   belonged   to   government   and   that   the <\/p>\n
Development Authority granted the lease in favour of appellant, acting as an <\/p>\n
agent of the state government. A lessee from the Development Authority is <\/p>\n
not   a   government   lessee   as   the   Development   Authority   is   not   the <\/p>\n
government   and   the   lease   lands   are   not   government   lands.   Therefore   the <\/p>\n
                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant   cannot   call   itself   a   government   lessee.   The   first   contention   is <\/p>\n
therefore rejected.\n<\/p>\n
7.     Though   the   issue   is   thus   simple   and   straightforward,   the   appellant <\/p>\n
however contended that it is a `government lessee’ in a rather round-about <\/p>\n
manner,   relying   upon   a   state   government   Circular   dated   29.3.1975   which <\/p>\n
clarified that as on that date, MIDC was the agent of the state government <\/p>\n
and therefore not liable to pay any assessment to the government in respect <\/p>\n
of the lands held by it as agent of the state government; that any lessee under <\/p>\n
MIDC would therefore become a government lessee and will not be liable to <\/p>\n
pay   the   non-agricultural   assessment   under   the   provision   of   Code,   but   will <\/p>\n
only   be   liable   to   pay   the   lease   money   fixed   under   the   lease;   and   that <\/p>\n
consequently the industrial lessees, under MIDC, were not  required to pay  <\/p>\n
any   non-agricultural   assessment   in   addition   to   the   lease   money.   It   is <\/p>\n
submitted by the appellant that in regard to the adjoining land taken by it on <\/p>\n
lease from MIDC, it is not required to pay the non-agricultural assessment <\/p>\n
on account of appellant being treated as government lessee, under the said <\/p>\n
Circular   dated   29.3.1975.   It   is   contended   that   in   principle,   there   is   no <\/p>\n
difference   between   the   MIDC   and  the   Development  Authority   and  having <\/p>\n
regard   to   the   provisions   of   the   Maharashtra   Regional   and   Town   Planning <\/p>\n
Act, 1966 (for short `MRTP Act’), the Development Authority should also <\/p>\n
                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
be treated as agent of the state government and consequently, the appellant <\/p>\n
should be treated as a government lessee which is not liable to pay any non-\n<\/p>\n
agricultural   assessment,   in   regard   to   the   lands   taken   on   lease   under   deed <\/p>\n
dated 3.1.1995.\n<\/p>\n
8.      The   question   whether   the   appellant   is   liable   to   pay   non-agricultural <\/p>\n
assessment   in   regard   to   the   land   taken   on   lease   from   the   Development <\/p>\n
Authority   will   have   to   be   decided   with   reference   to   the   relevant   statutory <\/p>\n
provisions   and   the   terms   of   lease   and   not   with   reference   to   position <\/p>\n
prevailing   with   reference   to   some   other   lease   taken   by   the   appellant   from <\/p>\n
MIDC. The status, objects, functions and area of operation of MIDC and the <\/p>\n
Development Authority are different.  Any decision or clarification issued in <\/p>\n
regard to lands held by MIDC or lands leased by MIDC will not apply to <\/p>\n
lands held or leased by the Development Authority. As noticed above, the <\/p>\n
circular   dated   29.3.1975   relied   upon   by   the   appellant   is   not   relevant   as   it <\/p>\n
applies   only   to   lessees   of   MIDC,   which   as   agent   of   the   state   government <\/p>\n
granted certain leases and consequently such lessees as government lessees <\/p>\n
were   exempted   from   paying   the   non-agricultural   assessment.   The   said <\/p>\n
notification   did   not   refer   to   Pimpri-Chinchwad   New   Town   Development <\/p>\n
Authority as the agent of the state government in regard to grant of leases to <\/p>\n
                                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant   and   others.   In   fact   there   is   no   document   which   shows   the   state <\/p>\n
government   to   be   the   owner   of   the   lands   leased   by   the   Development <\/p>\n
Authority, nor any document to show that the state government had either <\/p>\n
constituted or recognized the Development Authority as its agent in regard <\/p>\n
to leased lands.\n<\/p>\n
9.      To   know   whether   the   Development   Authority   was   an   agent   of   the <\/p>\n
state   government   and   to   ascertain   its   status,   it   is   necessary   to   refer   to   the <\/p>\n
relevant   provisions   of   the   Maharashtra   Regional   and   Town   Planning   Act, <\/p>\n
1966   (for   short   `MRTP   Act’).   Section   113   of   MRTP   Act   provides   for <\/p>\n
designation of new towns and constitution  of Development Authorities  for <\/p>\n
those new towns. Sub-sections (1), (2), and (4) of that section are extracted <\/p>\n
below:\n<\/p>\n
        “113.   (1)  If  the   State   Government   is  satisfied   that   it   is   expedient   in  the <\/p>\n
        public interest that any area should be developed as a site for a new town <\/p>\n
        as   reserved   or   designated  in  any   draft   or   final   Regional   Plan   it   may   by <\/p>\n
        notification in the  Official Gazette,  designate that area as the site for the <\/p>\n
        proposed new town. The new town shall be known by the name specified <\/p>\n
        in the notification.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n        (2)  After   publication   of   the   notification   under   sub-section  (1)  for   the <\/p>\n
        purpose   of  acquiring,   developing   and  disposing  of   land   in   the   area   of   a <\/p>\n
        new   town,   the  State  Government  shall   by   another   notification   in   the <\/p>\n
        Official Gazette, constitute a New Town Development Authority……….<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                  xxx                xxx                 xxx<\/p>\n
        (4) Every Development Authority shall be a body corporate with perpetual <\/p>\n
        succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of <\/p>\n
                                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
       property, both moveable and immoveable, and contract and sue or be sued <\/p>\n
       by  such  name   as   may  be  specified   in  the  notification  under  sub-Section <\/p>\n
       (2)”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section 114 lays down the object of Development Authority and sub-section <\/p>\n
(1) thereof is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
       “114(1)   The  objects   of   a   Development   Authority   shall   be  to   secure   the <\/p>\n
       laying out and development of the new town in accordance with proposals <\/p>\n
       approved   in   that   behalf   under  the   provisions   of   this   Act,   and   for   that <\/p>\n
       purpose   every   such   Authority   shall  subject  to   the   provisions   of  section <\/p>\n
       113A have power  to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other <\/p>\n
       property  to   carry   out   buildings  and   other   operations,   to  provide  water, <\/p>\n
       electricity, gas, sewerage and other  services,  amenities  and facilities  and <\/p>\n
       generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purpose of the new <\/p>\n
       town or for purposes incidental thereto.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section   116   empowers   Development   Authorities   to   acquire   lands.   Section <\/p>\n
118   deals   with   disposal   of   lands   by   Development   Authorities   and   sub-\n<\/p>\n
section (1) thereof which is relevant is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
       “118.(1)  Subject  to any directions  given  by the  State  Government  under <\/p>\n
       this Development Act, a Development Authority may dispose of any land <\/p>\n
       acquired by it or vesting in it to such persons, in such manner, and subject <\/p>\n
       to   such  terms  or   conditions   as   they   consider   expedient   for   securing   the <\/p>\n
       development of the new town in accordance  with proposals approved by <\/p>\n
       the State Government under this Act :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       Provided that, a Development Authority shall not have power, except with <\/p>\n
       the consent of the State Government, to sell any land or to grant a lease of <\/p>\n
       any   land   for   a   term   of   more   than   ninety-nine   years,   and   the   State <\/p>\n
       Government   shall   not   consent   to   any   such   disposal   of   land   unless   it   is <\/p>\n
       satisfied   that   there   are   exceptional   circumstances   which   render   the <\/p>\n
       disposal of the land in that manner expedient.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
10.    It   is   evident   from   section   113,114   and   118   of   MRTP   Act   that   the <\/p>\n
Development Authority is a body corporate which can acquire, hold, manage <\/p>\n
                                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
and dispose of land. Section 113 provides for constitution of a New Town <\/p>\n
Development Authority. Section 114 states the objects of such Development <\/p>\n
Authority.   Section   118   of   MRTP   Act   provides   for   disposal   by   the <\/p>\n
Development   Authority   of   any   land   acquired   by   it   or   vesting   in   it.   The <\/p>\n
Development   Authority   is   therefore   a   body   corporate   which   can   acquire, <\/p>\n
hold, possess, manage,  develop and dispose of land in its name and on its <\/p>\n
own behalf. The fact that the Development Authority requires the consent of <\/p>\n
the state government to dispose of any of its land by way of leases in excess <\/p>\n
of 99 years will not alter the position that the lands leased are lands of the <\/p>\n
Development Authority. There is no provision in MRTP Act which requires <\/p>\n
the   New   Town   Development   Authority,   to   hold   and   dispose   of   any <\/p>\n
government land as agent of the state government. In contrast, MRTP Act <\/p>\n
contains   a   specific   provision   enabling   the   state   government   to   require   a <\/p>\n
corporation  or company  (other   than a  New  Town  Development   Authority, <\/p>\n
which is specific to a new Town), to execute development work and dispose <\/p>\n
of   its   lands   as   its   agent.   Sub-section   (3A)   of   section   113   of   MRTP   Act <\/p>\n
provides:\n<\/p>\n
        “(3A).   Having   regard   to   the   complexity   and   magnitude   of   the   work <\/p>\n
        involved   in   developing   any   area   as   a   site   for   the   new   town,   the   time <\/p>\n
        required   for   setting   up   new   machinery   for   undertaking   and   completing <\/p>\n
        such  work   of  development,   and  the  comparative  speed   with  which  such <\/p>\n
        work can be undertaken and completed in the public interest, if the work is <\/p>\n
        done through the agency of a corporation including a company owned or <\/p>\n
        controlled by the State or a subsidiary company thereof, set up with the <\/p>\n
                                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
        object   of developing  an  area  as   a new   town,  the  state   government  may, <\/p>\n
        notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), require the work of <\/p>\n
        developing and disposing of land in the area of a new town to be done by <\/p>\n
        any   such   corporation,   company   or   subsidiary   company   aforesaid,   as   an <\/p>\n
        agent   of   the   state   government;   and   thereupon,   such   corporation   or <\/p>\n
        company   shall,   in   relation   to   such   area,   be   declared   by   the   state <\/p>\n
        government,  by notification  in the  official gazette,  to be the  New  Town <\/p>\n
        Development Authority for that area.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
MIDC is a corporation which would fall under sub-section 113(3A) whereas <\/p>\n
the   Development   Authority   falls   under   section   113(2)   of   MRTP   Act.   The <\/p>\n
circular   issued   with   reference   to   MIDC   is   therefore   of   no   assistance   to <\/p>\n
contend   that   land   leased   by   the   Development   Authority   to   appellant   is   a <\/p>\n
government   land.   The   contention   of   appellant   that   the   Development <\/p>\n
Authority   is   the   agent   of   state   government   and   that   the   appellant   is   a <\/p>\n
government lessee are therefore rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Question (ii)<\/p>\n
11.     The appellant next contends that even if it is not a government lessee, <\/p>\n
being   a   lessee   of   the   `occupant’,   it   is   not   liable   to   pay   the   land   revenue.\n<\/p>\n
There   is   no   dispute   that   section   39   of   the   Land   Revenue   Code,   fastens <\/p>\n
liability to pay land revenue upon the occupant and not on the tenant of the <\/p>\n
occupant.   Section   168(1)(a)   of   the   Code   also   reiterates   that   in   the   case   of <\/p>\n
unalienated   land,   the   occupant   shall   be   primarily   liable   to   the   state <\/p>\n
government for making the   payment of land revenue including all arrears.\n<\/p>\n
                                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
Sub-section (2) of section 168 provides that in case of default of the person <\/p>\n
primarily   liable,  the  land  revenue  shall  be  recoverable  from  any  person  in <\/p>\n
possession   of   the   land.   It   is   therefore   contended   by   the   appellant   that   the <\/p>\n
state government can make the demand for any land revenue only upon the <\/p>\n
occupant, that is, the Development Authority in this case, which is primarily <\/p>\n
liable. It is  submitted that only if it defaults, the amount could be recovered <\/p>\n
from the person in possession, as provided under section 168(2) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
It   is   submitted   that   the   notice   of  demand,   directly   issued   to   the   appellant, <\/p>\n
should   be   quashed,   as   there   is   nothing   to   show   that   a   demand   was   first <\/p>\n
issued   to   the   Development   Authority,   that   it   defaulted   in   payment   of   the <\/p>\n
amount   demanded,   and   that   the   impugned   notices   were   issued   only <\/p>\n
thereafter, under section 168(2) of the Act. It is submitted that the liability to <\/p>\n
pay   land   revenue   being   that   of   the   Development   Authority,   the   demand <\/p>\n
notices issued to the lessee as if it is person primarily liable are liable to be <\/p>\n
quashed. It is further submitted that if and when the Development Authority <\/p>\n
pays   the   land   revenue   to   the   government,   in   turn,   it   would   be   entitled   to <\/p>\n
make  a demand upon the appellant,  if  the lease  permitted such  a demand;\n<\/p>\n
and when such a demand is made, the appellant as lessee would deal with <\/p>\n
the   demand   in   terms   of   the   lease   and   if   there   is   any   dispute   between   the <\/p>\n
Development Authority and the appellant as lessor and lessee, that will be <\/p>\n
                                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
settled in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
12.     It is no doubt true that the primary liability to pay the land revenue <\/p>\n
which   includes   non-agricultural   assessment   is   on   the   occupant,   under <\/p>\n
Section   39   of   the   Code.   The   definition   of   `occupant’   excludes   not   only <\/p>\n
`government   lessee’   but   also   every   tenant.   Whenever   the   person   in   actual <\/p>\n
possession of the land is the tenant, the land holder or the superior landlord <\/p>\n
who granted  the lease to such tenant is deemed to be an occupant. In this <\/p>\n
case the appellant has taken the lease from the Development Authority and <\/p>\n
therefore the Development Authority as the landlord and occupant, will be <\/p>\n
primarily liable to pay the land revenue. But the matter does not rest there.\n<\/p>\n
13.     In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 159 of the MRTP Act, <\/p>\n
the   Development   Authority,   with   the   previous   approval   of   the   state <\/p>\n
government,   has   made   regulations   for   regulating   the   disposal   of   land <\/p>\n
acquired by it or vesting in it in the Pimpri-Chinchwad New Town, known <\/p>\n
as the “Pimpri-Chinchwad New Town Development Authority (Disposal of <\/p>\n
Land)   Regulations,   1973”   (`Regulations’   for   short).   Regulation   1(ii) <\/p>\n
provides   that   the   said   Regulations   shall   apply   to   the   lands   acquired   by   or <\/p>\n
vested in the Pimpri-Chinchwad New Town Development Authority for the <\/p>\n
                                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
development   of   Pimpri-Chinchwad   New   Town.   Regulation   5   relates   to <\/p>\n
disposal of land by lease. It provides that the Development Authority may <\/p>\n
from time to time dispose of plots of land on lease, to the persons eligible, in <\/p>\n
consideration   of   a   premium   and   an   annual   ground   rent.   Part   IV   of   the <\/p>\n
Regulation   contains   the   conditions   of   lease.   Regulations   10(iv)   and   10(v) <\/p>\n
relating to the question of payment of rates and taxes and land revenue and <\/p>\n
cesses are extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
       “10(iv)   The lessee shall during the continuance of the  lease, pay all the <\/p>\n
       rates,  taxes,  fees  and  other  charges  due and  becoming  due  in respect   of <\/p>\n
       demised land by the Development Authority or lessee thereof.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (v)        The   lessee  shall   during  the   continuance  of  the  lease   pay  the   land <\/p>\n
       revenue cesses assessed or which may be assessed on the demised land”. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Regulation 16 provides that in the event of conflict between the Regulations <\/p>\n
and provisions of a lease deed entered into by the Development Authority, <\/p>\n
the provisions of the Regulations will prevail. There is however no conflict <\/p>\n
between the Regulations and the terms of the lease. Clause 2 (c) of the lease <\/p>\n
deed   dated   3.1.1995   between   the   Development   Authority   as   lessor   and <\/p>\n
appellant as lessee, reiterates the terms and conditions of lease contained in <\/p>\n
the   Regulations   by   providing   that   the   lessee   would   be   liable   to   pay   any <\/p>\n
future rates or taxes recoverable under law from the lessee. Thus there is a <\/p>\n
                                               17<\/span><\/p>\n
statutory liability upon the appellant as lessee to pay the land revenue (non-\n<\/p>\n
agricultural assessment) to the state government.\n<\/p>\n
14.     Section   39   of   the   Code   makes   the   Development   Authority,   as <\/p>\n
`occupant’,   liable   to   pay   the   non-agricultural   assessment   and   the   said <\/p>\n
liability is, in turn, statutorily passed on to the appellant as lessee under the <\/p>\n
Regulations 10(iv) and (v) and the clause 2(c) of the lease deed. This Court <\/p>\n
in  Nagpur   Improvement   Trust   v.   Nagpur   Timber   Merchants   Association<\/a>  –\n<\/p>\n
1997 (5) SCC 105, recognized that the Improvement Trust or Development <\/p>\n
Authority under the terms of lease, can pass on the liability in regard to non-\n<\/p>\n
agricultural assessment to the lessees.\n<\/p>\n
15.     The only issue that remains for consideration is whether the demand <\/p>\n
for land revenue could be directly made against the lessee of the occupant, <\/p>\n
when the land revenue code makes the occupant primarily liable. But for the <\/p>\n
statutory   obligation   created   under   regulation   10(iv)   and   (v)   of   the <\/p>\n
Regulations, in the normal course, a demand should have been made upon <\/p>\n
the occupant (landlord) who is primarily liable and only if the landlord fails <\/p>\n
to   pay,   recourse   could   be   had   to   sub-section   (2)   of   section   168   which <\/p>\n
enabled   a   claim   being   made   against   the   tenant   in   terms   of   the   said   sub-\n<\/p>\n
                                                18<\/span><\/p>\n
section. But where the liability to pay land revenue is fastened on the lessee <\/p>\n
under   the   statutory   regulations,   it   is   not   be   necessary   for   the   state <\/p>\n
government to make a claim upon the occupant, leading to a demand by the <\/p>\n
Development   Authority,   in   turn,   upon   its   lessee,   for   payment   of   land <\/p>\n
revenue. The state government can directly make the demand as the lessee, <\/p>\n
by   taking   note   of   the   liability   statutorily   fastened   on   the   lessee   under   the <\/p>\n
Regulations. When the liability of the lessee to pay the land revenue is not <\/p>\n
open   to   challenge,   having   regard   to   the   provisions   of  the   Regulations   and <\/p>\n
terms   of   the   lease,   no   purpose   would   be   served   by   requiring   the   state <\/p>\n
government   to   recover   the   amount   from   the   Development   Authority <\/p>\n
(occupant) and then require the Development Authority to make a demand <\/p>\n
upon   the   lessee   to   recover   the   amount.   Having   regard   to   the   statutory <\/p>\n
liability   created   upon   the   lessee,   under   the   Pimpri-Chinchwad   New   Town <\/p>\n
Development Authority (Disposal of land Regulations), 1973, the position of <\/p>\n
the   lessee   would   be   similar   to   a   tenant   referred   to   in   sub-section   1(c)   of <\/p>\n
section   168   of   the   Code   which   provides   that   in   the   case   of   the   land   in <\/p>\n
possession   of   a   tenant,   such   tenant   if   he   is   liable   to   pay   land   revenue <\/p>\n
therefor under the relevant tenancy laws, shall be primarily liable to the state <\/p>\n
government   for   the   payment   of   land   revenue,   including   all   arrears.   The <\/p>\n
liability of the appellant as tenant, to pay the land revenue, though not under <\/p>\n
                                               19<\/span><\/p>\n
a   `tenancy   law’   in   its   strict   sense,   but   is   nevertheless   under   a   statutory <\/p>\n
regulation   governing   the   tenancy   and   therefore   the   demand   by   the   state <\/p>\n
government directly against the appellant,  can be justified by the principle <\/p>\n
underlying section 168(1)(c). In the view we have taken, it is not necessary <\/p>\n
to   consider   the   further   submission   that   the   term   `tenancy   laws’   used   in <\/p>\n
section   168(1)(c)   should   be   understood   in   a   broad   sense,   and   if   so <\/p>\n
interpreted, would include any law regulating or governing tenancies, and as <\/p>\n
the   Regulations   govern   tenancies   by   the   Development   Authority,   the <\/p>\n
Regulations   will   fall   within   the   term   `tenancy   laws’   and   consequently   the <\/p>\n
primary   liability   to   pay   land   revenue   would   be   upon   the   appellant   under <\/p>\n
section 168(1)(c). Be that as it may.\n<\/p>\n
16.     However, as we have held that a demand can directly be made upon <\/p>\n
the lessee, the lessee can give a representation or file objections before the <\/p>\n
revenue authorities of the state government, if it has any grievance in regard <\/p>\n
to the determination of the quantum of the non-agricultural assessment or the <\/p>\n
demand therefor.\n<\/p>\n
17.     Sub-section   (2)   of   section   168   no   doubt   provides   that  in   case   of  <\/p>\n
default by any person who is primarily liable under sub-section (1), the land <\/p>\n
revenue including arrears shall be recoverable from any person in possession <\/p>\n
                                               20<\/span><\/p>\n
of   the   land   provided   that   where   such   person   is   a   tenant   the   amount <\/p>\n
recoverable from him shall not exceed the demands of the year in which the <\/p>\n
recovery is made. This sub-section no doubt implies the demand should be <\/p>\n
made upon the occupant and only if the occupant defaults, a demand can be <\/p>\n
made upon the person in occupation, that is the lessee. We are of the view <\/p>\n
that   sub-section   (2)   of   section   168   will   operate   where   the   tenant   is   not <\/p>\n
primarily   liable   under   section   168(1)   of   the   Code,   or   where   there   is   no <\/p>\n
statutory   liability   upon   the   lessee   to   bear   and   pay   the   land   revenue.   The <\/p>\n
procedure under sub-section (2) would apply where the liability to pay the <\/p>\n
land revenue is on the lessor, and where the lessee is not liable therefor or <\/p>\n
where   the   liability   of   the   lessee   to   pay   the   land   revenue   is   merely <\/p>\n
contractual, as contrasted from a statutory obligation. Where the liability of <\/p>\n
the lessee is a statutory liability, we see no reason why that recovery should <\/p>\n
be delayed and protracted by requiring a demand by the state government on <\/p>\n
the lessor and a consequential demand by the lessor on the lessee. We may <\/p>\n
further note, if the lessee commits default in paying the land revenue, it may <\/p>\n
amount to a breach leading to re-entry under clause (4) of the lease deed.  Be <\/p>\n
that as it may. However, having regard to the pendency of these proceedings, <\/p>\n
if the payment  of the land revenue dues is made  within  four months  from <\/p>\n
today it shall not be treated as a default or breach of the terms of the lease <\/p>\n
                                          21<\/span><\/p>\n
deed for the purpose of re-entry.\n<\/p>\n
18.    In view of the above, we find no error in the order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Consequently   this   appeal   is   dismissed   reserving   liberty   however   to   the <\/p>\n
appellant   to   file   representations\/objections   before   the   concerned   Revenue <\/p>\n
Authority, if it has any objection or grievance in regard to the quantum of <\/p>\n
non-agricultural assessment claimed in regard to the property leased to it. As <\/p>\n
the appellant had the benefit of interim stay against recovery, the appellant <\/p>\n
shall be liable to pay interest on the arrears\/dues at the rate of 9% per annum <\/p>\n
from 26.2.2002.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   …………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (R V Raveendran)<\/p>\n
                                                   …………………………..J.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                   (P. Sathasivam)\n\n\n\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                         ................................J.\n\nJuly 4, 2011.                                      (A K Patnaik)             \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011 Author: R.V.Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam, A.K. Patnaik Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10187 OF 2010 Tata Motors Ltd. … Appellant Vs. Talathi of Village Chikhali & Ors. … […]<\/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-213058","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - 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\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-27T19:39:40+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-27T19:39:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4839,\"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\\\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-27T19:39:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - 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\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-27T19:39:40+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-27T19:39:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011"},"wordCount":4839,"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\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011","name":"Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-27T19:39:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-motors-ltd-vs-talathi-of-village-chikhali-ors-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tata Motors Ltd vs Talathi Of Village Chikhali & Ors on 4 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/213058","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=213058"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213058\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}