{"id":216447,"date":"1960-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-10-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960"},"modified":"2018-02-17T14:39:00","modified_gmt":"2018-02-17T09:09:00","slug":"gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960","title":{"rendered":"Gangadharrao Narayanrao &#8230; vs The State Of Bombay And Another &#8230; on 3 October, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gangadharrao Narayanrao &#8230; vs The State Of Bombay And Another &#8230; on 3 October, 1960<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR  288, \t\t  1961 SCR  (1) 943<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Kapur, J.L., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nGANGADHARRAO NARAYANRAO MAJUMDAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER WITH CONNECTED APPEALS)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n03\/10\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nKAPUR, J.L.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSUBBARAO, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  288\t\t  1961 SCR  (1) 943\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1961 SC 291\t (2)\n R\t    1965 SC 632\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\n Inams--Abolition of Personal Inams--Constitutional  validity\n of  Enactment--\"  Estate \" \" Right in an estate  \",  meaning\n of--Bombay  Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952 (Bom.  42  of\n 1953), ss. 4, 5, 7, 17--Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bom.\n 5 of 1879), s. 3(5)--Constitution of India, Arts. 31, 31--A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n The  appellants held personal inams which were\t governed  by\n Bombay Acts Nos.  II and VII of 1863 by virtue of which they\n held  their lands on payment of land revenue which was\t less\n than the full assessment.  After. the. coming into force  of\n the   Bombay  Personal\t Inams\tAbolition  Act,\t  1952,\t  the\n appellants  who were affected by it Challenged the  validity\n of the Act on the grounds, inter alia, (i) that the property\n which\thad been dealt with under the Act was not  an  estate\n inasmuch  as what ss. 4 and 5 extinguished was the right  of\n the inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference between\n the full assessment and\n 944\n the quit rent and this was not an estate within the  meaning\n of  Art. 31-A of the Constitution of India, and (2) that  no\n compensation  bad been provided in the Act for\t taking\t away\n the property of the appellants.\n Held:\t(i) that the right of the inamdar to  appropriate  to\n himself  the difference between the full assessment and  the\n quit  rent  was a right in respect of land revenue  and  was\n therefore  a right in an estate by virtue of the  definition\n in Art. 31-A(2)(b).  Such a right also fell under S. 3(5) Of\n the  Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and as such it  was  an\n estate\t under\tArt.  31-A.  Accordingly,  the\tAct  when  it\n extinguished  or  modified the rights of  inamdars  in\t inam\n estates was protected by Art. 31-A.\n (2)  that  sub-s.  (5) Of s. 17 of the Act  under  which  no\n compensation  was to be paid for the loss to the inamdar  of\n what  he used to get because of the difference\t between  the\n quit  rent and the full assessment, was not invalid as\t Art.\n 31-A  saved the Act from any attack under Art. 31 which  was\n the only Article providing for compensation.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p> CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 155 to  160<br \/>\n of 1956.\n<\/p>\n<p> Appeals  from\tthe judgments and orders of the\t Bombay\t High<br \/>\n Court dated July 6, 1954, in Special Civil Applications Nos.<br \/>\n 393,  395,  409 and 632 of 1954; July 19, 1954,  in  Special<br \/>\n Civil\tApplication No. 1205 of 1954; and July 30,  1954,  in<br \/>\n Special Civil Application No. 1309 of 1954.<br \/>\n Purshottam Trikamdas, V. M. Limaye, E. Udayaratnam and S. S.<br \/>\n Shukla, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p> H.  N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, N.  P.<br \/>\n Nathwani, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for the   respondents.<br \/>\n 1960.\tOctober 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n WANCHOO J.-These six appeals on a certificate granted by the<br \/>\n Bombay\t High  Court  raise  a\tcommon\tquestion  as  to  the<br \/>\n constitutionality  of\tthe Bombay Personal  Inams  Abolition<br \/>\n Act, No. XLII of 1953, (hereinafter called the Act) and will<br \/>\n be  disposed  of  by this  judgment.\tThe  appellants\t hold<br \/>\n personal inams which are covered by Bombay Acts Nos. 11  and<br \/>\n VII of 1863.  The Act was attacked on a number of grounds in<br \/>\n the High Court of which only two have<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 945<\/span><br \/>\n been  urged before us, namely, (i) that the  property\twhich<br \/>\n has been dealt with under the Act is not an estate and\t (ii)<br \/>\n that no compensation has been provided in the Act for taking<br \/>\n away the property of the appellants: The writ petitions were<br \/>\n opposed  by the State of Bombay and the main  contention  on<br \/>\n its behalf was that the Act was protected under Art. 31-A of<br \/>\n the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p> Before\t we  deal with the two points raised  before  us,  we<br \/>\n should like briefly to refer to the rights which holders  of<br \/>\n personal inams had by virtue of Bombay Acts Nos.  II and VII<br \/>\n of  1863.   Act  No. 11 extended to  certain  parts  of  the<br \/>\n Presidency  of\t Bombay and dealt with holders\tof  lands  in<br \/>\n those\tparts  who  were holding lands\twholly\tor  partially<br \/>\n exempt from the payment of government land-revenue.  The Act<br \/>\n provided for the cases of holders of such lands whose\ttitle<br \/>\n to  exemption had not till then been  formally\t adjudicated.<br \/>\n It  laid  down that if such holders of\t lands\tconsented  to<br \/>\n submit to the terms and conditions prescribed in the Act  in<br \/>\n preference  to\t being obliged to prove their  title  to  the<br \/>\n exemption  enjoyed by them, the Provincial Government\twould<br \/>\n be   prepared\tto  finally  authorise\tand   guarantee\t  the<br \/>\n continuance,  in  perpetuity, of the said land to  the\t said<br \/>\n holders,  their  heirs and assigns upon the said  terms  and<br \/>\n subject  to the said conditions.  The main provision of  the<br \/>\n Act  in this respect was that such holders of land would  be<br \/>\n entitled  to  keep  their lands  in  perpetuity  subject  to<br \/>\n payment  of  (i)  a  fixed  annual  payment  as  nazrana  in<br \/>\n commutation  of  all  claims  of the  Crown  in  respect  of<br \/>\n succession  and  transfer which shall be calculated  at  the<br \/>\n rate  of  one anna for each rupee of assessment and  (ii)  a<br \/>\n quit-rent equal to one-fourth of the assessment.  There were<br \/>\n other\tprovisions  in\tthe Act for  those  cases  where  the<br \/>\n holders  of  such lands were not prepared to  abide  by  the<br \/>\n conditions  of\t the  Act  and\twanted\ttheir  claims  to  be<br \/>\n adjudicated; but we are not concerned with those  provisions<br \/>\n for present purposes.\tThus the main right which the holders<br \/>\n of  lands  got by Act 11 was that they held their  lands  on<br \/>\n payment of one-fourth of the assessment instead of full<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 946<\/span><br \/>\n assessment  plus  further one-sixteenth of  the  assessment;<br \/>\n thus  they paid in all five annas in the rupee of  the\t full<br \/>\n assessment  and  retained  eleven annas  in  the  rupee  for<br \/>\n themselves.\n<\/p>\n<p> Act  No.  VII\tdealt with similar holders of  lands  in  the<br \/>\n remaining  parts  of  the Presidency  of  Bombay,  and\t made<br \/>\n similar provisions with this difference that such holders of<br \/>\n lands were to pay two annas for each rupee of the assessment<br \/>\n as  quit-rent under s. 6. Thus those who came under Act  VII<br \/>\n paid  only  two  annas in the rupee of\t the  assessment  and<br \/>\n retained fourteen annas in the rupee for themselves.<br \/>\n We  now  turn\tto the provisions of the  Act.\t By  s.\t 2(c)<br \/>\n inamdar  &#8221;  is\t defined as a holder  of  personal  inam  and<br \/>\n includes  any person lawfully holding under or through\t him.<br \/>\n Section  2(d)\tdefines an &#8221; inam village or &#8221;\tinam  land  &#8221;<br \/>\n while\ts.  2(e) defines &#8221; personal inam Section  3  provides<br \/>\n that  the  Act\t will not apply to  certain  inams  including<br \/>\n devasthan  inams  or inams held by religious  or  charitable<br \/>\n institutions.\tThe Explanation to the section lays down that<br \/>\n by the term &#8221; inams held by religious or charitable institu-<br \/>\n tions &#8221; will be meant devasthan or dharmadaya inams  granted<br \/>\n or recognized by the ruling authority for the time being for<br \/>\n a religious or charitable institution and entered as such in<br \/>\n the alienation register kept under s. 53 of the Bombay\t Land<br \/>\n Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter called the Code), or in  the<br \/>\n records  kept under the rules made under the  Pensions\t Act,<br \/>\n 1871.\t Thus so far as religious or charitable\t institutions<br \/>\n were  concerned  those inams which they held from  the\t very<br \/>\n beginning  as devasthan or dharmadaya inams and  which\t were<br \/>\n entered  in the relevant records were out of the  provisions<br \/>\n of  the Act.  Section 4 extinguishes all personal inams  and<br \/>\n save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of the<br \/>\n Act,  all  rights  legally subsisting on the  said  date  in<br \/>\n respect  of  such  personal  inams  were  also\t extinguished<br \/>\n subject  to  certain  exceptions  which  are,\thowever,  not<br \/>\n material now.\tSection 5 provides that all inam villages  or<br \/>\n inam  lands are and shall be liable to the payment of\tland-<br \/>\n revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Code or the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 947<\/span><br \/>\n rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Code and the<br \/>\n rules\trelating  to unalienated lands shall  apply  to\t such<br \/>\n lands.\t  It further provides that an inamdar in  respect  of<br \/>\n the inam land in his actual possession or in possession of a<br \/>\n person\t holding  from\thim other  than\t an  inferior  holder<br \/>\n (subject  to an exception which we shall mention  just\t now)<br \/>\n would\tbe primarily liable to the State Government  for  the<br \/>\n payment of land-revenue due in respect of such land held  by<br \/>\n him  and  shall be entitled to all the rights and  shall  be<br \/>\n liable\t to  all obligations in respect of such\t land  as  an<br \/>\n occupant under the Code or the rules made thereunder or  any<br \/>\n other\tlaw  for the time being in force.  Thus by s.  5  the<br \/>\n holder of a personal inam became for all practical  purposes<br \/>\n an  occupant under the Code liable to pay full\t land-revenue<br \/>\n and the advantage that he had under Acts II and VII of\t 1863<br \/>\n of paying only a part of the land-revenue and retaining  the<br \/>\n rest  for  himself was taken away.  The exception  which  we<br \/>\n have  refer.  red  to above was where\tthe  inferior  holder<br \/>\n holding inam land paid an amount equal to the annual assess-<br \/>\n ment  to  the\tholder of the personal\tinam,  such  inferior<br \/>\n holder\t would\tbe liable to the State Government  and\twould<br \/>\n become\t an occupant of the land under the Code.   Section  7<br \/>\n then vests certain lands like public roads, paths and lanes,<br \/>\n the  bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, the bed of the  sea<br \/>\n and  harbours, creeks below high water mark and  of  rivers,<br \/>\n streams,  nallas,  lakes, wells and tanks, and\t all  canals,<br \/>\n water-courses,\t all standing and flowing water, all  unbuilt<br \/>\n village  sites, all waste lands and all  uncultivated\tlands<br \/>\n (excluding lands used for building or other non-agricultural<br \/>\n purposes)  in\tthe  State Government  and  extinguishes  the<br \/>\n rights\t of inamdar in them.  Section 8 deals with  right  to<br \/>\n trees\tand  s. 9 with right to mines and  mineral  products.<br \/>\n Section  10 provides for compensation for extinguishment  of<br \/>\n rights\t under s. 7 while s. 11 gives a right of appeal\t from<br \/>\n the  order of the Collector under s. 10. Sections 12  to  16<br \/>\n deal with procedural matters and s. 17 provides for  payment<br \/>\n of  compensation  for\textinction  or\tmodification  of   an<br \/>\n inamdar&#8217;s  right  which may not be covered by s.  10.\t Sub-<br \/>\n section (5)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 948<\/span><br \/>\n of  s. 17 however says that &#8221; nothing in this section\tshall<br \/>\n entitle  any person to compensation on the ground  that  any<br \/>\n inam  village\tor inam land which was\twholly\tor  partially<br \/>\n exempt\t from the payment of land revenue has been under  the<br \/>\n provisions  of this Act made subject to the payment of\t full<br \/>\n assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Code  &#8220;.<br \/>\n Section  17-A\tprovides for the issue of bonds while  s.  18<br \/>\n provides  for\tthe  application of the\t Bombay\t Tenancy  and<br \/>\n Agricultural Lands; Act, 1948, to any inam village or.\t inam<br \/>\n land or the mutual rights and obligations of an inamdar  and<br \/>\n his tenants.  Section 19 provides for making of rules and s.<br \/>\n 20 deals with repeals and amendments.\n<\/p>\n<p> It will be seen from this analysis of the Act that the\t main<br \/>\n provisions are ss. 4, 5 and 7. So far as s. 7 is  concerned,<br \/>\n there\tis provision for compensation with respect  to\tlands<br \/>\n vested\t in  the  State by virtue of that  section.   But  no<br \/>\n compensation is provided for the rights extinguished by  as.<br \/>\n 4  and\t 5.  As we have seen already the  main\tright  of  an<br \/>\n inamdar  was  to hold his lands on payment of\tland  revenue<br \/>\n which was less than the full assessment and it is this right<br \/>\n which has been abolished by ss. 4 and 5 and the inamdar will<br \/>\n now  have to pay the full assessment.\tNo  compensation  has<br \/>\n been  provided\t for the loss which the\t inamdar  suffers  by<br \/>\n having to pay the full assessment.\n<\/p>\n<p> This  brings us to the first contention.  On behalf  of  the<br \/>\n appellants  it is urged that what ss. 4 and 5 extinguish  is<br \/>\n the  right  of\t the inamdar to appropriate  to\t himself  the<br \/>\n difference  between the full assessment and  the  quit-rent,<br \/>\n and this is not an estate within the meaning of Art, 3 1   A<br \/>\n of  the Constitution.\tThe relevant provisions in Art.\t 31-A<br \/>\n for present purposes aref these:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8221; 31-A (1)-Notwithstanding anything contained in art. 13, no<br \/>\n law providing for-\n<\/p>\n<p> (a)  the  acquisition by the State of any estate or  of  any<br \/>\n rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of  any<br \/>\n such rights, or\n<\/p>\n<p> (b)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p> (c)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 949<\/span><\/p>\n<p> (d)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p> (e)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p> shall\tbe  deemed to be void on the ground that  it  is  in-<br \/>\n consistent with or takes away or abridges any of the  rights<br \/>\n conferred by art. 14, art 19 or art. 31 ;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      Provided&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;<br \/>\n      (2) In this article-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      (a) the expression &#8216; estate&#8217; shall, in relation to  any<br \/>\n local area, have the same meaning as that expression or  its<br \/>\n local\tequivalent has in the existing law relating  to\t land<br \/>\n tenures  in force in that area, and shall also\t include  any<br \/>\n jagir,\t inam  or  muafi or other similar grant\t and  in  the<br \/>\n States of Madras and Kerala any janmam right;\n<\/p>\n<p> (b)  the expression &#8216;rights&#8217; in relation to an estate\tshall<br \/>\n include any rights vesting in a proprietor,  sub-proprietor,<br \/>\n under-proprietor,  tenure-holder,  raiyat,  under-raiyat  or<br \/>\n other\tintermediary and any rights or privileges in  respect<br \/>\n of land revenue &#8220;.\n<\/p>\n<p> It  will be, clear from the definition of the word estate  &#8221;<br \/>\n in Art. 31-A(2)(a) that it specifically includes an &#8221; inam &#8221;<br \/>\n within\t it.   As  such it would be in our  opinion  idle  to<br \/>\n contend that inams are not estates within the meaning of the<br \/>\n expression &#8221; estate &#8221; for the purpose of Art. 31-A.  The Act<br \/>\n specifically  deals with inams and would thus\tbe  obviously<br \/>\n protected  under  Art. 31-A from any attack under  Art.  14,<br \/>\n Art. 19 or Art. 31.  It is, however, urged that the right of<br \/>\n the  inamdar  to appropriate to himself that  part  of\t full<br \/>\n assessment  which was left over after he had paid the\tquit-<br \/>\n rent  to the Government is not a right in an  estate.\t This<br \/>\n contention  also  has no force.  Inams\t being\testates,  the<br \/>\n right\tof the inamdar to retain part of the full  assessment<br \/>\n over  and  above  the quit-rent payable  to  the  Government<br \/>\n arises\t  because  he  holds  the  inam-estate.\t  The\tright<br \/>\n therefore  can\t be nothing more than a right in  an  estate.<br \/>\n Besides the definition of the expression &#8221; rights &#8221; in\t Art.<br \/>\n 31-A(2)(b) makes the position clear beyond all doubt, for it<br \/>\n provides  that\t the rights in relation to  an\testate\twould<br \/>\n include any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 121<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 950<\/span><br \/>\n Even  if  it  were possible to say that  the  right  of  the<br \/>\n inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference between the<br \/>\n full  assessment  and the quit-rent was not a\tright  in  an<br \/>\n estate\t as  such, it would become a right in  an  estate  by<br \/>\n virtue of this inclusive definition for the inamdar&#8217;s\tright<br \/>\n could\tonly  be  a right or privilege in  respect  of\tland-<br \/>\n revenue.   Besides, it is clear that the right\t in  question<br \/>\n falls\tunder s. 3(5) of the Code and as such also it  is  an<br \/>\n estate\t under\tArt.31-A. The contention  of  the  appellants<br \/>\n therefore  that inams dealt with by the Act are not  covered<br \/>\n by  the  expression &#8221; estate &#8221; in Art.\t 31-A  fails.\tTheir<br \/>\n further contention that their right to retain the difference<br \/>\n between  full assessment and quit-rent is not a right in  an<br \/>\n estate\t also fails.  The Act therefore when it\t extinguishes<br \/>\n or  modifies the rights of inamdars in the inam  estates  is<br \/>\n clearly protected by Art. 31-A.\n<\/p>\n<p> The  next  contention is that the Act does not\t provide  for<br \/>\n compensation  and is therefore ultra vires in view  of\t Art.\n<\/p>\n<p> 31.   We  find,  however,  that the  Act  has\tprovided  for<br \/>\n compensation  under s. 10 so far as that part of inam\tlands<br \/>\n which\tare  vested  in\t the State by  s.  7  are  concerned.<br \/>\n Further  s. 17 provides for compensation in a possible\t case<br \/>\n where anything has been left out by s. 7 and the inamdar  is<br \/>\n entitled to compensation for it.  It is true that by sub  s.<br \/>\n (5)  of s. 17 no compensation is to be paid for the loss  to<br \/>\n the inamdar of what he used to get because of the difference<br \/>\n between  the quit-rent and the full assessment.  It is\t how-<br \/>\n ever  clear  that Art. 31-A saves the Act  from  any  attack<br \/>\n under\tArt.  31  which is the\tonly  Article  providing  for<br \/>\n compensation.\t  In   this   view   of\t  the\tmatter\t  the<br \/>\n constitutionality  of\tthe  Act cannot be  assailed  on  the<br \/>\n ground\t that it provides no compensation for  extinction  of<br \/>\n certain rights.\n<\/p>\n<p> There\tis  no\tforce in these appeals and  they  are  hereby<br \/>\n dismissed with costs.\tOne set only of hearing costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t   Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 951<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gangadharrao Narayanrao &#8230; vs The State Of Bombay And Another &#8230; on 3 October, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 288, 1961 SCR (1) 943 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Kapur, J.L., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N. PETITIONER: GANGADHARRAO NARAYANRAO MAJUMDAR Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216447","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gangadharrao Narayanrao ... vs The State Of Bombay And Another ... on 3 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gangadharrao Narayanrao ... vs The State Of Bombay And Another ... on 3 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1960-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-17T09:09:00+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gangadharrao Narayanrao &#8230; vs The State Of Bombay And Another &#8230; on 3 October, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T09:09:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960\"},\"wordCount\":2359,\"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\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960\",\"name\":\"Gangadharrao Narayanrao ... vs The State Of Bombay And Another ... on 3 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T09:09:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gangadharrao Narayanrao &#8230; vs The State Of Bombay And Another &#8230; on 3 October, 1960\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Gangadharrao Narayanrao ... vs The State Of Bombay And Another ... on 3 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gangadharrao Narayanrao ... vs The State Of Bombay And Another ... on 3 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-17T09:09:00+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gangadharrao Narayanrao &#8230; vs The State Of Bombay And Another &#8230; on 3 October, 1960","datePublished":"1960-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T09:09:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960"},"wordCount":2359,"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\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960","name":"Gangadharrao Narayanrao ... vs The State Of Bombay And Another ... on 3 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T09:09:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharrao-narayanrao-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-3-october-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gangadharrao Narayanrao &#8230; vs The State Of Bombay And Another &#8230; on 3 October, 1960"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/216447","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=216447"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216447\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}