{"id":216960,"date":"1983-09-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-09-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983"},"modified":"2018-05-23T11:06:55","modified_gmt":"2018-05-23T05:36:55","slug":"fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983","title":{"rendered":"Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 1093, \t\t 1983 SCR (3) 929<\/div>\n
Author: A Varadarajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Varadarajan, A. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFATEH SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSEWA RAM AND OTHERS ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/09\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\nBENCH:\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\nDESAI, D.A.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR 1093\t\t  1983 SCR  (3) 929\n 1984 SCC  (1)\t36\t  1983 SCALE  (2)378\n\n\nACT:\n     Delhi Land\t Reforms Act,  1954-S. 15  read with  s.  13\nInterpretation of  Persons who\tcan be declared Bhumidhars.-\nDeclaration of Bhumidhars mandatory -In spite of delay in or\nabsence\t of  declaration  the  tenant  entitled\t to  acquire\nBhumidhari rights acquires those rights.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     A certain\textent of  land was  acquired under the Land\nAcquisition Act, 1894. The acquired land included a piece of\nland which  had been  mortgaged by its owners and let out by\nthe mortgagee  to a  tenant who\t in turn  had let out to the\nfirst respondent  in both the appeals. The Collector awarded\ncompensation  to   the\tland-owners.  The  first  respondent\nobjected to  the award\ton the\tground\tthat  since  he\t had\nacquired the  status  of  Bhumidhar  under  the\t Delhi\tLand\nReforms Act,  1954 he  was entitled  to receive\t the  entire\ncompensation. On an application made by the first respondent\nthe Collector made a reference to the District Judge. In the\nmeantime in  disposing of  an application under s. 15 of the\nDelhi  Land   Reforms  Act   made  by  the  land-owners\t for\nredemption of  mortgage, the Revenue Assistant declared that\nthe first  respondent was Bhumidhar of the land which was in\nhis possession\tas sub-lessee  with effect  from the date of\ncommencement of that Act. The Additional District Judge held\nthat  the  first  Respondent  was  entitled  to\t the  entire\ncompensation.  The  appeal  filed  by  the  land-owners\t was\ndismissed by  the High Court. In this appeal the land-owners\nsubmitted that\tsince they  had\t redeemed  the\tmortgage  by\nresort to  the provisions contained in s. 15(1) of the Delhi\nLand Reforms  Act, they had become Bhumidhars under s. 15(2)\nof that\t Act and  were, therefore,  entitled to\t the  entire\ncompensation as\t Bhumidhars which  was rightly\tpaid by\t the\nCollector.\n     Dismissing the appeals,\n^\n     HELD:  The\t  first\t respondent   is  entitled   to\t the\nBhumidhar's portion of compensation. [937G]\n     Section 15(2)  of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 says\nthat if\t the proprietor\t mortgagor applies for redemption of\nthe mortgage  under sub-sec.  (1) of  sec. 15,\the shall  be\ndeclared as  Bhumidhar only in respect of the mortgaged area\nwhich was  in the  personal cultivation of the mortgagee. In\nthe present  case, before the commencement of the Delhi Land\nReforms Act,  the mortgagee  Ram Swarup\t had let the land in\nquestion to one Inder Singh and he in turn\n930\nhad sub-let the land to the first respondent Sewa Ram and he\nwas in\tpossession   of the same on the date of commencement\nof that\t Act. Therefore, the appellants in Civil Appeal 1195\nof 1970\t as owners  could  not\thave  become  Bhumidhars  in\nrespect of that portion of land. [936 B-D]\n     Sub-sec. (4)  of sec.  15 states that where any portion\nof the mortgaged land has been let out to tenants they shall\nbe declared  as Bhumidhars  of the  area let  out  to  them.\nTherefore, the appellants in C. A. 1195 of 1970 could not in\nlaw have  been declared as Bhumidhars under. s. 15(2) of the\nDelhi Land  Reforms Act\t when that land was admittedly under\nthe  cultivation   of  the  first  respondent  Sewa  Ram  as\nsubtenant under the mortgagee's tenant. [936 E-F]\n     Section  13(1)  of\t the  Act  lays\t down  that  on\t the\ncommencement of\t that Act,  the\t Deputy\t Commissioner  shall\ndeclare certain\t classes of tennnts as Bhumidhars who shall,\nwith effect  from the  same date, have all the rights and be\nsubject to  all the  liabilities conferred  or imposed\tupon\nBhumidhars under  that Act. There could be no doubt that the\nfirst respondent  Sewa Ram  would have\tacquired  Bhumidhari\nrights under  s. 13(1)\tof  the\t Act  on  the  date  of\t its\ncommencement. Merely  because there  is some  delay  in\t the\nDeputy Commissioner  or Revenue Assistant declaring a tenant\nas Bhumidhar  under the\t provisions of\tthe Act\t or  because\nthere is  no such  declaration at all the tenant entitled to\nacquire such  rights under  the Act  from the  date  of\t its\ncommencement cannot  be said  to  have\tnot  acquired  those\nrights having  regard to  the words  of s.  13(2) of the Act\nwhich says  that any  person who  acquires Bhumidhari rights\nunder any  provisions of  this Act shall have all the rights\nand shall  be subject  to all  the liabilities\tconferred or\nimposed upon  Bhumidhars under this Act with effect from the\ndate of acquisition of those rights. Subsections (2) and (4)\nof s.  15 cast\tan obligation  on the Deputy Commissioner to\ndeclare as  Bhumidhars persons\twho have  become entitled to\nthat right  under the  provisions of the Act by admission or\nacquisition under  the provisions  of the Act as Bhumidhars.\n[936 G; 937 A, D-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1195
\n& 1780 & of 1970.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t Special leave\tfrom the  Judgment and order
\ndated the  30th Day of January, 1970 of the Delhi High Court
\nin Civil Regular First Appeal No. 55 and 56 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
     B. Datta  and  H.K.  Puri\tfor  the  Appellant  in\t CA.
\n1195\/70.\n<\/p>\n
     V.D. Mahajon and M.C. Dhingra for Respondent.
\n     M.S. Gujaral,  P.D. Sharma\t and Ms.  Bani\tGujaral\t for
\nRespondent in CA. 1195 & Appellant in CA. 1780\/70.\n<\/p>\n
     H.K. Puri for Respondent in CA. 1780\/70.\n<\/p>\n
931<\/span><\/p>\n
     V.D. Mahajan  and M.C.  Dhingra for  Respondent in\t CA.
\n1780\/70
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VARADARAJAN,  J.\tThese  appeals\tby  certificate\t are
\ndirected against  the judgment\tof a  Division Bench  of the
\nDelhi High  Court in Regular First Appeals 55 and 56 of 1963
\nfiled against the judgment dated 24.7.1961 of the Additional
\nDistrict  Judge,  Delhi\t in  reference\tmade  by  the  first
\nrespondent Sewa Ram under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
\n1984 which  was treated\t as a  reference under s. 32 of that
\nAct. Pursuant  to a  notification issued  under s.  4 of the
\nLand Acquisition  Act, 1894 in February or March, 1955, 2626
\nbighas and  14 biswas  of land\tsituate in  Khampur  village
\nbeyond Alipur  on the  Karnal  road  was  acquired  for\t the
\nconstruction of\t a short-wave  transmitter for the All India
\nRadio. Various\tpersons including  the appellants  in  these
\nappeals put  forward claims  for compensation,\tsome of them
\nclaiming as  owners of some pieces of the land, some as non-
\noccupancy  tenants  and\t some  as  sub-tenants\tinducted  by
\ntenants or  mortgagees. The  Collector considered the claims
\nand passed  an Award  dated 27.2.1965  and  a  supplementary
\nAward dated  13.3.1965. Some  of the tenants objected to the
\naward of  compensation to  the landlords  on the ground that
\nunder s.8  . Of\t the Delhi  Land Reforms  Act, 1954 they had
\nacquired the  status of Bhumidhars and as such were entitled
\nto receive the entire compensation in respect of the portion
\nof land\t which was  in\ttheir  possession  on  the  date  of
\nacquisition to\tthe exclusion  of the  landlords. Thereupon,
\nthe Collector  made a reference to the District Judge, Delhi
\nunder s.  32 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.7.1956 in one
\ncase. The landlords contended before the Additional District
\nJudge, before  whom the\t Collector’s reference\tcame up\t for
\nconsideration that  the tenants\t had  no  present  right  to
\nreceive any  compensation.  The\t Additional  District  Judge
\nfound  on  the\tbasis  of  the\ttenants’  application  dated
\n28.10.1955 that\t they had sought only a declaration under s.
\n13 of  the  Delhi  Land\t Reforms  Act  and  that  since\t the
\nrequisite declaration  in their\t favour had not been made by
\nthe  Deputy  Commissioner  to  the  effect  that  they\thave
\nacquired bhumidhari  rights under  the Act they had no right
\nto   claim compensation\t for the  lands in  respect of which
\nthey claimed  to be  non-occupancy tenants.  The  Additional
\nDistrict Judge\tfound that  even if  the allegation  of\t the
\ntenants that they had applied for grant of bhumidhari rights
\nwas correct  they  had\tno  present  right  and\t they  were,
\ntherefore not entitled to claim the compensation. Before the
\nSingle Judge of the
\n932<\/span>
\nHigh Court they took up the stand that the declaration under
\ns. 14 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act had been issued and they
\nhad thus  acquired bhumidhari  rights, entitling them to the
\ncompensation. But  they failed\tto prove  that claim and had
\nnot produced  any  such\t declaration  dated  23.6.1956\twith
\nretrospective effect  from 20.7.1954  when  the\t Delhi\tLand
\nReforms Act  came into\tforce. They did not produce any such
\ndeclaration before  the learned\t Judges who  constituted the
\nDivision Bench\tin LPA Nos. 103 and 108 of 1960. The learned
\nJudges, therefore,  held that  they  were  not\tentitled  to
\nassail the  judgment of\t the Additional\t District Judge on a
\ndifferent ground  in the Letters Patent Appeals. They agreed
\nwith the  learned Single  Judge that  the tenants cannot lay
\nclaim to  the compensation  without proving  their case that
\nthey have  acquired  bhumidhari\t rights\t and  dismissed\t the
\nappeals observing,  however, that  the\tobservation  of\t the
\nAdditional District  Judge that it will not be difficult for
\nthe tenants  to claim  the compensation if they subsequently
\nobtained the declaration regarding acquisition of bhumidhari
\nrights with retrospective effect is correct.\n<\/p>\n
     The present  appeals arise\t out of\t the judgment  of  a
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tDelhi High  Court in  Regular  First
\nAppeals 55  and 56  of 1963 which had been filed against the
\norder of  the  Additional  District  Judge,  Delhi  in\tLand
\nAcquisition Case  18 of\t 1959. Inder Singh and his brothers,
\nappellants in  C.A. 1780  of 1970 which arises out of RFA 55
\nof 1963,  who had  been recorded  in the revenue accounts as
\nowners of 196 bighas out Of the extent acquired had executed
\na possessory  mortgage over  that piece of land in favour of
\none Ram\t Swarup. The  mortgagee Ram  Swarup had\t leased that
\nland to one Inder Singh who in turn had sub-leased that land
\nto Sewa\t Ram, who  is the  first  respondent  in  these\t two
\nappeals.  The\towners,\t mortgagee,  tenant  and  sub-tenant
\nclaimed compensation  in respect  of the  said 196 bighas of
\nland. The  Delhi Land  Reforms Act,  1954 came into force on
\n20.7.1954 prior\t to the date of notification made under s. 4
\nof the Land Acquisition Act. That Act provides for abolition
\nof the\tzamindari system  with\tthe  object  of\t creating  a
\nuniform body  of peasant  proprietors without intermediaries
\nand has\t brought about two categories of persons in relation
\nto the\tlands, namely, Bhumidhars and Asamis. The sub-tenant
\nSewa Ram  did not  either claim\t any compensation before the
\nCollector as  Bhumidhar or challenge the claim of the owners
\nfor the\t compensation in  respect of  the said 196 bighas of
\nland  which   was  under   his\tcultivation,   but   claimed
\ncompensation only for the extinguishment
\n933<\/span>
\nof his\tright as sub-lessee. The Collector found Sewa Ram to
\nbe in possession of that extent out of the acquired land and
\nassessed the  total compensation  in respect  thereof at Rs.
\n29,774.07 and  awarded that  amount to the owners and only a
\nsum  of\t Rs.  500  to  Sewa  Ram  as  compensation  for\t the
\nextinguishment of  his rights  as sub-lessee  and paid those
\namounts to  the owners\tand Sewa  Ram on  19.3.1956. But the
\nother claimants\t 35 to\t56 before  the\tCollector  who\twere
\ntenants of  some other\textents out  of\t the  acquired\tland
\nclaimed compensation  in respect  of those  extents  on\t the
\nground that  they were prospective bhumidhars under the Land
\nReforms Act and challenged the rights of the owners to claim
\nany  share   in\t the  compensation.  This  claim  gave\trise
\nultimately to  LPA Nos.\t 103 and  108 of  1960\treferred  to
\nabove. The  first respondent  Sewa Ram who had received only
\nRs. 500\t on 19.3.1956 as compensation for the extinguishment
\nof his\trights as  sub-lessee made an application before the
\nCollector on  1.5.1956 for  a reference\t being made  to\t the
\nCivil Court under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Then he
\nclaimed that  he was  entitled to the entire compensation as
\nBhumidhar or  to at  least a sum of Rs- 17,000 on account of
\nimprovements  effected\t by  him.  The\tCollector  made\t the
\nreference under\t s. 18\tof the\tLand Acquisition  Act to the
\nDistrict Judge,\t Delhi on  4.5.1959 in this case. Meanwhile,
\nan application\tunder s.  15 of\t the Delhi Land Reforms Act,
\n1954 was made by the owners for redemption of the possessory
\nmortgage executed in favour of Ram Swarup before the Revenue
\nAssistant,  Delhi   who\t disposed  of  that  application  on
\n20.7.1959  declaring   that  the  sub-tenant  Sewa  Ram\t was
\nBhumidhar of  the said\t196 bighas  of land which was in his
\npossession  as\t sublease  with\t effect\t from  the  date  of
\ncommencement of\t the  Delhi  Land  Reforms  Act,  1954.\t The
\nAdditional District  Judge treated the reference under s. 18
\nas one\tunder s.  32 of\t the Land Acquisition Act and issued
\nnotices\t to   the  owners   who\t had  already  received\t the
\ncompensation of\t Rs. 29,774.07\ton 19.3.1956  and ultimately
\nheld that  the first respondent Sewa Ram was entitled to the
\nentire compensation  and passed a decree for payment of that
\namount to him against the owners of that portion of the land
\nand the Union of India for whose benefit the acquisition was
\nmade. The owners and the Union of India filed RFA 55 of 1963
\nand RFA 56 of 1963 respectively challenging that decree.\n<\/p>\n
     The first\tpoint raised  by the  owners before the High
\nCourt was  that the  Revenue Assistant, Delhi who had issued
\nthe  Bhumidhari\t  Certificate  to  Sewa\t Ram  had  not\tbeen
\nempowered by the Chief
\n934<\/span>
\nCommissioner to exercise the powers of a Deputy Commissioner
\nin that behalf and, therefore, the certificate was not valid
\nin law.\t This contention  was rejected by the learned Judges
\nof the\tHigh Court  on the  ground that\t the  definition  of
\nDeputy Commissioner  in s.  3 (6)  of the Delhi Land Reforms
\nAct, as\t it stood  then, included  a Collector and a Revenue
\nAssistant, and\tthey held  that the  Revenue  Assistant\t was
\ncompetent to  declare the  sub-tenant Sewa  Ram as Bhumidhar
\nunder the  provision of the Act. The learned Judges rejected
\nthe second  contention raised  by the  owners that  the sub-
\nlessee’s application under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
\nwas barred  by time.  The third\t contention  raised  by\t the
\nowners was  that as  the notification under s. 4 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act\t was made  after the date of commencement of
\nthe Delhi Land Reforms Act, the provisions of the latter Act
\nwould not  apply in  respect of the compensation payable for
\nthe acquired  land. This contention was also rejected by the
\nlearned Judge of the Delhi High Court. The fourth contention
\nurged on  behalf of  the owners\t was that  as the sub-tenant
\nSewa Ram  had not made any claim for compensation before the
\nCollector as Bhumidhar or as a prospective Bhumidhar, he was
\nnot entitled  to  claim\t any  compensation  subsequently  as
\nBhumidhar. This\t contention also was rejected by the learned
\nJudges of  the High Court on the ground that by operation of
\nlaw  the  sub-tenant  became  Bhumidhar\t from  the  date  of
\ncommencement of\t the Delhi Land Reforms Act, which was prior
\nto the\tdate of\t notification issued  under s. 4 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act.  The fifth  contention raised by the owners
\nwas that the decision of the Additional District Judge Delhi
\ndated 8.12.1956 which culminated in the decision of the High
\nCourt  in   the\t aforesaid   LPA  103  of  1960\t constituted
\nresjudicata. That contention was rejected on the ground that
\nthe sub-tenant\tSewa Ram  was not  a party to that decision,
\nand he\tis, therefore,\tnot bound  by it. None of these five
\nobjections was\turged before  us by  the learned counsel for
\nthe appellants in both the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     The only  contention urged\t before us was a part of the
\nlast contention\t urged before the learned Judges of the High
\nCourt, namely,\tthat the Additional District Judge could not
\nhave passed the decree for a sum of Rs 29,774.07 against the
\nowners much  less the  Union of\t India. The  learned  Judges
\nallowed RFA  56 of  1963 filed\tby the Union of India on the
\nground that  before the\t amount was  actually  paid  to\t the
\nowners on 19.3.1956 the sub-tenant Sewa Ram did not make any
\nclaim to  the compensation  as Bhumidhar  or as\t prospective
\nBhumidhar. In so far as the sub-tenant Sewa Ram is
\n935<\/span>
\nconcerned, the learned Judges of the High Court held that he
\nhad been  declared to  be the Bhumidhar with effect from the
\ndate of\t commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in
\nrespect of  the said  196 bighas of land and he was entitled
\nto the\tcompensation of Rs. 29,774.07. They dismissed RFA 55
\nof  1963  filed\t by  the  owners.  Hence  these\t appeals  by
\ncertificate.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  B.   Datta,  Senior\tCounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellants in  C.A. 1195  of 1970,  admitted that  the first
\nrespondent Sewa Ram was in actual possession of the said 196
\nbighas of land on the date of the notification under s. 4 of
\nthe Land Acquisition Act made after the date of commencement
\nof the\tDelhi Land  Reforms Act,  1954 as sub-tenant who had
\nbeen inducted by the tenant to whom the land had been leased
\nby the mortgagee Ram Swarup and submitted that subsequent to
\nthe notification  under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the
\nmortgagors had\tredeemed  the  mortgage\t by  resort  to\t the
\nprovisions contained  in s. 15 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms
\nAct within the period of nine months prescribed therefor and
\nhad thus  become Bhumidhars  under s. 15 (2) of that Act and
\nthey are,  therefore, entitled\tto the\taforesaid sum of Rs.
\n29,774.07  as  Bhumidhars  and\twere  rightly  paid  by\t the
\nCollector on 19.3.1956.\n<\/p>\n
     Sections 15  (1) and (2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,
\n1954 read thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “15 (1)  A mortgagee in possession of an estate or
\n     share therein  shall cease\t to have  any right  in such
\n     estate or\tshare, if  the proprietor mortgagor deposits
\n     the mortgage  money together  with interest  thereon in
\n     Government treasury  and applies  for redemption of the
\n     mortgage in  the proper  court, within a period of nine
\n     months from the commencement of this Act.
\n\t  (2)  If  the\tproprietor  mortgagor  deposits\t the
\n     amount and\t applies for  redemption as provided in sub-
\n     section (1),  he shall  be\t declared  as  Bhumidhar  in
\n     respect of\t the   mortgaged area  which was  under\t the
\n     personal cultivation  of the  mortgagee on\t the date of
\n     such application for redemption and, if any part of the
\n     mortgaged area  was on  the said  date  let  out  to  a
\n     tenant, such  tenant shall\t be declared as Bhumidhar in
\n     respect of the area that was so let out to him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
936<\/span><\/p>\n
     Sub-section (4) of s. 15 which has to be noticed, reads
\n     thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “15 (4)  Where the  area mortgaged or part thereof
\n     is let  out to tenants, the mortgagee shall be declared
\n     as\t the  Bhumidhar\t of  the  part\tunder  his  personal
\n     cultivation  and  the  tenants  shall  be\tdeclared  as
\n     Bhumidhars of their respective areas let out to them”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The argument  of Mr. Datta overlooks the important part
\nof s.  15(2) of\t the Delhi  Land Reforms Act which says that
\nthe mortgagor shall be declared as Bhumidhar only in respect
\nof the\tmortgaged area which was in the personal cultivation
\nof the\tmortgagee when\the submitted  that the owners became
\nBhumidhars of  the land under the provisions of s. 15 (2) of
\nthe Act. It is common ground that before the commencement of
\nthe Delhi Land Reforms Act, the mortgagee Ram Swarup had let
\nthe land  in question  to one Inder Singh and he in turn had
\nsub-let the land to the first respondent Sewa Ram and he was
\nin possession  of the  same on\tthe date  of commencement of
\nthat Act.  Therefore, the  appellants in C.A.1195 of 1970 as
\nowners could  not have\tbecome Bhumidhars in respect of that
\nportion. If  they had obtained any such declaration under s.
\n15 (2)\tof the\tDelhi Land  Reforms Act,  it could have been
\nonly by\t misleading the\t Court\tto  believe  that  the\tsaid
\nportion was  under the personal cultivation of the mortgagee
\nand not\t in the\t possession of any tenant under the mortgage
\nor his\tsub-tenant. The argument of Mr. Datta also overlooks
\nthe provisions of sub-section (4) of s. 15 which states that
\nwhere any  portion of the mortgaged land has been let out to
\ntenants they shall be declared as Bhumidhars of the area let
\nout to\tthem. Therefore, the appellants in C.A. 1195 of 1970
\ncould not  in law  have been declared as Bhumidhars under s.
\n15 (2)\tof the\tDelhi Land  Reforms Act\t when that  land was
\nadmittedly under  the cultivation  of the  first  respondent
\nSewa Ram as sub-tenant under the mortgagee’s tenant. Section
\n13 (1)\tof the\tDelhi Land Reforms Act lays down that on the
\ncommencement of\t that Act,  the\t Deputy\t Commissioner  shall
\ndeclare certain\t classes of tenants as Bhumidhars who shall,
\nwith effect  from the  same date, have all the rights and be
\nsubject to  all the  liabilities conferred  or imposed\tupon
\nBhumidhars under  that Act.  An occupancy  tenant, except  a
\ntenant under  s. 5  of the  Punjab Tenancy  Act, 1887, and a
\nnon-occupancy tenant who pays rent at the revenue rates with
\nor without  Malikhana are  two of  the categories of tenants
\nmentioned in  s. 13  (1) of  the Act.  It has been contended
\nbefore us by the learned counsel for the
\n937<\/span>
\nappellants in  both the\t appeals that  the first  respondent
\nSewa Ram would not fall under any of these two categories of
\ntenants or  that any  distinction has been made in the Delhi
\nLand  Reforms\tAct  between  a\t tenant\t and  a\t sub-tenant.
\nTherefore, there could be no doubt that the first respondent
\nSewa Ram  would have  acquired bhumidhari rights under s. 13
\n(1) of\tthe Act\t on the date of its commencement. Section 15
\n(2) of\tthe Act\t was no\t doubt substituted  by s.  7 of\t the
\nCentral Act  IV of 1959 for the original sub-section. It has
\nnot, however, been contended before us that sub-section (4),
\nas substituted,\t will not  have\t effect\t from  the  date  of
\ncommencement  of   the\tprincipal  Act,\t namely,  20.7.1954.
\nSection 13 (2) of the Act says that “every person, who after
\nthe  commencement  of  this  Act  is  admitted\tto  land  as
\nBhumidhar  or  who  acquires  Bhumidhari  rights  under\t any
\nprovisions of  this Act,  shall have  all the  rights and be
\nsubject to  all the  liabilities conferred  or imposed\tupon
\nBhumidhars under  this Act  with effect\t from  the  date  of
\nadmission or  acquisition, as  the case may be”. The present
\ncase before  us is  one of  the tenant\tacquiring bhumidhari
\nrights under the Act on the date of its commencement and not
\nof his being admitted to Bhumidhari rights after the date of
\ncommencement of the Act. Merely because there was some delay
\nin the\tDeputy Commissioner or Revenue Assistant declaring a
\ntenant as  Bhumidhar under  the provisions  of\tthe  Act  or
\nbecause there  is no  such declaration\tat  all\t the  tenant
\nentitled to  acquire such rights under the Act from the date
\nof its\tcommencement cannot  be said  to have  not  acquired
\nthose rights  having regard to the words of s. 13 (2) of the
\nAct which  says that  any  person  who\tacquires  bhumidhari
\nrights under  any provisions  of this Act shall have all the
\nrights and shall be subject to all the liabilities conferred
\nor imposed  upon Bhumidhars  under this Act with effect from
\nthe date  of acquisition  of those  rights. Sub-sections (2)
\nand  (4)   of  s.  15  cast  an\t obligation  on\t the  Deputy
\nCommissioner to\t declare  as  Bhumidhars  persons  who\thave
\nbecome entitled\t to that  right under  the provisions of the
\nAct by\tadmission or acquisition under the provisions of the
\nAct  as\t Bhumidhars.  In  these\t circumstances,\t it  is\t not
\npossible to  accept the\t contention of\tMr. Datta  that\t the
\nappellants  in\tC.A.  1195  who\t were  owners,\thave  become
\nBhumidhars by reason of redemption of the mortgage under the
\nprovisions of  s. 15  (1) of  the Act  and  that  the  first
\nrespondent Sewa\t Ram will not be entitled to the Bhumidhar’s
\nportion of the compensation.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. M.S.  Gujral,\tSenior\tCounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellants in  C.A. 1780  of 1970 submitted that Inder Singh
\nand Bhagwati
\n938<\/span>
\nPrasad alone  has received  the sum  of Rs.  29,774.07\tand,
\ntherefore, they\t alone should  be made\tliable to  pay\tthat
\namount to  the first  respondent if  the appellants  fail to
\nsucceed\t in   these  appeals.\tInder  Singh  is  the  third
\nrespondent in  C.A. 1195  of 1970 and the first appellant in
\nC.A. 1780  of 1970.  Bhagwati Prasad is the second appellant
\nin C.A.\t 1195 of 1970, and fourth respondent in C.A. 1780 of
\n1970. They  were respondents  2 and  4 in  LPA 103  of 1960.
\nThere is  no doubt an admission of these two persons that in
\na partition  the portion  which was under the cultivation of
\nthe first  respondent Sewa  Ram had  been allotted  to their
\nshare and  that consequently  they alone  had  received\t the
\ncompensation of\t Rs. 29,774.07. But that is a matter between
\nthe appellants\tin these appeals and those two persons Inder
\nSingh  and   Bhagwati  Prasad.\tIt  cannot  bind  the  first
\nrespondent Sewa\t Ram. Therefore,  the request of Mr. Gujaral
\ncannot be complied with.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeals  fail for  the reasons\t mentioned above and
\nare dismissed  with the\t first respondent’s  costs. Advocate
\nfee one set.\n<\/p>\n
H.S.K.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n939<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 1093, 1983 SCR (3) 929 Author: A Varadarajan Bench: Varadarajan, A. (J) PETITIONER: FATEH SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: SEWA RAM AND OTHERS ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/09\/1983 BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) […]<\/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-216960","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983 - 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\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983\" \/>\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=\"1983-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-23T05:36:55+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-23T05:36:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983\"},\"wordCount\":3285,\"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\\\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983\",\"name\":\"Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-23T05:36:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983 - 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\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-23T05:36:55+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983","datePublished":"1983-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-23T05:36:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983"},"wordCount":3285,"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\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983","name":"Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-23T05:36:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fateh-singh-and-another-etc-vs-sewa-ram-and-others-etc-on-13-september-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fateh Singh And Another Etc vs Sewa Ram And Others Etc on 13 September, 1983"}]},{"@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\/216960","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=216960"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216960\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}