{"id":236762,"date":"1996-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996"},"modified":"2019-02-05T23:42:05","modified_gmt":"2019-02-05T18:12:05","slug":"delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. … vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. … vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (2) 449, \t JT 1996 (1)\t390<\/div>\n
Author: B S.P.<\/div>\n
Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t16\/01\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (2) 449\t  JT 1996 (1)\t390\n 1996 SCALE  (1)332\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nBHARUCHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
     These are appeals by special leave against the judgment
\nand  order  of\ta  Division  Bench  of\tthe  High  Court  of
\nRajasthan. The\tDivision Bench\treversed  the  judgment\t and
\norder of a learned single Judge, which, upon a writ petition
\nfiled by  the present  appellants, had\tstruck down the Kota
\nMunicipal Limits (Continued Existence) Validating Act, 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellants   established  a\tfertilizer  unit  in
\nvillages called\t Raipura and  Ummedganj of  District Kota in
\nthe State of Rajasthan in 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     On 1st  March, 1958,  the State  of Rajasthan  (the 1st
\nrespondent) issued  a notification under Section 7(1) of the
\nRajasthan  Town\t Municipalities\t Act,  1951,  informing\t the
\npublic that,  in exercise  of powers  under Section  5(1) of
\nthat Act,  it proposed\tto extend  the limits  of  the\tKota
\nmunicipality so as to include therein the village of Raipura
\nand it invited objections thereto. On 16th October, 1958, in
\nexercise of  powers conferred  by Section  5(1) of  the 1951
\nAct, the  State Government  extended the  limits of the Kota
\nmunicipality to\t include therein  the village  of Ummedganj.
\nThis inclusion\twas challenged\tin  a  writ  petition  filed
\nbefore\tthe  Rajasthan\tHigh  Court.  Pending  the  decision
\nthereof, on 2nd May, 1960, the State Government excluded the
\nvillage of Ummedganj from the said municipal limits. On 17th
\nAugust, 1960,  a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held
\nthat Ummedganj was not validly included within the limits of
\nthe  Kota   town  municipality\tinasmuch  as  the  mandatory
\nprovisions in that behalf had not been followed.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t that the  villages of Raipura and Ummedganj
\nwere treated  as falling within the municipal limits of Kota
\nand octroi  was collected from the appellants. Realizing, in
\nApril 1974,  that the  levy and realization of octroi by the
\nKota Municipality  (the 2nd  respondent)  was  illegal,\t the
\nappellants filed  a suit  in the court of the Munsiff, Kota,
\nseeking\t a   permanent\tinjunction   restraining  the\tKota
\nMunicipality from  levying or  collecting octroi from it. An
\ninjunction  was\t granted  and  was  upheld  in\tappeal.\t The
\nappellants also\t filed a  suit in  the court of the District
\nJudge, Kota,  for refund  of the  amount of Rs.10,85,365.32,
\nbeing  the   amount  of\t  octroi  erroneously  paid  by\t the
\nappellants to  the Kota\t Municipality during  the period  of
\nthree years prior to the filing of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     On 7th  January, 1975,  the State Government issued the
\nKota  Municipal\t  Limits  (Continued  Existence)  Validating
\nOrdinance, 1975.  It was  replaced  by\tthe  Kota  Municipal
\nLimits (Continued  Existence)  Validating  Act,\t 1975)\t(now
\ncalled the  “Validating Act”).\tUpon the promulgation of the
\nOrdinance, the\tappellants filed a writ petition challenging
\nits validity.  When the\t Validating Act was passed, the writ
\npetition  was  amended\tto  challenge  the  same.  The\twrit
\npetition was  allowed by  a learned  single Judge.  Both the
\nState Government and the Kota Municipality filed appeals. By
\nthe judgment  and order\t under appeal,\tthe  Division  Bench
\nallowed the  appeals and  set  aside  the  judgment  of\t the
\nlearned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     The  1951\t Act   was   replaced\tby   the   Rajasthan
\nMunicipalities Act,  1959. The\tprovisions in  regard to the
\nde-limitation of  municipalities and  the procedure  in that
\nbehalf was  substantially similar  to that  contained in the
\n1951  Act.   It\t is  convenient\t to  set  out  the  relevant
\nprovisions, which are contained in Section 4 and 6.\n<\/p>\n
     “4. Delimitation of Municipalities – (1)
\n     Subject to\t the provisions of sections 5
\n     and 6,  the State\tGovernment may,\t from
\n     time to  time, by\tnotification  in  the
\n     official Gazette –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  include or  exclude any  area in or
\n     from any municipality;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.\t  Procedure\t preliminary\t   to
\n     notification under\t section 4  – (1) Not
\n     less than two months before the issue of
\n     any notification  under  section  4  the
\n     State  Government\t shall\tcause  to  be
\n     published in  the Official\t Gazette, and
\n     to be  posted in  conspicuous  spots  or
\n     proclaimed by  beat of  drum in the area
\n     concerned,\t a   proclamation  announcing
\n     that it  is proposed  to constitute such
\n     local area\t to be\ta municipality, or to
\n     include or\t exclude it  in or  from  any
\n     municipality, or  to alter the limits of
\n     any municipality  in a  specified manner
\n     or to declare that such local area shall
\n     cease to  be a municipality, as the case
\n     may be,  and requiring  all persons  who
\n     entertain\tany  objection\tto  the\t said
\n     proposal  to   submit  the\t  same,\t with
\n     reasons therefore\tin  writing,  to  the
\n     State Government  within two months from
\n     the date of the said proclamation.
\n     (2)  No  notification  under  section  4
\n     shall be issued by the State Government,
\n     unless  the   objections,\tif   any,  so
\n     submitted are, in its opinion sufficient
\n     or invalid.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons
\nof the Validating Act reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
     “1. According  to the  provisions of the
\n     Rajasthan Municipalities  Act, 1959, the
\n     village of Raipura was never included in
\n     the limits\t of the Kota Municipality and
\n     though  the  village  of  Ummedganj  was
\n     included therein  but it  was thereafter
\n     excluded from these limits. However, the
\n     Kota Municipality to all intents and for
\n     all purposes  treated them\t as  existing
\n     within its\t limits.  During  the  period
\n     from 1958\tto 1974\t elections were\t held
\n     and taxes\twere levied  in\t relation  to
\n     these villages  as existing  within  the
\n     limits of\tthe Kota  Municipality. These
\n     actions were  challenged in  law courts.
\n     Doubts have, therefore, arisen as to the
\n     validity of  the continued\t existence of
\n     these villages  within these  limits and
\n     as to  the legality  of the action taken
\n     or things\tdone, including\t the levy and
\n     collection of taxes within these limits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  It  was,  therefore,\texpedient  to
\n     remove these  doubts and to validate the
\n     continued existence  of  these  villages
\n     within   the    limits   of   the\t Kota
\n     Municipality and the things done, action
\n     taken, taxes  levied and  collected  and
\n     other matters connected therewith.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t (Emphasis supplied.)
\nSection 3  of  the  Validating\tAct  is\t its  most  relevant
\nprovision and it reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
     “3.   Validation\t of   the   continued
\n     existence of  certain limits of the Kota
\n     Municipality  and\t of   other   matters
\n     connected\ttherewith  –  Notwithstanding
\n     anything contained\t in sections  4 to  7
\n     both inclusive,  or any other section of
\n     the Municipal  Act or  in any provisions
\n     of the Panchayat Act or in any judgment,
\n     decree, order  or direction of any court\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  the\tvillages    of\t Raipur\t  and
\n     Ummedganj in  Kota tehsil\tin  the\t Kota
\n     district shall  be deemed always to have
\n     continued to  exist and  shall hereafter
\n     continue to  exist within\tthe limits of
\n     the Municipality  at Kota to all intents
\n     and for all purposes; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  all  persons\t who  but   for\t  the
\n     inclusion of the villages of Raipura and
\n     Ummedganj\twithin\t the  limits  of  the
\n     municipality at  Kota were not liable to
\n     pay any  tax due under the Municipal Act
\n     shall,  upon   the\t inclusion  of\tthese
\n     villages within  the said limits or upon
\n     the   validation\t of   the   continued
\n     existence of  these villages  within the
\n     said limits, according to the provisions
\n     of this  Act, be  liable  and  shall  be
\n     deemed always to have been liable to pay
\n     the taxes\tdue under  the Municipal  Act
\n     and such  taxes shall  be levied  on and
\n     collected from  them  according  to  the
\n     provisions of the Municipal Act;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  the\t areas\t  constituting\t  the
\n     aforesaid villages shall be deemed never
\n     to have  been included  in any Panchayat
\n     Circle  under  the\t Panchayat  Act,  and
\n     accordingly –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  all  actions\ttaken,\tthings\tdone,
\n     appointments  and\t transfers  made  and
\n     powers exercised by the State Government
\n     or\t by   any  officers   or  authorities
\n     subordinate to  it or by or on behalf of
\n     the Municipality at Kota, in relation to
\n     the aforesaid  villages  of  Raipur  and
\n     Ummedganj\ttreating   them\t as  existing
\n     within the limits of the Municipality at
\n     Kota  shall   be  deemed  to  have\t been
\n     lawfully taken, done, made or exercised;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) all taxes  levied and\t collected in
\n     exercise  of  the\tstatutory  powers  or
\n     purported exercise\t of such powers under
\n     the Municipal  Act or  under any law for
\n     the time  being in\t force,\t by  treating
\n     these villages  as existing  within  the
\n     limits  of\t the  Municipality  at\tKota,
\n     shall be  deemed  always  to  have\t been
\n     lawfully levied  and  collected  and  no
\n     claim for\ttheir refund  shall arise  or
\n     shall be deemed ever to have arisen;
\n     as if  the\t said  villages\t had  legally
\n     existed  within   the  limits   of\t  the
\n     Municipality at Kota.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By reason  of Section  4, no  court is permitted to question
\nthe validity  of anything  done or  power exercised  on\t the
\nground that  the villages  of Raipura and Ummedganj were not
\nwithin the  municipal limits  of Kota. Sections 6 and 7 read
\nthus :\n<\/p>\n
     “6. Cancellation  of notifications\t with
\n     retrospective  effect.  –\tAs  from  the
\n     commencement   of\t  this\t  Act,\t  all
\n     notifications from\t time to  time issued
\n     under the Municipal Act or the Panchayat
\n     Act, providing  for the exclusion of the
\n     villages of  Raipura and  Ummedganj from
\n     the limits\t of the\t Municipality at Kota
\n     or for  their inclusion in any Panchayat
\n     Circle, shall  be deemed  to have ceased
\n     to have  effect and  be cancelled\tas if
\n     they never came into force.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.\t  Act to  have over-riding  effect. –
\n     The provisions  of this  Act shall\t have
\n     effect\tnotwithstanding\t     anything
\n     contained in  any law for the time being
\n     in force.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mr. Shanti  Bhushan, learned  counsel  for  the\t appellants,
\nsubmitted that the Validating Act was bad in law inasmuch as
\nthe defects  which had\tbeen pointed  out in the judgment of
\nthe Full  Bench of  the Rajasthan  High Court  had not\tbeen
\nremoved by it. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this
\nCourt in  Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and anr. vs. Broach
\nBorough Municipality  and ors.,\t 1970-1 S.C.R. 388. The case
\nof Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. is undoubtedly the leading case
\non the\tsubject of  validating statutes. Hidayatullah, C.J.,
\nspeaking for a Constitution Bench, said :\n<\/p>\n
     “Before we\t examine s.  3\tto  find  out
\n     whether it\t is effective  in its purpose
\n     or not  we may  say a  few\t words\tabout
\n     validating statutes  in general.  When a
\n     legislature sets  out to  validate a tax
\n     declared by  a  court  to\tbe  illegally
\n     collected under  an  ineffective  or  an
\n     invalid\tlaw,\t the\tcause\t  for
\n     ineffectiveness or\t invalidity  must  be
\n     removed before validation can be said to
\n     take   place   effectively.   The\t most
\n     important condition,  of course, is that
\n     the legislature  must possess  the power
\n     to impose\tthe tax, for, if it does not,
\n     the action\t must ever remain ineffective
\n     and   illegal.    Granted\t  legislative
\n     competence,  it  is  not  sufficient  to
\n     declare merely  that the decision of the
\n     Court  shall   not\t bind\tfor  that  is
\n     tantamount to  reversing the decision in
\n     exercise of  judicial  power  which  the
\n     legislature   does\t   not\t possess   or
\n     exercise. A court’s decision must always
\n     bind unless  the conditions  on which it
\n     is based  are so  fundamentally  altered
\n     that the  decision could  not have\t been
\n     given  in\t the  altered  circumstances.
\n     Ordinarily, a  court holds\t a tax\tto be
\n     invalidly imposed\tbecause the  power to
\n     tax is  wanting or\t the statute  or  the
\n     rules or  both are\t invalid  or  do  not
\n     sufficiently  create  the\tjurisdiction.
\n     Validation of  a tax so declared illegal
\n     may be  done  only\t if  the  grounds  of
\n     illegality or  invalidity are capable of
\n     being removed  and are  in fact  removed
\n     and the  tax thus\tmade legal. Sometimes
\n     this   is\t  done\t by   providing\t  for
\n     jurisdiction where\t jurisdiction had not
\n     been properly invested before. Sometimes
\n     this    is\t    done    by\t  re-enacting
\n     retrospectively a valid and legal taxing
\n     provision and then by fiction making the
\n     tax already collected to stand under the
\n     re-enacted\t   law.\t    Sometimes\t  the
\n     legislature gives\tits own\t meaning  and
\n     interpretation of\tthe law\t under\twhich
\n     the tax was collected and by legislative
\n     fiat makes\t the new meaning binding upon
\n     courts. The  legislature may  follow any
\n     one method\t or all\t of them and while it
\n     does so  it may neutralize the effect of
\n     the earlier  decision of the court which
\n     becomes ineffective  after the change of
\n     the law.  Whichever method is adopted it
\n     must be  within the  competence  of  the
\n     legislature and  legal and\t adequate  to
\n     attain the\t object of validation. If the
\n     legislature  has\tthe  power  over  the
\n     subject-matter and\t competence to make a
\n     valid law,\t it can at any time make such
\n     a valid  law and make it retrospectively
\n     so as  to bind  even past\ttransactions.
\n     The  validity   of\t a   Validating\t law,
\n     therefore,\t depends   upon\t whether  the
\n     legislature  possesses   the  competence
\n     which it  claims over the subject-matter
\n     and whether  in making the validation it
\n     removes the  defect which the courts had
\n     found in  the  existing  law  and\tmakes
\n     adequate provisions  in  the  Validating
\n     law for a valid imposition of the tax.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t (Emphasis supplied.)
\nMr.  S.J.   Sorabjee,\tlearned\t  counsel   for\t  the\tKota
\nMunicipality, submitted that Section 3 of the Validating Act
\nrequired the  court to\tdeem the  villages  of\tRaipura\t and
\nUmmedganj always  to have  been within\tthe  Kota  municipal
\nlimits to  all intents and for all purposes. All corollaries
\nfor such  assumption had,  therefore, necessarily to follow.
\nAccordingly, the  court had  to assume\tthat the  procedural
\nrequirements of\t Sections 4  to 7  of the  1959 Act had been
\nsatisfied. The\tuse of\tthe non-obstante clause in Section 3
\nof the Validating Act fortified the submission.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Sorabjee   cited  the\t following  passage  in\t the
\njudgment in  The  State\t of  Bombay  vs.  Pandurang  Vinayak
\nChaphalkar & Ors.,<\/a> 1953 S.C.R. 773 :\n<\/p>\n
     “When a  statute enacts  that  something
\n     shall be deemed to have been done, which
\n     in fact  and truth\t was  not  done,  the
\n     court is entitled and bound to ascertain
\n     for  what\t purposes  and\tbetween\t what
\n     persons the  statutory fiction  is to be
\n     resorted to  and  full  effect  must  be
\n     given to  the statutory  fiction and  it
\n     should  be\t  carried  to\tits   logical
\n     conclusion. (Vide\tLord Justice James in
\n     Ex\t parte\t Walton\t :  In\tre  Levy  [17
\n     Ch.D.746 at p. 756].”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He brought  to our  attention the oft-quoted observations of
\nLord Asquith  in East  End Dwellings  Co. Ltd.\tvs. Finsbury
\nBorough Council, 1952 A.C. 109, cited therein :\n<\/p>\n
     “If you are bidden to treat an imaginary
\n     state  of\taffairs\t as  real,  you\t must
\n     surely, unless prohibited from doing so,
\n     also imagine  as real  the\t consequences
\n     and incidents  which,  if\tthe  putative
\n     state of  affairs had  in fact  existed,
\n     must  inevitably  have  flowed  from  or
\n     accompanied it……… The statute says
\n     that you must imagine a certain state of
\n     affairs; it  does not  say\t that  having
\n     done so,  you must\t cause or permit your
\n     imagination to  boggle when  it comes to
\n     the inevitable corollaries of that state
\n     of affairs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The judgment  in M.  Venugopal vs.  Divisional Manager, Life
\nInsurance Corporation  of India, Machilipatnam, A.P. & Anr.,<\/a>
\n(1994) 2  S.C.C. 323,  also cites Lord Asquith and says that
\nthe legislature\t can introduce\ta statutory  fiction and the
\ncourts have  to proceed\t upon the assumption that that state
\nof affairs existed on the relevant date. Reliance was placed
\nby Mr.\tSorabjee upon J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills
\nLtd &  anr. vs.\t Union of India & ors., (1988) 1 S.C.R. 700.
\nThe Explanations  to Rules  9 and  49 of  the Central Excise
\nRules, 1944,  had provided  that excisable goods produced or
\nmanufactured in\t any place  or premises\t at an\tintermediate
\nstage and  consumed  or\t utilised  for\tthe  manufacture  of
\nanother commodity in a continuous process would be deemed to
\nhave been  removed from\t such place  or premises immediately
\nbefore such consumption or utilisation. This court said that
\nit  was\t well  settled\tthat  a\t deeming  provision  was  an
\nadmission  of\tthe  non-existence   of\t the   fact  deemed.
\nTherefore, in  view  of\t the  deeming  provision  under\t the
\nExplanations, although\tthe goods  which  were\tproduced  or
\nmanufactured  at  an  intermediate  stage  and,\t thereafter,
\nconsumed or  utilised in  the  integrated  process  for\t the
\nmanufacture of\tanother commodity were not actually removed,
\nthey had to be regarded as having been removed.\n<\/p>\n
     It is to be noted that what is to be deemed is a matter
\nof fact;  there is  a “deeming\tfiction”. It  is also  to be
\nnoted that when a fact is to be deemed, its consequences and
\nincidents are  also to\tbe deemed;  that  is  to  say,\twhat
\nfollows from the deemed fact is also to be deemed.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Sorabjee relied upon the judgment in R.L. Arora vs.
\nState of  Uttar Pradesh\t and Ors.,<\/a> (1964) 6 S.C.R. 784. This
\nCourt in R.L. Arora vs. State of U.P.,<\/a> (1962) Supp. 2 S.C.R.
\n149, had  considered the  provisions of\t Section 40(1)(b) of
\nthe Land  Acquisition Act,  1894, read\twith clause  (5)  of
\nSection 41  thereof and\t had held  that\t valid\tacquisitions
\nthereunder could  only be  for work  that would\t be directly
\nuseful to  the public  and  the\t relevant  agreement  should
\ncontain a  term setting\t out that  the public  would have  a
\nright to  use the work directly. Acquisitions that failed to
\ncomply\twith   this  requirement  fell\tthrough.  Parliament
\nthereupon   enacted   the   Land   Acquisition\t (Amendment)
\nOrdinance, 1962,  which was replaced by the Land Acquisition
\n(Amendment) Act,  1962. Thereby,  amendments to\t Sections 40
\nand 41\tof the\tprincipal Act  were  made  and\tacquisitions
\ninvalidated  by\t  reason  of   the  earlier   judgment\twere
\nvalidated. Section 40 was amended to include the acquisition
\nfor a  company which  was engaged  or was  taking steps\t for
\nengaging in  any industry  or work  which was  for a  public
\npurpose. Section  41 was  amended to  include clause 4(A) to
\ncover  agreements  which  provided  for\t such  acquisitions.
\nSection\t 7   of\t the  Amendment\t Act,  1962,  validated\t the
\nacquisitions invalidated  by reason  of the earlier judgment
\nby stating  that such  acquisitions should be deemed to have
\nbeen made for the purpose and in accordance with Sections 40
\nand 41 of the principal Act, as amended, as if these amended
\nprovisions were\t in force  at all material times. This Court
\nheld that  the deeming provision in Section 7 laid down that
\nwhere the  acquisition did not fall within the provisions as
\nthey existed  before the  Amendment  Act,  1962,  came\tinto
\nforce, it should be deemed to come within the amendment made
\nthereby, provided,  of course,\tthat it\t was of\t a kind that
\ncould so come. Reliance was placed by Mr. Sorabjee also upon
\nUdai Ram  Sharma &  Ors. etc.  vs. Union  of India  &  ors.,
\n(1968) 3  S.C.R. In  the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
\nV.P. Sharma,<\/a>  (1966) 3\tS.C.R. 557, this Court had held that
\nonce a\tdeclaration under  Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
\nAct, 1894,  had been  made, the\t notification under  Section
\n4(1) of\t the  Act  was\texhausted  and\tthere  could  be  no
\nsuccessive notifications  under Section\t 6 with\t respect  to
\nland specified\tin one\tnotification under  Section 4(1).  A
\nvalidating ordinance was promulgated, to be succeeded by the
\nLand Acquisition  (Amendment and  Validation) Act, 1967. The
\nAmendment and  Validation Act,\t1967, amended Section 5-A of
\nthe principal  Act to  allow for the making of more than one
\nreport in  respect of  land which  had been  notified  under
\nSection 4(1).  It also\tamended Section\t 6 so that different
\ndeclarations made  from time to time in respect of different
\nparcels of  land covered  by  the  same\t notification  under
\nSection 4(1)  were permissible. The Amendment and Validation
\nAct, 1967,  also validated  all acquisitions  which had been
\nrendered invalid  by reason of the judgment in V.P. Sharma’s
\ncase.  The   Amendment\tand   Validation  Act,\t 1967,\t was
\nchallenged. This Court rejected the challenge. It observed :\n<\/p>\n
     “All these\t decisions lay\tdown that the
\n     power  to\t legislate   for   validating
\n     actions taken  under statute  which were
\n     not sufficiently  comprehensive for  the
\n     purpose is\t only ancillary or subsidiary
\n     to legislate  on any  subject within the
\n     competence of  the legislature  and such
\n     Validating Acts  cannot be\t struck\t down
\n     merely  because   courts  of   law\t have
\n     declared actions  taken  earlier  to  be
\n     invalid for want of jurisdiction. Nor is
\n     there any\treason to  hold that in order
\n     to validate  action without  legislative
\n     support the  Validating Act  must\tenact
\n     provisions to  cure the  defect for  the
\n     future and also provide that all actions
\n     taken or  notifications issued  must  be
\n     deemed to\thave  been  taken  or  issued
\n     under the\tnew provisions so as to given
\n     them full retrospective effect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is  to be noted that in each of these two cases under the
\nLand  Acquisition   Act,   that\t  Act\twas   amended\twith
\nretrospective\teffect.\t  Under\t  the\tamended\t  Act,\t the
\nacquisitions that  had\tbeen  rendered\tinvalid\t by  earlier
\njudgments became  valid and  the validation  was effected on
\nthe strength of such amendment.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case of  the village  of Raipura  there  was  a
\npreliminary  notification  calling  for\t objections  to\t the
\nextension of  the limits of the Kota municipality to include
\nit, but\t it was not followed by a final notification. In the
\ncase of\t the village  of Ummedganj  there was a notification
\nextending the limits of the Kota municipality to include it,
\nbut it\thad not been preceded by a notification inviting the
\nobjections   of\t  the\tpublic\t thereto.   Later,   another
\nnotification was  published whereby the village of Ummedganj
\nwas excluded  from the\tlimits of the Kota municipality. The
\nprovisions of  Sections 4  to 7\t of the\t 1959  Act  and\t the
\nearlier provisions  of the 1951 Act in the same behalf were,
\ntherefore, not\tmet in\tthe case  of either  the village  of
\nRaipura or  the village\t of Ummedganj. The Full Bench of the
\nRajasthan High\tCourt has  held that  these provisions\twere
\nmandatory and that judgment has become final.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Validating   Act  provides  that,  notwithstanding
\nanything contained  in Sections 4 to 7 of the 1959 Act or in
\nany judgment,  decree, order  or direction of any court, the
\nvillages of Raipura and Ummedganj should be deemed always to
\nhave continued\tto exist  and they  continue to exist within
\nthe limits  of the Kota municipality, to all intents and for
\nall purposes.  This provision  requires the  deeming of\t the
\nlegal position\tthat the  villages of  Raipura and Ummedganj
\nfall within  the limits\t of the\t Kota municipality,  not the
\ndeeming of  facts from\twhich this  legal consequence  would
\nflow. A\t legal consequence  cannot be deemed nor, therefrom,
\ncan the\t events that  should have  preceded it. Facts may be
\ndeemed and, therefrom, the legal consequences that follow.\n<\/p>\n
     Sections 4\t to 7 remained on the statute book unamended
\nwhen the  Validating Act  was passed.  Their provisions were
\nmandatory. They had admittedly not been followed. The defect
\nof not\tfollowing these\t mandatory provisions in the case of
\nthe villages  of Raipur\t and Ummedganj\twas not cured by the
\nValidating Act.\t The curing  of the  defect was an essential
\nrequirement for\t the passing  of a valid validating statute,
\nas held\t by the\t Constitution Bench  in the  case of Prithvi
\nCotton Mills  Ltd.. It\tmust, therefore,  be held  that\t the
\nValidating Act is bad in law and it must be struck down.\n<\/p>\n
     It must  be made  clear  that  in\tthe  suit  that\t the
\nappellants have\t filed in  the court  of the District Judge,
\nKota, for refund of the amount of octroi paid by them to the
\nKota municipality,  which is  stated to be pending, it shall
\nbe open to the defendants to take every defence available to
\nthem other than that concluded by this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  stage when special leave to appeal was granted,
\nno stay\t was ordered except for the year 1974-75. Counsel on
\nbehalf of  the Kota  municipality agreed that if the appeals
\nwere allowed  and the  Kota  municipality  was\trequired  to
\nrefund the  amount paid\t by the\t appellants by way of octroi
\nduty, it  would refund the same with interest at the rate of
\n8 per cent per annum. The time within which the refund would
\nhave to\t be made  was left  to be  determined when the court
\nheard and  disposed of the appeals. The Kota municipality is
\nnow directed  to refund\t to the\t appellants the\t amounts  of
\noctroi duty  paid by  the appellants to it subsequent to the
\nyear 1974-75  with interest  at the  rate of  8 per cent per
\nannum from  the dates of payment till refund or realisation.
\nSuch refund shall be made on or before 15th July, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeals  are allowed.\tThe judgment and order under
\nappeal is  set aside.  The Kota\t Municipal Limits (Continued
\nExistence) Validating  Act, 1975, is declared to be invalid.
\nRefund of  octroi duty\tby  the\t Kota  municipality  to\t the
\nappellants shall be made as aforestated.\n<\/p>\n
     The Kota  Municipality shall  pay to the appellants the
\ncosts of its appeal, quantified in the sum of Rs.15,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. … vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (2) 449, JT 1996 (1) 390 Author: B S.P. Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J) PETITIONER: DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & 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-236762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi Cloth & General Mills Co. ... vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996 - 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\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. ... vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-05T18:12:05+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\\\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. … vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-05T18:12:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3969,\"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\\\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996\",\"name\":\"Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. ... vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-05T18:12:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. … vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. ... vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996 - 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\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. ... vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-05T18:12:05+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\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. … vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996","datePublished":"1996-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-05T18:12:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996"},"wordCount":3969,"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\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996","name":"Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. ... vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-05T18:12:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-cloth-general-mills-co-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-16-january-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. … vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 January, 1996"}]},{"@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\/236762","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=236762"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236762\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}