{"id":240022,"date":"1990-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990"},"modified":"2016-11-21T20:47:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-21T15:17:53","slug":"yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990","title":{"rendered":"Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 704, \t\t 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 381<\/div>\n
Author: K Saikia<\/div>\n
Bench: Saikia, K.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nYADLAPATI VENKATESWARLU\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/09\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nSAIKIA, K.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nSAIKIA, K.N. (J)\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR  704\t\t  1990 SCR  Supl. (1) 381\n 1992 SCC  Supl.  (1)  74 JT 1990 (4)\t 19\n 1990 SCALE  (2)519\n\n\nACT:\n    Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act,\t1965: Andhra Pradesh\n(Andhra\t Areas) District Municipalities Act,  1920--Sections\n2(11), 86, 87 and 391--Vijayawada Municipal Council--Assess-\nment   and  levy  property  tax\t under\tthe  old   and\t new\nActs--Validity of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Vijayawada Municipality of Andhra Pradesh earlier levied\nproperty  tax under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra\tAreas)\tDis-\ntrict  Municipalities Act, 1920. That Act'was  repealed\t and\nthe new Act known as the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities\tAct,\n1965 came into force on 2.4.1965. Under the old act property\ntax  was levied on the basis of gross annual  rental  value,\nwhereas under section 87 of the new Act the basis of assess-\nment in owner occupied building was the capital value there-\nof to be determined in the prescribed manner. Section 389 of\nthe new Act provided that that Act was to be read subject to\nSchedule  IX which contained transitional provisions in\t the\nrules.\tRule  12 thereof dealt with levy of taxes  etc.\t The\nGovernment  under  Rule 12 issued a G.O. Ms.  No.  749\tM.A.\ndirecting that all Municipal Councils shall with effect from\n1.4.70\tlevy the property tax as per the provisions  of\t the\nnew  Act,  which date by a subsequent G.O.  was\t changed  to\n1.10.1970. By another G.O.Ms. No. 81 M.A. dated 30.1.71, the\nGovernment  directed  the Vijayawada  Municipal\t Council  to\ncontinue  to levy the property tax under the  provisions  of\nthe  old Act as rate payers had filed writ petitions in\t the\nHigh Court and obtained stay. However, by G.O.Ms. 675  M.A.,\nthe  G.O.No. 81 was rescinded and the  Vijayawada  Municipal\nCouncil\t was  directed to collect revised  taxes  under\t the\nprovisions  of\tthe new Act with effect from  1.10.70.\tThis\nG.O.  was  rescinded  and by G.O. Ms.  No.  255\t M.A.  dated\n15.6.73\t the Government directed the Vijayawada\t Council  to\nlevy  the property tax under the old Act. As a\tconsequence,\nthe  Vijayawada Municipal continued to levy and enhance\t the\nproperty tax under the old Act.\n    The validity of G.O.Ms. No. 255 dated 15.6.73 was  chal-\nlenged\tby  house property owners in the High Court  in\t two\nwrit  petitions seeking an order restraining the  Vijayawada\nMunicipal Council from enforcing it. and declaring the\tsame\nillegal and void. The petitioners' contention\n382\namongst others was that the Government having directed\tthat\nthe  taxes  be levied under the new  Act,  the\ttransitional\npower  under rule 12 stood exercised, and the power to\tlevy\ntax  under the old Act had ceased and it was no longer\topen\nto  the government to rescind the previous orders. The\tHigh\nCourt accepted the said contention, but held that in view of\nthe provisions of section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Munici-\npalities (Fourth Amendment) Act (23 of 1975), which validat-\ned  the\t actions  taken, those could not  be  challenged  as\ninvalid.  The writ petitions were therefore  dismissed.\t Ap-\npeals to 'the Division Bench, having failed, this appeal has\nbeen filed after obtaining special leave.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  The\tState's\t power to tax is  derived  from\t the\nConstitution, and the municipality's power to tax is derived\nfrom the State Legislature, which could delegate that  power\nin  the\t manner the Constitution permits  to  the  municipal\ncouncil, an agent of the State Government and the municipal-\nity  cannot  refuse to raise taxes as directed.\t The  proper\nauthority  to  determine  what should and  what\t should\t not\nconstitute a public burden is the Legislature of the  State.\nThis  is not only true for the State itself, but it is\talso\ntrue  in  respect of each municipality of the  State;  these\ninferior corporate bodies having only such authority in this\nregard as the legislature shall confer upon them. [202E-F]\n    A  statute will not be declared unconstitutional  unless\nit  is specifically challenged and the principle is  equally\napplicable  to an enactment authorising levy of a tax for  a\npublic purpose. The power to tax is a sovereign power and is\nlegislative  in character and it has to be exercised  within\nthe  constitutional  limitations. The statutes\trelating  to\nmunicipal  taxes  may be changed according to  the  existing\nlegislative  rules of State policy unless forbidden  by\t the\nConstitution from doing so. [202G-H]\n    Irregular assessment may also be regularised with retro-\nspective effect within the Constitutional limitations. Where\nthe Court has not already declared invalid a taxing  measure\nwhich was of doubtful validity, it is permissible for appro-\npriate legislature to validate it by retrospective  legisla-\ntion. No legal fiction is involved in such a case. [203A-C]\n    The\t G.O. itself covered the period after the repeal  of\nthe old Act and till the date of commencement of the  fourth\namendment  so  that  no interregnum was\t really\t there.\t The\nassessment  made according to the provisions of the old\t Act\nwere validated as actions taken by the Council\n383\npursuant  to the impugned G.O. and not under the  provisions\nof  the old Act which was already repealed. While  referring\nto  the\t old Act, the G.O. did not revive the Act  but\tonly\nprescribed  the same procedure as was found in the  repealed\nAct as a transitory measure. [203B-C]\n    Janapada  Sabha  Chhindwara\t v.  The  Central  Provim'es\nSyndicate Ltd. and Anr.,<\/a> [1970] 3 SCR 745, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2494  of
\n1978.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 9.12.  1977  of\t the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 465 of 1976.
\nA. Subba Rao for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    A.S.  Nambiar, B. Parthasarthy, G. Prabhakar and K.\t Ram
\nKumar for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    K.N. SAIKIA, J. This appeal by special leave is from the
\ncommon Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismiss-
\ning two writ appeals and a writ petition. The Andhra Pradesh
\n(Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter
\nreferred  to as the ‘old Act’) was applicable to  Vijayawada
\nMunicipality  of Andhra Pradesh and property tax was  levied
\nunder  that Act. The Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act\t1965
\n(hereinafter referred to as the new Act’) came into force on
\n2.4.1965. Section 2(11) of the new Act defined “council”  to
\nmean  “a  municipal  council constituted  under\t this  Act.”
\nSection 391(1) of the new Act repealed the old Act.  Section
\n389 of the new Act provided:\n<\/p>\n
“389.  Act  to be read subject to Schedule IX in  regard  to
\nfirst reconstitution of a council etc.:\n<\/p>\n
In  regard  to the first constitution of a council  for\t any
\nlocal  area under Section 3. or to the first  reconstitution
\nin accordance with the provisions of this Act, of a  council
\nin  existence at the commencement thereof, and otherwise  in
\nfirst giving effect to the provisions of this Act, this\t Act
\nshall be read subject to the rules in schedule IX.”\n<\/p>\n
384<\/span><\/p>\n
The  Schedule IX to the new Act contained  the\ttransitional
\nprovisions in the rules therein. Rule 12 thereof dealt\twith
\nlevy of taxes etc. and said:\n<\/p>\n
“12. Levy of taxes etc. Any tax, cess or fee which was being
\nlawfully  levied by or on behalf of any council at the\tcom-
\nmencement of this Act and which may be lawfully levied under
\nthis Act, shall notwithstanding any change in the method  or
\nmanner\tof  assessment or levy of such tax, cess or  fee  be
\nlevied by or on behalf of the council at such rate as may be
\nprevailing at such commencement or at such other rate as may
\nbe determined by the council from time to time, by a resolu-
\ntion  for the year in which this Act is brought into  force,
\nand unless the Government by general or special order other-
\nwise direct, for subsequent years also.”\n<\/p>\n
    The result was that tax lawfully levied and continued to
\nbe  levied under the old Act had to be continued unless\t the
\ncouncil\t by resolution determined such other rate from\ttime
\nto  time,  and unless the Government by general\t or  special
\norder otherwise directed under the transitional\t provisions.
\nOn  18.9. 1969 the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued\tG.O.
\nMs. No. 749 M.A. in exercise of its powers under the  afore-
\nsaid  Rule  12 of Schedule IX directing that  all  Municipal
\nCouncils,  shall with effect from 1.4.70 levy  the  Property
\ntax as per the provisions of the new Act. But due to certain
\nadministrative\tdifficulties the revision could not be\tcom-
\npleted\tbefore\t1.4.  1970 and\tthe  Government,  therefore.
\nissued G.O. Ms. No. 293 M.A. dated 18.4. 1970 directing\t the
\nMunicipal Council to levy the property tax as per the provi-
\nsions  of the new Act from 1.10. 1970. By another  G.O.\t Ms.
\nNo.  81\t M.A. dated 30.1.1971 the  Government  directed\t the
\nMunicipal  Council  of vijayawada to continue  to  levy\t the
\nproperty tax under the provisions of the old Act as  certain
\nrate  payers had filed writ petition in the High  Court\t and
\nobtained  stay. However, by G.O. Ms. No. 675 M.A.  the\tG.O.
\nMs. No. 81 was rescinded and the Vijayawada Municipal  Coun-
\ncil  was directed to collect revised taxes under the  provi-
\nsions  of  the\tnew Act with effect from  1.10.\t 1970.\tThis
\nlatter\tG.O. Ms. No. 675 was in its turn rescinded  by\tG.O.
\nMs.  No. 255 M.A. dated 15.6.73 whereby the  Government\t or-
\ndered  that the Vijayawada Municipal Council shall  continue
\nto levy the property tax under the provisions of the old Act
\nand that G.O. was to be deemed to have come into force from
\n1.10.1970. As a result the Vijayawada Municipality continued
\nto levy and enhance the property tax under the provisions of
\nthe old Act. It
\n385<\/span>
\nmay  be mentioned that under s. 82 of the old Act  property,
\ntax  was levied on the basis of gross annual  rental  value,
\nwhereas\t under s. 87 of the new Act the basis of  assessment
\nin owner occupied building was the capital value thereof  to
\nbe determined in the prescribed manner.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t G.O.  Ms. No. 255 dated 15.6.73 was  challenged  by
\nhouse  property owners in the High Court in two\t writ  peti-
\ntions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
\nwrit  in  the nature of mandamus or order or  direction\t re-
\nstraining the Vijayawada Municipal Council from enforcing it
\nand  declaring the same illegal and void. It was inter\talia
\ncontended  before the learned Single Judge that\t by  earlier
\nG.Os.  the Government having directed that taxes  should  be
\nlevied under the new Act, the transitional power under\trule
\n12 had been already exercised and the power to levy any\t tax
\nunder  the old Act therefore ceased and it was not  open  to
\nthe Government to rescind the previous orders and  re-direct
\ntaxes  to be levied under the old Act. That  contention\t was
\naccepted observing:\n<\/p>\n
“The language of the Rule is clear that once the  Government
\nby a general or special order, otherwise directs, the  power
\nto levy tax under the old Act is exhausted.”\n<\/p>\n
Even  so, it was held that in view of the provisions  in  s.
\n4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Fourth Amendment)
\nAct  (23 of 1975) which validated the actions  taken,  those
\ncould not be challenged as invalid. The submissions that the
\nAmendment Act was not retrospective and that the enhancement
\nof  the tax was not made following the procedure  prescribed
\nby  law,  were\talso negatived holding\tthat  the  procedure
\nprescribed under the old Act was followed inasmuch as  under
\nthe old Act the property tax was levied on the basis of only
\nrental\tvalue whereas under the new Act it was on the  basis
\neither of the rental value or of the capital value, and that
\nunder the old Act when tax was being levied on the basis  of
\nrental\tvalue  there was no need to  ascertain\tthe  capital
\nvalue of the land and for enhancing the assessment all\tthat
\nthe  authority\thad to know was whether there  had  been  an
\nincrease  in the rent and Rule 6 of Schedule II which  dealt
\nwith the value of the building for the purposes of  property
\ntax  was inapplicable as the levy under the old Act  on\t the
\nbasis of rental value and enhancement could be done  accord-
\ning  to the procedure contained in Schedule VII Rule  10  of
\nthe  old Act. It was not denied that special notice  as\t re-
\nquired under the old Act was given. The writ petitions\twere
\naccordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
386<\/span><\/p>\n
    Two\t writ  appeals were filed by the  writ\tpetitioners.
\nAnother writ petition having raised identical questions\t was
\nheard with the two appeals by the Division Bench. The  Divi-
\nsion  Bench held that the finding of the Single\t Bench\tthat
\nhaving already given directions by the General Orders  under
\nthe transitory provision of Schedule IX Rule 12 the  Govern-
\nment’s power under that provision ceased and it had no power
\nto  rescind that order and direct that the taxes which\twere
\nunder the old Act must be continued to be collected was\t not
\nchallenged  before  it.\t The Division Bench  held  that\t the
\nFourth Amendment Act had entrusted to the Municipal Councils
\nthe power to tax under the old Act, though that Act had been
\nrepealed. It held that though the actions of the  Vijayawada
\nMunicipal  Council pursuant to the General Order might\thave
\nbeen  invalid those were validated by s. 4(1) of the  Fourth
\nAmendment  Act.\t It was also held that the  appellant  could
\npursue their remedies by way of revision under the new\tAct.
\nThus,  the  Division  Bench having dismissed  the  two\twrit
\nappeals\t as well as the writ petition by the impugned  judg-
\nment and also having refused the certificate, the  appellant
\nhas obtained special leave.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr. A. Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant,
\nsubmits\t that under the old Act the basis for assessment  of
\nproperty tax was the annual rental value while under the new
\nAct it was capital value. By the G.O. No. 749 the Government
\nhaving directed that property tax would be levied under\t the
\nnew  Act,  the subsequent G.Os.passed after  rescinding\t the
\nsaid  G.O.  No. 749 and redirecting assessment\tto  be\tmade
\nunder  the old Act were invalid as was held by\tthe  Single-
\nBench  and that finding was not challenged before the  Divi-
\nsion Bench. Consequently, it is submitted, during the period
\nfrom  1969  to\t1973 there was no valid law  to\t enable\t the
\nMunicipal  Council to levy taxes under the old Act  and\t the
\nactions\t under the G.Os. are sought to be validated  by\t the
\nFourth Amendment Act of 1975, but unless the substantive law
\nrelating to the method of assessment was also amended retro-
\nspectively,  the invalid actions could not be validated,  as
\nthat law could not be deemed to have been in existence by  a
\nlegal  fiction.\t Council submits that s. 87 of the  new\t Act
\nrelating to levy of Property Tax was amended so as to  bring
\nit  in conformity with the corresponding provision of s.  20
\nof  the old Act which prescribed rental value as  the  basis
\nfor  assessment. It is pointed out that s. 3 of\t the  Fourth
\nAmendment  Act did not contain any indication that the\tsaid
\namendment was retrospective so as to bring it on the statute
\nbook by a fiction prior to 1973 when the invalid  assessment
\nwas made. The Fourth Amendment Act came into force only from
\n10th  June,  1975 which was the date of the  Ordinance.\t The
\namendment of s. 87 of the new Act
\n387<\/span>
\nbeing  not retrospective in its operation prior to 1973,  it
\nis  submitted  that the invalid assessments could  not\thave
\nbeen validated.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t A.S. Nambiar, the learned counsel for the  respond-
\nents, submits that the old Act entitled the Municipality  to
\ncollect\t the  taxes which had been collected  in  accordance
\nwith law and after coming into force of the new Act  accord-
\ning  to the intermediate G.Os.; and that the  impugned\tG.O.
\nMs.  No. 255 dated 15.6.73 having directed the taxes  to  be
\nlevied\tand collected in accordance with the old Act,  there
\nwas. no infirmity in the Judgments of the High Court.
\n    It\tappears\t that after the writ  petitions\t were  filed
\nchallenging  G.O. Ms. No. 255 dated 15.6.73  the  Government
\nissued\tthe Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Amendment)  Ordi-
\nnance  1975  (Ordinance 1 of 1975) which became\t the  Andhra
\nPradesh\t Municipalities (Fourth Amendment) Act,\t 1975  which
\nwas  deemed to have come into force on the 10th June,  1975.
\nBy the said Amendment act not only ss. 85 and 87 of the\t new
\nAct were amended but also certain intervening actions of the
\nMunicipal  Council were sought to be validated.\t Section  85
\ndealt with levy of tax and sub-section (1) thereof said:
\n“Where the council by resolution determines that a  property
\ntax shall be levied, such tax shall be levied on a11  build-
\nings  and lands within the municipal limits save  those\t ex-
\nempted by or under this Act or any other law.”
\nSub-section (2) provided:\n<\/p>\n
“Save  as otherwise provided in this Act and subject to\t the
\nprovisions  of ss. 81 & 87 and in accordance with the  rules
\nmade by the Government in this behalf, these taxes shall  be
\nlevied\t…..\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 2 of the Fourth Amendment Act amended s. 85 of\t the
\nnew  Act by substituting clauses (a) and (b) of\t sub-section
\n(2) excluding the proviso thereto, by the following words:
\n“At such percentages of the annual rental value of lands  or
\nbuildings or both as may be fixed by the council.”
\nSection 86 of the new Act provided as follows:
\n“86. Levy of property tax on a direction by Government:\n<\/p>\n
388<\/span><\/p>\n
(1) The Government may, after consultation with the  council
\nby order published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, direct any
\ncouncil to levy the property tax referred to in\t sub-section
\n(1) of Section 81 or any class of such tax, at such rate and
\nwith effect from such date, not being earlier than the first
\nday of the half year immediately following that in which the
\norder is published, as may be specified in the order.
\n(2) When an order under sub-section (1) has been  published,
\nthe  provisions of this Act relating to property  tax  shall
\napply  as if the council had. on the date of publication  of
\nsuch order, by resolution, determined to levy the tax at the
\nrate  and with effect from the date specified in  the  order
\nand  as if no other resolution of the council under  Section
\n81  determining\t the rate at which and the date\t from  which
\nproperty tax shall be levied, had taken effect.
\n(3) A council shall not alter the rate at which the property
\ntax  of any class or such tax is levied in pursuance  of  an
\norder under sub-section (1) or abolish such tax except\twith
\nthe previous sanction of the Government.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 87(1) of the new Act provided:\n<\/p>\n
“87(1)\tEvery building shall be assessed together  with\t its
\nsite and other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance
\nthereto\t unless\t the owner of the building  is\ta  different
\nperson from the owner of such site or premises.,’
\nBy s. 3 of the Fourth Amendment Act in sub-section (2) of s.
\n87  of\tthe new Act the following  words  were\tsubstituted,
\nnamely:\n<\/p>\n
“(2) The annual rental value of lands and buildings Shall be
\ndeemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reason-
\nably be expected to let from month to month or from year  to
\nyear less a deduction, in the case of buildings, of ten\t per
\ncent of that portion of such annual rent which is attributa-
\nble  to the buildings alone, apart from their sites and\t the
\nadjacent lands occupied as an appurtenance thereto; and\t the
\nsaid deduction shall be in lieu of all allowance for repairs
\nor on any other account whatever.\n<\/p>\n
389<\/span><\/p>\n
Provided that in respect of any building and the land appur-
\ntenant thereto, the fair rent of which has been fixed  under
\nsection\t 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent\t and
\nEviction) Control Act, 1960, the gross annual rent shall  be
\nthe annual amount of the fair rent so fixed.”
\nSection 4 of the Fourth Amendment Act sought to validate the
\nactions taken earlier by providing as under:
\n“4(1)  Notwithstanding\tanything in the\t provisions  of\t the
\nprincipal Act or any order of the Government made under\t the
\nrule  12  in Schedule IX to the\t Principal  Act,  any,action
\ntaken  till  the commencement of this Act by  any  municipal
\ncouncil to continue to levy and collect the property tax  in
\naccordance  with the method or manner or assessment or\tlevy
\nas  provided  in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra  Area)  District
\nMunicipalities\tAct, 1920 or the Andhra\t Pradesh  (Telangana
\nArea) District Municipalities Act, 1956, as the case may be,
\nshall  not  be\tdeemed to be invalid or ever  to  have\tbeen
\ninvalid\t by  reason only of the fact that  such\t action\t was
\ntaken  by the said municipal council during the period\twhen
\nthe  power in this behalf had not been validly entrusted  to
\nit in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act or
\nthe rules made thereunder and accordingly:\n<\/p>\n
(a)  The levy and collection of property tax made in  pursu-
\nance of such action shall for all purposes be deemed to\t be,
\nand to have always been, made in accordance with law; and\n<\/p>\n
(b)  no\t suit  or other proceeding shall  be  instituted  or
\ncontinued  in any court against the municipal  council\tcon-
\ncerned\tor any person or authority whatsoever on its  behalf
\non the ground only that any such action or levy and  collec-
\ntion was not taken or made in accordance with law.
\n(2)  Notwithstanding anything in sections 85 and 87  of\t the
\nPrincipal  Act\tas  amended by this Act,  the  property\t tax
\nlevied\tin accordance with the provisions of  the  Principal
\nAct as it stood before the commencement of this Act by\tsuch
\nof the municipalities as have come into existence after\t the
\ncommencement  of  the principal Act shall  continue  to.  be
\nlevied and collected by or on behalf of the Municipal
\n390<\/span>
\nCouncil of any such municipality for the year commencing  on
\nthe 1st April, 1975 .”\n<\/p>\n
Admittedly the validity of the Fourth Amendment Act had\t not
\nbeen  challenged  in the High Court. In fact it\t was  passed
\nduring the pendency of the writ petitions in the High Court.
\nMr  Suba Rao’s submission is that s. 3 of the Fourth  Amend-
\nment Act having not been made retrospective, s. 4 of the Act
\ncould not have said that the levy and collection of property
\ntax  made  in pursuance of such action for all\tpurposes  be
\ndeemed to be and to have always been made in accordance with
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis true that only sub-section (2) of Section  87  of
\nthe  new Act was substituted as stated above by\t the  Fourth
\nAmendment Act. However. once the amendment substituted\tsub-
\nsection (2) of s. 87 it formed a part of that section.\tThis
\namendment  only\t provided  the basis of\t assessment  and  it
\nitself did not provide for the commencement of such calcula-
\ntion which however might be taken from the other  provisions
\nof  the\t new Act or from the General Orders  issued  by\t the
\nGovernment.  Section  4(1) of the Fourth Amendment  Act\t ex-
\npressly validated any action taken till the commencement  of
\nthat  Act notwithstanding anything in the provisions of\t the
\nnew  Act  or in any Government Order made under rule  12  of
\nSchedule IX of the new Act and the Municipal Council  should
\ncontinue to levy and collect the property tax in  accordance
\nwith the method or manner of assessment or levy as  provided
\nin  the\t old Act and those acts shall not be  deemed  to  be
\ninvalid\t or ever to have been invalid by reason only of\t the
\nfact that such action was taken by the said municipal  coun-
\ncil during the period when the power in this behalf had\t not
\nbeen  validly entrusted to it in accordance with the  provi-
\nsions  of the new Act or the rules made thereunder and\tthat
\nthe levy and collection of property tax may in pursuance  of
\nsuch  action shall for all purposes be deemed to be, and  to
\nhave  always  been, made in accordance with  law.  From\t the
\nabove  provisions of s. 4( 1 ) of the Fourth  Amendment\t Act
\nthere is no doubt that the legislature intended to  validate
\nthe actions taken under the general orders and under the old
\nas  well  as  the new Act. It may be  interpreted  that\t the
\nimpugned  G.O. having been validated, the tenure covered  by
\nit  must  also be held to have been covered by it,  so\tthat
\nthere was really no interregnum in the process or  procedure
\nof assessment of property tax.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Subba Rao relies on Janapada Sabha,  Chhindwara  v.
\nThe Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. and Anr.,<\/a> [1970] 3\t SCR\n<\/p>\n
745.  In  that case in 1935, the  Independent  Mining  Local
\nBoard, Chhindwara con-\n<\/p>\n
391<\/span><\/p>\n
stituted under C.P. Local Self Government Act, 1920 resolved
\nto  levy a cess on coal extracted within the area at 3\tpies
\nper  ton. The sanction of the Local Government, as  required
\nby s. 51(2) of the Act, was obtained for the levy. In  1943,
\nthe  levy was enhanced to 4 pies, in 1946 to 7 pies  and  in
\n1947 to 9 pies. The validity of the enhanced levy was  chal-
\nlenged\tand this Court, in appeal, held that  the  increased
\nlevy  would also require the previous sanction of the  Local
\nGovernment  and such sanction not having been obtained,\t the
\nlevy  at  a rate higher than 3 pies was illegal.  The  State
\nlegislature  thereafter\t enacted the Madhya  Pradesh  Koyala
\nUpkar  (Manyatakaran) Adhiniyam, 1964. Section 2(a) of\tthat
\nact  defined  “Board” to mean the independent  Mining  Local
\nBoard, Chhindwara and its successor body the Janapada  Sabha
\nChhindwara,  the appellant, constituted under the  C.P.\t and
\nBerar  Local  Government  Act, 1948.  Section  2(b)  defined
\n“cess”\tto  mean “a cess imposed by the\t independent  Mining
\nLocal  Board  Chhindwara or its successor” Section  3(1)  of
\nthat  Act provided that ‘notwithstanding a judgment  of\t any
\ncourt, cesses imposed, assessed or collected by the Board in
\npursuance  of  the notifications specified in  the  Schedule
\nshall.\tfor all purposes, be deemed to be, and to have\tbeen
\nvalidly\t imposed. assessed or collected as if the  enactment
\nunder which they were issued stood amended at material times
\nso as to empower the Board to issue the said  notifications.
\nIn the Schedule were specified three notifications enhancing
\nthe rate of cess. On the question whether the enhanced\tlevy
\nwas validated by the 1964 Act, this Court held that the\t Act
\ndid  not give legal effect to the imposition of cess at\t the
\nenhanced rates. It was pointed out that the text or even the
\nnature\tof the amendments was not disclosed  though  Section
\n51(2)  of  the\t1920 Act could not be deemed  to  have\tbeen
\nrepealed  by the 1964 Act, because the latter Act, in  terms
\nwas  limited  in its application to the\t Independent  Mining
\nLocal Board, Chhindwara, and its successor body and only  in
\nrespect\t of the three notifications specified in the  Sched-
\nule. An Act so limited in its application to one Local Board
\nand  to\t specified notification could not  repeal  the\tsub-
\nsection which applied to all Boards. Nor was there  anything
\nto indicate that notifications issued by the appellant-Board
\nwithout the sanction of the State Government must be  deemed
\nto  have been issued validly. It was held that such  an\t in-
\ntendment could not be implied without express language, in a
\ntaxing statute. It was further observed that it was open  to
\nthe  legislature within certain limits to amend\t the  provi-
\nsions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the\t law
\nshall  be deemed to have been. But the Legislature, in\tthat
\ncase  attempted to overrule or set aside a decision  of\t the
\nCourt.\tIt  was not open to the Legislature to\tsay  that  a
\njudgment  of  a Court properly constituted and\trendered  in
\nexercise of its powers in a matter brought
\n392<\/span>
\nbefore\tit  shall be deemed to be ineffective  either  as  a
\nprecedent  or between the parties. That case is,  therefore,
\nclearly\t distinguishable  from the instant  case  on  facts.
\nFirstly,  in  the instant case there is no question  of\t any
\njudgment  of any Court having been overruled or\t set  aside.
\nThe  Single Bench Judgment was passed on 23.3.76,  that\t is,
\nafter  the Amendment Act which came into force\ton  10.6.75.
\nSecondly  the language of Section 4(1) is very clear  as  to
\nthe  intention of the legislature as to the contents of\t the
\namendment. What the amendment in the instant case did was to
\namend the new Act and also validate actions taken under\t the
\nG.O.  impugned in the case. What was prescribed by  the\t im-
\npugned\tG.O. was the same as was prescribed by the  old\t Act
\nwhich  itself stood repealed by the new Act.  The  procedure
\nthus prescribed was one under the G.O. and not under the old
\nAct, and Section 4(1) validated those actions without reviv-
\ning the repealed old Act itself but by amending the new\t Act
\nand validating the transitory measure taken by virtue of the
\nGovernment’s orders issued under the transitional  provision
\nSchedule IX, of the new Act particularly Rule 12 thereunder.
\nThe  validity of Section 4(1) itself having not\t been  chal-
\nlenged, it was not open for the Courts to give. an interpre-
\ntation contrary to the clear and unequivocal language of the
\nSection.  The rule is that an amendment Act must be read  as
\nif  the\t words of amendment had been written  into  the\t Act
\nexcept where that would lead to an inconsistency.  (Shamarao
\nV.  Parulekar  v.  The District\t Magistrate,  Thana  Bombay,<\/a>
\n[1952] 3 SCR 683 at 689) Power of the legislature to pass  a
\nlaw includes the power to validate actions  retrospectively,
\nof  course, within Constitutional limitations. It is apt  to
\nremember  that the State’s power to tax is derived from\t the
\nConstitution and the municipality’s power to tax is  derived
\nfrom  the State Legislature which could delegate that  power
\nin  the\t manner the Constitution permits  to  the  municipal
\ncouncil,  an agent of the State Government, and the  munici-
\npality cannot refuse to raise taxes as directed. The  proper
\nauthority  to  determine  what should and  what\t should\t not
\nconstitute a public burden is the Legislature of the  State.
\nThis  is not only true for the State itself but it  is\talso
\ntrue  in  respect of each municipality of the  State;  these
\ninferior corporate bodies having only such authority in this
\nregard as the legislature shall confer upon them. A  statute
\nwill not be declared unconstitutional unless it is  specifi-
\ncally challenged and the principle is equally applicable  to
\nan enactment authorising levy of a tax for a public purpose.
\nThe power to tax is a sovereign power and is legislative  in
\ncharacter  and it has to be exercised within  the  Constitu-
\ntional limitations. The statutes relating to municipal taxes
\nmay  be changed according to the existing legislative  rules
\nof  State policy unless forbidden by the  Constitution\tfrom
\ndoing so. Irregular assessment may
\n393<\/span>
\nalso  be regularised with retrospective effect\twithin.\t the
\nsame  Constitutional  limitations. Where the Court  has\t not
\nalready\t declared  invalid  a taxing measure  which  was  of
\ndoubtful validity, it is permissible for appropriate  legis-
\nlature to validate it by retrospective legislation. No legal
\nfiction is involved in such a case. Mr. Subba Rao’s  submis-
\nsion has, therefore, to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tfind force in the submission of Mr. Nambiar in\tthis
\nregard.\t The  G.O. impugned before the High Court  has\tbeen
\ncovered\t and  validated by the above  provisions,  the\tG.O.
\nitself\tcovered the period after the repeal of the  old\t Act
\nand till the date of commencement of the Fourth Amendment so
\nthat  no interregnum was really there. The  assessment\tmade
\naccording to the provisions of the old Act were validated as
\nactions\t taken by the council pursuant to the impugned\tG.O.
\nand  not under the provisions of the old Act which  was\t al-
\nready repealed. While referring to the old Act, the G.O. did
\nnot revive the Act but only prescribed the same procedure as
\nwas found in the repealed Act as a transitory measure.
\n    The\t validity  of s. 4(1) of the  Fourth  Amendment\t Act
\nhaving not been challenged before the High Court, we do\t not
\nfind  any  infirmity in the impugned judgments of  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe result, this appeal fails and is  dismissed\t but
\nunder  the facts and circumstances of the case\twithout\t any
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Y. Lal\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n394<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 704, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 381 Author: K Saikia Bench: Saikia, K.N. (J) PETITIONER: YADLAPATI VENKATESWARLU Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT11\/09\/1990 BENCH: SAIKIA, K.N. (J) BENCH: SAIKIA, K.N. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nYadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990 - 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\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990\" \/>\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=\"1990-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-21T15:17:53+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-21T15:17:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990\"},\"wordCount\":4432,\"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\\\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990\",\"name\":\"Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-21T15:17:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990\"}]},{\"@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":"Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990 - 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\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-21T15:17:53+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990","datePublished":"1990-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-21T15:17:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990"},"wordCount":4432,"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\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990","name":"Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-21T15:17:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yadlapati-venkateswarlu-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-11-september-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 11 September, 1990"}]},{"@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\/240022","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=240022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}