{"id":242885,"date":"1972-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972"},"modified":"2019-04-10T13:41:46","modified_gmt":"2019-04-10T08:11:46","slug":"state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972","title":{"rendered":"State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAJA JITENDRA SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/01\/1972\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nU.P.  Large Land Holdings Tax Act No. 31 of 1957  and  Rules\nmade  thereunder-Rule  6-A coming into force  out  23  April\n1958-Rule whether applicable to assessment year 1365  Fasli-\nJurisdiction  of  High Court in matter\tof  construction  of\nRule.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  he Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Tax Act No. 31  of\n1957  came into force on 1 July 1957.  The Rules  under\t the\nAct  were published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary  dated\n23  November  1957.  Rule 6-A was added to the Rules  by  in\namendment on 23 April 1958.  Rule 6-A states that where\t any\nland  holdings\thas  been  legally  sub-let  by\t a  disabled\nlandholder mentioned in subsection (1) of section 157 of the\nU.P.  Zamindari\t Abolition and Land Reforms  Act,  1950\t the\nholding\t tax  hall  be\tremitted  to  the  extent  of  that,\nchargeable  on\tthe  land sub-let if its  annual  value\t was\narrived\t at  by\t multiplying  the  rent\t by  10\t 1\/2.\t The\nrespondent was prior to the abolition of Zamindari in  Uttar\nPradesh, the Raja of properties consisting of '-IS  villages\nin District Rai Bareilly.  He was a minor till 3 March\t1958\nand attained majority on 4 March 1958.\tThe properties\twere\nunder  the  management of the Court of Wards  from  1945  to\n1953, and, thereafter, under the management of the  District\nJudge  Rai Bareilly tip to 4 March 1958.  On 1 April,  1958,\nthe Tax Assessment Officer served a notice, under s. 7(2) of\nthe  1957  Act on the respondent, for the  assessment  Fasli\nyear  1365 commencing on 1 July 1957 and ending on 30  June.\n1958.  The respondent filed a return and claimed benefit  of\nexemption  under  Rule 6-A of the said Rules in\t respect  of\nland  which had been sub-let to tenants under the  order  of\nthe  Court  of\tWards  and  the\t District  Judge  when\t the\nrespondent's  properties were under their  management.\t The\nclaim  was rejected.  The Commissioner in appeal  held\tthat\nRule 6-A was not applicable to assessment for the year\t1365\nFasli year.  The writ petition filed by the respondent chal-\nlanging\t the Commissioner's order was allowed by the  Single\nJudge.\t In  appeal  by special leave  the  State  contended\nbefore this Court that (i) The tax was to be assessed on the\nannual\tvalue of the landholding as on i July 1957, and,  in\nas  much as Rule 6-A did not come into existence on  1\tJuly\n1957, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of\t the\nrule; (ii).  Rule 6-A was not applicable because it was\t not\nproved\tthat the land was lawfully stabler; (iii)  The\tHigh\nCourt  was  Nvrong  in issuing the writ\t on  the  ground  of\nmisconstruction of Rule 6-A by the assessing authorities  it\nwas not a patent error.\nHeld  : (i) (a) Rule 6-A is to he 'read with sections  3,  4\nand   5\t of  the  Act.\t Assessment  was  for\tthe   entire\nagricultural  year from 1 July 1957 upto 30 June 1958.\t The\nland  which had been lawfully sub-let by the Court of  Ward,\nand the District Judge could not be in the possession of the\nrespondent in the assessment year.  Therefore, in  assessing\nthe land holding for the year 1365 Fasli. the respondent was\nentitled to claim benefit under Rule 6-A in respect of\tland\nwhich had been legally sub-let.\t The fact that, he became  a\nmajor from 4 March 1958 did not deprive him of the  benefit.\n[102 D-F]\n100\n(b)  The Act came into force on 1 July 1957.  The assessment\nwas  to be made for the year commencing 1 July 1957.   Rules\nwere  made  under s. 29 of the Act.  Rules,  obviously\tcame\ninto  existence\t subsequent to the Act\tcoming\tinto  force.\nRules  are  procedural.\t Rules relate to  assessments.\t The\nassessment  is for the entire year.  The assessment  in\t the\nparticular instance was made after Rule 6-A came into force.\nThe assessment was pursuant to notice which was delivered on\n1 April 1958.  The assessment was for the whole year  ending\n30  June 1958.\tTherefore, Ride 6-A would be  applicable  to\nthe assessment which was not only pending but would be\tupto\n30 June, 1958 within which period the rule became  effective\nfor  the assessment year.  The contention that Rule 6-A\t was\nnot  made retrospective and therefore did not apply  for  an\nassessment for Fasli 1365 was devoid of merit. [102 H-103 C]\n(ii) In\t the  High  Court, the State  did  not\tdispute\t the\nlegality of subletting.\t It was, therefore, not open to\t the\nState to raise the contention that the\tland  had  not\tbeen\nlegally sub-let. [103 D]\n(iii)\t  The  respondent  raised  a contention\t as  to\t the\napplication of Rule 6-A.  This is a question of construction\nof the statute and rules in respect of assessment.  The High\nCourt was justified in issuing the writ. [103 E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 238 of 1967.<br \/>\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and decree dated February 9.\t1965<br \/>\nof  the\t Allababad High Court in Special Appeal No.  310  of<br \/>\n1960.\n<\/p>\n<p>G.   N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana, for the appellant.<br \/>\nJ.   P. Goyal and R. A. Gupta, for the respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nRay, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment<br \/>\ndated  9  February,  1965 of the  High\tCourt  at  Allahabad<br \/>\ndismissing  the appeal filed by the State of  Uttar  Pradesh<br \/>\nagainst\t the judgment of the learned Single  Judge  quashing<br \/>\nthe  assessments of the respondent under the  Uttar  Pradesh<br \/>\nLarge  Land  Holding-, Tax Act No. 31 of  1957\t(hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred  to  as  the  Act) and\t further  holding  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent was entitled to the benefit under rule 6-A of the<br \/>\nUttar  Pradesh Large Land Holdings Rules. 1957\t(hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the said Rules).\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent Raja was prior to the abolition Of  Zamindari<br \/>\nin  the\t State of Uttar Pradesh the Raja of  the  properties<br \/>\nknown  a  Chandapur Raj consisting of 28  village,;  in\t the<br \/>\nTahsil\tMaharajoanj  in\t the District of  Rae  Bareli.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent  was a minor till 3 March, 1958 and\the  attained<br \/>\nmajority  on 4 March, 1958.  The properties were  under\t the<br \/>\nmanagement  of\tthe  Court of Wards from 1945  to  1953\t and<br \/>\nthereafter under the management of the .District Judge,\t Rae<br \/>\nBareli tip to 4 March, 1958.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">101<\/span><\/p>\n<p>on  1  April, 1958 the Tax Assessment  Officer,\t Maharajganj<br \/>\nSub-Division served a notice under section 7(2) of the\t1957<br \/>\nAct  on\t the respondent for the assessment Fasli  year\t1365<br \/>\ncommencing on 1 July, 1957 and ending on 30 June, 1958.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent was required by the said notice to file a  return<br \/>\nfor  the  agricultural\tyear  of the  land  holding  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   The  respondent  filed a\treturn\tand  claimed<br \/>\nbenefit\t of  exemption under rule 6-A of the said  Rules  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the agricultural land which had been sub-let  to<br \/>\ntenants\t under\tthe  orders of the Court of  Wards  and\t the<br \/>\nDistrict  Judge when the respondent&#8217;s properties were  under<br \/>\ntheir  management.   On\t 16 July,  1958\t the  Sub-Divisional<br \/>\nOfficer,  Maharajganj being the Assessing Officer  dismissed<br \/>\nthe respondent&#8217;s claim for exemption in respect of the\tland<br \/>\nholding sub-let and passed an assessment order imposing\t tax<br \/>\non  the\t land holding of the respondent for the sum  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n62,011.39. It may be stated that the assessment according to<br \/>\nthe respondent should have been Rs. 34,274-6-10 as a  result<br \/>\nof the exemption under rule 6-A.  Tile respondent  preferred<br \/>\nan  appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow  Division.\t The<br \/>\nappeal\t was   dismissed.   On\t9   September,\t .1958\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner  held  that  rule 6-A  was\t not  applicable  to<br \/>\nassessment of tax for the 1365 Fasli year.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent thereafter on 29 September, 1958 filed a writ<br \/>\npetition  in  the High Court at\t Allahabad  challenging\t the<br \/>\nvalidity of the Act and for quashing the assessment orders.<br \/>\nThe learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High, Court on  29<br \/>\nFebruary,  1960 held that the Act was valid and allowed\t the<br \/>\nwrit  petition\tin part by holding that the  respondent\t was<br \/>\nentitled  to the benefit of rule 6-A and  therefore  quashed<br \/>\nthe assessment order.  The State filed an appeal.  The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order<br \/>\nof the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>Counsel\t on  behalf of the State raised\t three\tcontentions.<br \/>\nFirst,\tit  was\t said that tax was to be,  assessed  on\t the<br \/>\nannual value of land holding as on 1 July, 1957 and inasmuch<br \/>\nrule  6-A  did not come into existence on 1 July,  1957\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  was\t not entitled to the benefit  of  the  rule.<br \/>\nSecondly,  it  was  said  that\trule  6-A  was\tnot  at\t all<br \/>\napplicable,  because  it was not proved that  the  land\t was<br \/>\nlawfully sub-let.  Thirdly, it was said that the High  Court<br \/>\nwas   wrong   in  issuing  the\twrit  on   the\t ground\t  of<br \/>\nmisconstruction\t of  rule 6-A by the  assessing\t authorities<br \/>\nbecause it was not a patent error.\n<\/p>\n<p>The,  1957 Act came into force on 1 July, 1957.\t Section  29<br \/>\nof the Act empowered the State Government to make, rules for<br \/>\ncarrying  out  the  purposes of the  Act.   The\t rules\twere<br \/>\npublished  in  the  U.P.  Gazette,  Extraordinary  dated  23<br \/>\nNovember,  1957.   Rule\t 6-A was added to the  Rules  by  an<br \/>\namendment on 23 April,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">102<\/span><br \/>\n1958.\tThe  contention\t on behalf of  the  State  was\tthat<br \/>\nbecause rule  6-A was not made retrospective  with  effect<br \/>\nfrom  1 July, 1957 but that rule 6-A came into existence  on<br \/>\n23  April,  1958, the said rule would not be  applicable  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  assessment\t commencing  1\tJuly,  .1957.\tThis<br \/>\ncontention is unacceptable as it is unsound.  Under  section<br \/>\n3  of  the  Act holding tax at the rates  specified  in\t the<br \/>\nSchedule  of the Act is levied for the agricultural year  on<br \/>\nthe annual value of each land holding.\tSection 4 of the Act<br \/>\ndefines\t &#8216;land\tholding&#8217;.  Section 5 of the Act\t deals\twith<br \/>\nannual\tvalue of the land.  Rule 6-A states that  where\t any<br \/>\nland  holding has been legally sub-let by a  disabled  land-<br \/>\nholder\tmentioned in sub-section (1) of section 157  of\t the<br \/>\nU.P.  Zamindari\t Abolition and Land Reforms  Act,  1950\t the<br \/>\nholding\t tax  shall  be\t remitted  to  the  extent  of\tthat<br \/>\nchargeable  on\tthe  land sublet if its\t annual\t value\twere<br \/>\narrived\t at by multiplying the rent payable by 10 1\/2.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent was a disabled land-holder within the meaning  of<br \/>\nsection 157 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,<br \/>\n1950.\tThe  land  had\tbeen  lawfully\tsub-let\t while\t the<br \/>\nproperties  were under the management of the Court of  Wards<br \/>\nand  thereafter the District Judge.  The contention  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  that\t the respondent became a major on  4  March,<br \/>\n1958  and therefore he could not get benefit of the rule  is<br \/>\nuntenable.   Rule 6-A refers to land which has been  legally<br \/>\nsub-let.  Therefore, the sub-letting must be anterior to the<br \/>\nmaking of the rule on 23 April, 1958.  The entire fallacy of<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tis that to make rule 6-A effective  from  23<br \/>\nApril,\t1958  would  be to rob rule 6-A of  its\t extent\t and<br \/>\ncontent\t in respect of assessment.  Rule 6-A is to  be\tread<br \/>\nwith sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, The assessment was\t for<br \/>\nthe  entire  agricultural year from 1 July, 1957  up  to  30<br \/>\nJune, 1958.  The land which had been lawfully sub-let  could<br \/>\nnot be in the possession of the respondent in the assessment<br \/>\nyear.  Therefore in assessing the land holding for the\tyear<br \/>\n1365  Fasli  the respondent was entitled  to  claim  benefit<br \/>\nunder  Rule 6-A in respect of land which had  be-en  legally<br \/>\nsub-let.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rules  are  made for carrying out the purposes of  the\tAct.<br \/>\nOne  of the purposes is to assess the land holding  for\t the<br \/>\nagricultural  year.   Rules are in regard to filing  of\t the<br \/>\nreturn\tand manner and mode of computation of annual  value.<br \/>\nExemption  under  rule\t6-A  is a  benefit  in\trelation  to<br \/>\nassessment  by\treason\tof  the\t process  of  computing\t the<br \/>\nvaluation of land holding.\n<\/p>\n<p>The contention on behalf of the State that Rule 6-A was\t not<br \/>\nmade retrospective and therefore it does not apply is devoid<br \/>\nof  merit.  To accede to the contention of the\tState  would<br \/>\nmean  that  the\t rules\twhich  came  into  existence  on  23<br \/>\nNovember,  1957\t would\tnot at all  the\t applicable  to\t the<br \/>\nassessment  which commenced on 1 July, 1957.  That would  be<br \/>\nan  absurd  position.  The Act came into force\ton  1  July,<br \/>\n1957.  The assessment was to be made for the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    103<\/span><br \/>\nyear commencing 1 July, 1957.  Rules were Made under section<br \/>\n29  of\tthe  Act.   Rules  obviously  came  into   existence<br \/>\nsubsequent  to\tthe  Act  coming  into\tforce.\t Rules\t are<br \/>\nprocedural.    Rules   relate  to  the\t assessments.\t The<br \/>\nassessment  is for the entire year.  The assessment  in\t the<br \/>\nparticular  instance  was  made after  rule  6-A  came\tinto<br \/>\neffect.\t  The  assessment was pursuant to notice  which\t was<br \/>\ndelivered  on  1 April, 1958.  The assessment  was  for\t the<br \/>\nwhole year ending 30 June, 1958.  Therefore, rule 6-A  would<br \/>\nbe  applicable to the assessment which was not only  pending<br \/>\nbut  would  be up to 30 June, 1958 within which\t period\t the<br \/>\nrule  became effective for the assessment year.\t It is\talso<br \/>\nimportant  to notice that the benefit under rule 6-A  enures<br \/>\nto  the\t land holding which has legally sub-let.   The\tland<br \/>\nholding\t fulfils that character during the  assessment\tyear<br \/>\nwith the result that rule 6-A is attracted by the quality of<br \/>\nland for quantifying the assessment.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  second  contention of the State that the land  had\t not<br \/>\nbeen  legally  sub-let cannot be entertained.  In  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt the State did not dispute the legality of sub-letting.<br \/>\nIt  is,\t therefore,  no,, open to the State  to\t raise\tthat<br \/>\ncontention.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  third contention of the State that there is  no  patent<br \/>\nerror  and therefore the High Court was wrong in  issuing  a<br \/>\nwrit   is  unacceptable.   The\trespondent  Raja  raised   a<br \/>\ncontention  as\tto the application of rule 6-A.\t This  is  a<br \/>\nquestion of construction of the statute and rules in respect<br \/>\nof assessment.\tThe High Court was justified in issuing\t the<br \/>\nwrit.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>G.C.\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">104<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972 PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJA JITENDRA SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/01\/1972 BENCH: ACT: U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act No. 31 of 1957 and Rules made thereunder-Rule 6-A coming into force out 23 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-242885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-10T08:11:46+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-10T08:11:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972\"},\"wordCount\":1466,\"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\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972\",\"name\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-10T08:11:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-10T08:11:46+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972","datePublished":"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-10T08:11:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972"},"wordCount":1466,"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\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972","name":"State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-10T08:11:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-vs-raja-jitendra-singh-on-18-january-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors vs Raja Jitendra Singh on 18 January, 1972"}]},{"@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\/242885","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=242885"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242885\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}