{"id":243175,"date":"1966-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966"},"modified":"2016-08-27T11:50:30","modified_gmt":"2016-08-27T06:20:30","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1593, \t\t 1966 SCR (3) 557<\/div>\n
Author: A Sarkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkar, A.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVISHNU PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/02\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1593\t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 557\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1968 SC1138\t (28,44,45,46,51,52,54,57)\n R\t    1970 SC1576\t (7)\n RF\t    1973 SC1150\t (2)\n RF\t    1975 SC1699\t (3)\n R\t    1975 SC1767\t (4)\n E\t    1976 SC 417\t (27)\n F\t    1977 SC 594\t (5,6)\n E\t    1980 SC 367\t (5,6,12)\n F\t    1985 SC1622\t (15)\n D\t    1988 SC1615\t (7)\n R\t    1989 SC  49\t (26)\n RF\t    1991 SC1117\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\nLand Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), ss. 4, 5-A, 6, 17, 48\t and\n49-Notification under s. 4-If could be followed by more than\none notification under s. 6.,\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nAfter the issue of a notification under a. 4(1) of the\tLand\nAcquisition  Act, 1894, by which it was declared that  lands\nin  certain villages were likely to be needed for  a  public\npurpose, a number of notifications, in respect of  different\nitems  of land specified in the notification under s.  4(1),\nwere  successively  issued under s. 6. The validity  of\t the\nlast  of them was challenged by the respondents, by  a\twrit\npetition  in  the  High Court The  High\t Court\tallowed\t the\npetition holding that a notification under a. 4(1) could  be\nfollowed only by one notification under. s. 6, and therefore\nit  was\t not  open to the  Government  to  issue  successive\nnotifications  with  respect  to  different  parts  of\tland\ncomprised in one notification under s. 4.\nIn appeal to this Court, by the State,\n HELD:\t  The High Court was right in holding that there can\nbe  no successive notifications under s. 6 with\t respect  to\nland  in a locality specified  in one notification under  a.\n4(1). [572 C-D]\nPer  Sarkar,  J.  Sections  4, 5-A and 6  of  the  Act\tread\ntogether  indicates that the Act contemplates only a  single\ndeclaration under s. 6 in respect of a notification under s.\n4.  There  is nothing in ss. 17 and 49(2) (3) to lead  to  a\ncontrary view.\nThere  is nothing in the Act to support the view that it  is\nonly a withdrawal under s. 48 that puts a notification under\na. 4 completely out of the way. [560 G; 561 C; 561 E]\nPer  Wanchoo and Mudholkar, JJ.\t Sections 4, 5-A and  6\t are\nintegrally connected and without the notifications under as.\n4 and 6 no acquisition can take place, because, they are the\nbasis  of  all proceedings which follow.   The\tnotification\nunder s. 4(1) specifies the locality in which the land is to\nbe acquired and under s. 4(2) survey is made to decide\twhat\nparticular   land   in\tthe  locality\tspecified   in\t the\nnotification  is  to be acquired.  Another  purpose  of\t the\nnotification under a. 4(1) is to give opportunity to persons\nowning land in the locality to make objections under s. 5-A.\nSection\t 5-A specifically provides that the Collector  shall\nhear  all objections made before him and then make only\t one\nreport\tto the Government containing his recommendations  on\nthe  objections.   When\t such a report is  received  by\t the\nGovernment, it must give a decision on all the objections at\none  stage and decide once for all what particular land\t out\nof the locality notified under s. 4(1) it wishes to  acquire\nand then issue a declaration under s. 6. At the stage of  s.\n4,  the land is not particularised but only the locality  is\nmentioned; at the stage of a. 6 the land in the locality  is\nparticularised\tand  thereafter, the notification  under  s.\n4(1)  having  served  its  purpose  exhausts  itself.\t The\nsequence  of events from a notification of the intention  to\nacquire\t under s. 4 to the declaration under a. 6, leads  to\nthe   conclusion  that\tonce  a\t declaration  under   s.   6\nparticularising\t the  area  is issued,\tthe  remaining\tnon-\nparticularised area in the noti-\nSup.C.I.\/66-4\n558\nfication  under s. 4(1) stands automatically released.\t The\nintention of the legislature was that one notification under\ns.  4(1)  should  be  followed\tby  survey  under  s.  4(2),\nobjections   under  s.\t5-A  heard,  and   thereafter,\t one\ndeclaration  under s. 6 issued.\t If the Government  requires\nmore  land in that locality, there is nothing to prevent  it\nfrom  issuing  another notification under s. 4(i)  making  a\nfurther\t survey\t if necessary, hearing objections  and\tthen\nmaking\tanother\t declaration under s. 6,  whereas  there  is\nlikely to be prejudice to the owner of the land if there  is\ngreat  delay between the notifications under s. 4(1) and  s.\n6. Even if it were possible to issue two notifications under\ns.  6  in  the\tspecial circumstances  arising\tout  of\t the\napplication of s. 17 (4), all that is possible is, to  issue\none notification relating to land to which s. 17(1)  applies\nand another notification relating to land to which s.  17(1)\ncannot apply, and that is because of the special  provisions\ncontained  in s. 17(1) and s. 17(4) and not because  of\t the\nprovisions of ss. 4, 5-A and 6. Section 48(1) only confers a\nspecial\t power on Government of withdrawal from\t acquisition\nwithout\t canceling  the\t notifications under ss.  4  and  6,\nprovided, possession of the land covered by the notification\nunder  s. 6 was not taken.  It cannot be said that the\tonly\nway in which the notification under s. 4(1) can corn.- to an\nend  is by withdrawal under s. 48(1) and that unless  action\nis  taken under that section the notification under s.\t4(1)\nwould remain alive Section 49(2) and (3) also provide for  a\nspecial\t case.\tThe order of the Government under s.  49(2),\nordering  the  acquisition of the whole of  the\t land,\teven\nthough\tunder  s.  6 only part of the  land  may  have\tbeen\ndeclared,  may\tbe taken to serve the purpose of  the  noti-\nfication  under s. 4(1) in such a special case; but it\tdoes\nnot  follow that successive notifications under s. 6 can  be\nissued with respect to land in the locality specified in the\nnotification  under s. 4(1). [566 D-567 E; 567 F, H; 569  B,\nC; 570 A-D, C; 571 F, G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1018  of
\n1963.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 21,  1962,
\nof the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.  Petition No.\t 275
\nof 1961.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K.\t Daphtary, Attorney-General, M.\t Adhikari,  Advocate
\nGeneral,  Madhya Pradesh, H. L. Khaskalam and I. N.  Shroff,
\nfor the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
S.   V.\t Gupte, Solicitor-General and J. B. Dadachanji,\t for
\nthe respondents.\n<\/p>\n
S. N. Kacker and J. P. Goyal, for the intervener.
\nSARKAR,\t J. delivered a separate opinion.  The\tJudgment  of
\nWANCHOO and MUDHOLKAR, JJ. was delivered by WANCHOO, J.
\nSarkar,\t J-My learned brother Wanchoo has set out the  facts
\nfully in his judgment and that relieves me of the  necessity
\nof stating them again.\n<\/p>\n
The  question  that  has  arisen  is  whether  a  number  of
\ndeclarations  under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition  Act,\t1894
\ncan be issued successively in respect of different pieces of
\nlands\tincluded   within  the\tlocality  specified   in   a
\nnotification  issued  under  S. 4 of the  Act.\t My  learned
\nbrother has said that ss. 4, 5A and 6 of the Act have to  be
\nread together and so read, the conclusion is clear that\t the
\nAct contem-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    559<\/span><\/p>\n
plates only a single declaration under s. 6 in respect of  a
\nnotification  under  s.\t 4.1  so  entirely  agree  with\t his
\nreasonings  for this view that I find it unnecessary to\t add
\nanything  to  them.  But it was said that  there  are  other
\nconsiderations\twhich  indicate that our  reading  of  these
\nsections  is  unsound.\tIn this judgment I propose  to\tdeal
\nonly with these considerations.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t said  that the Government may\thave  difficulty  in
\nmaking\tthe  plan  of  its  project  complete  at  a   time,
\nparticularly  where the project is large and, therefore,  it
\nis  necessary that it should have power to make a number  of
\ndeclarations  under s. 6.1 am wholly unable to\taccept\tthis
\nargument.  First, I do not think that a supposed  difficulty
\nwould  provide\tany justification for  accepting  an  inter-
\npretation  of a statute against the ordinary meaning of\t the
\nlanguage  used\tin it.\tGeneral considerations of  the\tkind
\nsuggested  cannot  authorise  a\t departure  from  the  plain
\nmeaning\t  of   words.\tSecondly,.   I\tcannot\t imagine   a
\nGovernment,  which  has vast resources, not being  able\t to
\nmake  a complete plan of its project at a time.\t  Indeed,  I
\nthink when a plan is made, it is a complete plan.  I  should
\nsuppose\t that  before  the  Government\tstarts\t acquisition
\nproceedings  by the issue of a notification under s.  4,  it
\nhas  made  its\tplan for otherwise it cannot  state  in\t the
\nnotification,  as it has to do, that the land is. likely  to
\nbe  needed.  Even if it had not then completed its plan,  it
\nwould  have enough time before the making of  a\t declaration
\nunder  s.  6  to  do  so.   I  think,  therefore,  that\t the
\ndifficulty of the Government, even if there is one, does not
\nlead to the conclusion that the Act contemplates the  making
\nof  a  number of ‘declarations under s. 6.1  would  like  to
\nobserve\t here to avoid confusion that we are  not  concerned
\nnow with extension of a completely planned project conceived
\nlater.\t  The  present\tcontention  is\tnot  based  on\t any
\ndifficulty arising out of such a case.\tIt was said that  if
\nthe  Government has not finalised its plan when it  makes  a
\ndeclaration  under  s.\t6,  it would  have  to\tstart  fresh
\nacquisition proceedings beginning with a notification  under
\ns.  4 to provide for the complete plan if it could not\tmake
\nany  more  declarations and in such a case,  in\t conceivable
\ncircumstances, it may have to pay more for the land that  it
\nthen  sought to acquire.  This argument concedes that  even
\nif  the Government has not been able to make its  plan\twhen
\nmaking\ta declaration under s. 6, the result is not that  it
\ncannot\tacquire\t any  more  land  later\t when  the  plan  is
\ncompleted.   The  real\tpoint,\ttherefore,  of\tthe  present
\nargument  is that the Act should be so interpreted that\t the
\nGovernment should not be put to extra cost when it has\tbeen
\nunable to complete its plan at a time.\tThis seems to me  to
\nbe  a strange argument.\t First, there is no reason  why\t the
\nAct should provide for the Government’s failure to  complete
\nthe  plan.  Secondly, the argument is hypothetical  for\t one
\ndoes not know for sure whether a later acquisition will cost
\nmore  or lessr Arguments on hypothetical considerations\t can
\nhave  little  weight  in interpreting  statutes.   But\teven
\notherwise this view of the matte.\n<\/p>\n
560<\/span><\/p>\n
does  not  support  the\t argument.  After  the\tissue  of  a
\nnotification  under s. 4, an owner of land in  the  locality
\nnotified  cannot  have\tfull  beneficial  enjoyment  of\t his
\nproperty;  he cannot, for example, build on his land for  if
\nhe  does  so-and  the  land is\tacquired,  he  will  get  no
\ncompensation for the building put up and will lose the costs
\nincurred for it.  If it is a justification for saying that a
\nnumber\tof  declarations  can be made  under  s.  6  because
\notherwise  the Government may have to pay more, it seems  to
\nme that it is at an equal justification for saying that such
\ndeclarations  cannot  have  been  contemplated\tby  the\t Act
\nbecause\t that  would mean an avoidable\tdeprivation  of\t the
\nowners of their beneficial enjoyment of lands till such time
\nas  the Government is able to make its plan.  As the Act  is
\nan  expropriatory Act, that interpretation of it  should  be
\naccepted  which\t puts the least burden on  the\texpropriated
\nowner.\tThe  Government\t could, of  course,  always  make  a
\ncomplete plan at a time and I am unable to hold that the Act
\ncontemplated  that  it\tneed  not do so\t and  go  on  making
\ndeclarations  from time to time as its plan goes  on  taking
\nshape  even  though  the result might  be  to  increase\t the
\nhardship of persons whose lands are taken away.
\nReference  was\tthen made to sub-ss. (1) and (4) of  s.\t 17.
\nThese  give the Government the power to, take possession  of
\nwaste and arable lands included in the notification under S.
\n4 on the expiry of fifteen days from the publication of\t the
\nnotice mentioned in S. 9 and before the making of the award,
\nwithout\t holding  the enquiry contemplated by S. 5.  It\t was
\nsaid that if a notification under s. 4 included both  arable
\nand waste lands as also lands of other descriptions, it will
\nbe  necessary to issue two separate declarations under s.  6
\nin  respect  of the different kinds of lands.  It  was\talso
\nsaid  that the vesting in respect of the two kinds of  lands
\nin the Government would also be by stages, All this, it\t was
\ncontended,  would  support  the\t view  that  more  than\t one
\ndeclaration  under s. 6 was contemplated in such a case.   I
\ndo  not feel called upon to ,express any opinion whether  in
\nsuch  a\t case  a  number  of  declarations  under  s.  6  is
\ncontemplated.  It is enough to say that it is not  contended
\nthat  this is a case of that kind.  Therefore, it cannot  be
\nsaid  that the disputed declaration under S. 6 was  in\tthis
\ncase  justified\t under\ts. 17.\tOn the contrary,  if  t\t the
\ncontention  that S. 17 contemplates more  declarations\tthan
\none under s. 6 be correct, that would be because the statute
\nspecifically  so  provided for a particular case.   It\tmust
\nfollow\tthat  without  a special provision,  more  than\t one
\ndeclaration under S. 6 was not contemplated.
\nThe  next  contention  was  that  s.  48  which\t gives\t the
\nGovernment  power  of  withdrawal  from\t acquisition  before
\ntaking\tpossession  implies that a notification under  s.  4
\nremains\t in force for all purpose till such withdrawal,\t and
\nif it so remains in force, successive declarations under  s.
\n6  must be permissible for otherwise it would be useless  to
\nkeep the notification under s. 4 in force.  The substance
\n561<\/span>
\nof   this  argument  is that the only way to get  rid  of  a
\nnotification under s.\t 4   is\t by  a\twithdrawal  of\t the
\nacquisition proceedings under s. 48; if the proceedings\t are
\nnot  withdrawn, the notification remains and then there\t may
\nbe  successive\tdeclarations.\tThis argument  seems  to  me
\nclearly ill founded.  Now a notification under s. 4 will  be
\nexhausted  if a declaration is made under it in\t respect  of
\nthe  entire  area covered by it.  Likewise, it seems  to  me
\nthat  if  the  correct\tinterpretation\tis  that  only\t one
\ndeclaration can be made under s. 6, that also would  exhaust
\nthe  notification  under s. 4; that  notification  would  no
\nlonger\tremain\tin force to justify  successive\t declaration
\nunder  s.  6 in respect of different areas included  in\t it.
\nThere  is nothing in the Act to support the view that it  is
\nonly a withdrawal under s. 48 that puts a notification under
\ns.  4 completely out of the way.  The effect of s. 48 is  to
\nwithdraw   the\t acquisition  proceedings,   including\t the
\nnotification  under  s.\t 4 with which it  started.   We\t are
\nconcerned  not\twith a withdrawal but with the\tforce  of  a
\nnotification under s. 4 having become exhausted.  That is  a
\ndifferent case and has nothing to do with a withdrawal.
\nLastly,\t we were referred to sub-ss., (2) and (3) of s.\t 49.
\nThese sub-sections state that where a claim for compensation
\nis made on the ground of severance of the land acquired from
\nthe remaining land of the owner for which provision is\tmade
\nunder  s.  23, if the Government thinks that  the  claim  is
\nunreasonable  it may, before the making of the award,  order
\nthe  acquisition  of the whole land and in such\t a  case  no
\nfresh  declaration  under  s. 6 will be\t necessary.   It  is
\ncontended  that\t these\tprovisions  support  the  view\tthat
\nsuccessive declarations under s. 6 were contemplated.  I  do
\nnot think they do so.  In any case, I even if they did, then
\nthat  would  be\t because in d particular  case\tthe  statute
\nspecially  provided for successive declarations under s.  6.
\nThe  present  is not that special case.\t Furthermore,  as  I
\nhave  said in connection with the argument based on  s.\t 17,
\nthe  fact that a special provision was necessary  to  enable
\nsuccessive  declarations under s. 6 to be made would  go  to
\nsupport\t the view that without a special provision there  is
\nno  power given by the Act to issue successive\tdeclarations
\nunder s. 6.\n<\/p>\n
1 would for these reasons dismiss the appeal with costs.
\nWanchoo,  J.-The  only question raised in this appeal  on  a
\ncertificate  granted  by the Madhya Pradesh  High  Court  is
\nwhether\t it is open to the appropriate government  to  issue
\nsuccessive notifications under s. 6 of the Land\t Acquisition
\nAct,  No.  1 of 1894, (hereinafter referred to as  the\tAct)
\nwith respect to land comprised within one notification under
\ns. 4(1) of the Act.  The question arises in this way.
\nOn May 16, 1949, a notification was issued under s. 4 (1) of
\nthe  Act  by  which it was declared  that  lands  in  eleven
\nvillages including village Chhawani was likely to be  needed
\nfor a public
\n562<\/span>
\npurpose, i.e., the erection of an iron and steel plant.\t  It
\nappears that thereafter notifications were issued under s. 6
\nwith  respect to the villages notified in  the\tnotification
\nunder s. 4(1) and it is not in dispute that a number of such
\nnotifications under S. 6 were issued with respect to village
\nChhawani  and some land in that village was  acquired  under
\nthose notifications, the last’ of such acquisitions being in
\nthe  vear  1956.   Thereafter on August\t 12,  1960,  another
\nnotification  under  s.\t 6  of the Act\twas  issued  by\t the
\nappropriate government proposing to acquire 486-17 acres  of
\nland in village Chhawani and the area which was proposed  to
\nbe  acquired was demarcated on a map kept in the  office  of
\nthe Collector of Durg for inspection.  The notification also
\nstated\tthat the provisions of S. 5-A of the Act shall\tnot
\napply thereto.\tThereupon the respondents who are interested
\nin  some of the land notified filed a writ petition  in\t the
\nHigh  Court  challenging the validity  of  the\tnotification
\nunder s. 6. The principal contention raised on their  behalf
\nwas that the notification under s. 6 of the Act was void  as
\nit had not been preceded by a fresh notification under s. 1)
\nand  the  notification\tunder S. 4(1)  issued  in  1949\t had
\nexhausted itself when notifications under s. 6 with  respect
\nto  this  village had been issued previously and  could\t not
\nsupport\t the  issue of another notification under s.  6.  In
\nsubstance  the\tcontention  of\tthe  respondents  in   their
\npetition  was  that a notification under s.  4(1)  could  be
\nfollowed only by one notification under s. 6 and that  there
\ncould be no successive notifications under s. 6 with respect
\nto lands comprised in one notification under s. 4(1).
\nThe petition was opposed on behalf of the appellant, and  it
\nwas contended that it was open to the appropriate government
\nto  issue as many notifications as it deemed fit under s.  6
\nof   the  Act  with  respect  to  lands\t comprised  in\t one
\nnotification under s. 4(1) and that it was not correct\tthat
\nthe notification under s. 4(1) was ,exhausted as soon as one
\nnotification under s. 6 was issued with respect to a part of
\nthe  land comprised in the notification under s.  4(1),\t and
\nthat  it  was always open to the appropriate  government  to
\nissue  successive notifications under s. 6 so long as  these
\nnotifications were with respect to land comprised within the
\nnotification under s. 4(1).\n<\/p>\n
The   High  Court  has\taccepted  the  contention   of\t the
\nrespondents and has held that a notification under s. 4\t (1)
\ncan only be followed by one notification under S. 6 and that
\nit  is\tnot  open to the  appropriate  government  to  issue
\nsuccessive  notifications with respect to parts of the\tland
\ncomprised in one notification under s. 4 and that as soon as
\none  notification is issued under s. 6, whether it  be\twith
\nrespect\t to part of the land comprised in  the\tnotification
\nunder  s.,  4(1)  or with respect to the whole\tof  it,\t the
\nnotification  under s. 4(1) is exhausted and cannot  support
\nany further notification under s. 6 ,of the Act with respect
\nto parts of land comprised in the notifi-\n<\/p>\n
563<\/span><\/p>\n
cation\tunder s. 6. In consequence the petition was  allowed
\nand  the  notification dated August 12, 1960  quashed.\t The
\nappellant  then applied to the High Court for a\t certificate
\nwhich  was granted; and that is how the matter has  come  up
\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n
The question whether only one notification under s. 6 can be
\nissued\twith respect to land comprised in  the\tnotification
\nunder s. 4(1) and thereafter the notification under S.\t4(1)
\nexhausts itself and cannot support any further\tnotification
\nunder  s.  6  with respect to such  land  depends  upon\t the
\nconstruction  of  ss.  4, 5-A and 6 of the Act\tand  on\t the
\nconnection between these provisions.  Before however we deal
\nwith these provisions we may briefly refer to the scheme  of
\nthe Act and the background in which these provisions have to
\nbe interpreted.\n<\/p>\n
The  Act provides for the exercise of the power\t of  eminent
\ndomain and authorises the appropriate government to  acquire
\nlands  thereunder  for public purpose or for purposes  of  a
\ncompany.  The proceedings begin with a notification under S.
\n4 (1).\tAfter such a notification it is permissible under s.
\n4(2) for any officer of government, his servants and workmen
\nto  enter upon and survey the land in such locality, to\t dig
\nor bore into the subsoil, to do all other acts necessary  to
\nascertain  whether the land is adapted for the\tpurpose\t for
\nwhich  it was needed, to set out the boundaries of the\tland
\nproposed  to  be  taken and the intended line  of  the\twork
\nproposed  to  be made thereon, to mark\tboundaries  etc.  by
\nplacing\t marks\tand fences and where  otherwise\t the  survey
\ncannot\tbe completed to cut down and clear away any part  of
\nany  standing  crop, fence or jungle.  While the  survey  is
\nbeing  done  under  S.\t4 (2), it  is  open  to\t any  person
\ninterested  in\tthe land notified under s. 4 (1)  to  object
\nunder  s. 5-A before the Collector within thirty days  after
\nthe issue of the notification to the acquisition of the land
\nor of any land in the locality.\t The Collector is authorised
\nto  hear  the objections and is required after\thearing\t all
\nsuch objections and after making such further enquiry as  he
\nthinks necessary to submit the case for the decision of\t the
\nappropriate  government\t together  with the  record  of\t the
\nproceedings   held   him  and  a   report   containing\t his
\nrecommendations on the objections.  Thereaft the appropriate
\ngovernment  decides  the  objections and  such\tdecision  is
\nfinal.\t If  the appropriate government is  satisfied  after
\nconsidering  the report that any particular land  is  needed
\nfor  a\tpublic\tpurpose or for a company it has\t to  make  a
\ndeclaration  to that effect.  After such a  declaration\t has
\nbeen made under s, 6 the appropriate government directs\t the
\nCollector  under S. 7 to take order for the  acquisition  of
\nthe  land.   Sections 8 to 15 provide  for  the\t proceedings
\nbefore\tthe Collector.\tSection 16 authorises the  Collector
\nto  take possession after he has made the award under s.  II
\nand  thereupon the land vests absolutely in  the  government
\nfree from all encumbrances.  Section 17 provides for special
\npowers in cases of urgency.  If a
\n564<\/span>
\nperson is not satisfied with the award of the Collector, ss.
\n18  to 28 provide for proceedings on a reference  to  court.
\nSections  31  to  34 provide for  payment  of  compensation.
\nSections 38 to 44 make special provisions for acquisition of
\nland for companies.  Section 48 gives power to government to
\nwithdraw   from\t the  acquisition  of  any  land  of   which
\npossession  has\t not been taken.  Section  49  provides\t for
\nspecial\t powers\t with  respect\tto  acquisition\t of  house,’
\nbuilding or manufactory and of land severed from other land.
\nIt  will  be seen from this brief review of  the  provisions
\nwith respect to acquisition of land that ss. 4 and 6 are the
\nbasis  of all the proceedings which follow and\twithout\t the
\nnotifications required under ss. 4 and 6 no acquisition\t can
\ntake place.  The importance of a notification under s. 4  is
\nthat  on  the  issue of such notification the  land  in\t the
\nlocality  to  which the notification applies is in  a  sense
\nfreezed.  This freezing takes place intwo ways.\t Firstly the
\nmarket value of the land to be acquired has to be determined
\non  the\t date of the notification under s. 4(1)\t :  [see  s.
\n23(1) firstly].\t Secondly, any outlay or improvements on  or
\ndisposal  of the land acquired commenced, made\tor  effected
\nwithout the sanction of the Collector after the date of\t the
\npublication  of\t the notification under s.  4(1)  cannot  be
\ntaken into consideration at all in determining\tcompensation
\n: (see s. 24, seventhly).\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tin  this background that we  have  to  consider\t the
\nquestion  raised  before us.  Two things are plain  when  we
\ncome  to consider the construction of ss. 4, 5A and  6.\t The
\nfirst  is that the Act provides for acquisition of  land  of
\npersons\t without their consent, though compensation is\tpaid
\nfor such acquisition; the fact however remains that land  is
\nacquired  without the consent of the owner thereof and\tthat
\nis  a circumstance which must be borne in mind when we\tcome
\nto  consider the question raised before us.  In such a\tcase
\nthe provisions of the statute must be strictly construed  as
\nit  deprives  a\t person of his\tland  without  his  consent.
\nSecondly,  in interpreting these provisions the\t court\tmust
\nkeep  in  view\ton the one hand the  public  interest  which
\ncompels\t such acquisition and on the other the\tinterest  of
\nthe  person  who is being deprived of his land\twithout\t his
\nconsent.   It  is  not in dispute that it  is  open  to\t the
\nappropriate government to issue as many notifications as  it
\ndeems  fit  under  s. 4(1) even with  respect  to  the\tsame
\nlocality  followed  by a proper notification under s.  6  so
\nthat the power of the appropriate government to acquire land
\nin  any\t locality  is  not exhausted by\t the  issue  of\t one
\nnotification  under s. 4(1) with respect to  that  locality.
\nOn  the other hand as the compensation has to be  determined
\nwith reference to the date of the notification under S. 4(1)
\nthe person whose land is to be acquired may stand to lose if
\nthere  is  a great delay between the notification  under  s.
\n4(1)  and  the notification under s. 6 in case\tprices\thave
\nrisen  in the meantime.\t This delay is likely to be  greater
\nif successive notifications under s. 6 can be
\n\t\t\t    565<\/span>
\nissued\twith respect to land comprised in  the\tnotification
\nunder  s.  4 with greater consequential loss to\t the  person
\nwhose  land  is being acquired if prices have risen  in\t the
\nmeantime.   It is however urged that prices may fall and  in
\nthat case the person whose land is being acquired will stand
\nto gain.  But as it is open to the appropriategovernment  to
\nissue  another notification under s. 4 with respect  to\t the
\nsame  locality after one such notification is  exhausted  by
\nthe issue of a notification under S. 6, it may proceed to do
\nso  where it feels that prices have fallen and more land  in
\nthat locality is needed and thus take advantage of the\tfall
\nin prices in the matter of acquisition.\t So it is clear that
\nthere  is likely to be prejudiceto the owner of the land  if
\nthe  interpretation  urged  on behalf of  the  appellant  is
\naccepted while there will be no prejudice to the  govem-ment
\nif  it\tis  rejected  for  it  can  always  issue  a   fresh
\nnotification  under  s.\t 4(1)  after  the  previous  one  is
\nexhausted  in  case  prices  havefallen.   It  is  in\tthis
\nbackground  that  we have to consider  the  question  raised
\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n
As  we have said already, the process of acquisition  always
\nbegins.\t with a notification under s. 4(1).  That  provision
\nauthorises the appropriate government to notify that land in
\nany  locality is needed’ or is likely to be needed  for\t any
\npublic\t purpose.    It\t will  be  noticed  that   in\tthis
\nnotification the land needed is not particularised but\tonly
\nthe  locality  where the land is situate is  mentioned.\t  As
\nwas.  observed\tby this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur  v.\t The
\nState  of  Bombay,<\/a>(1) a notification under S. 4 of  the\t Act
\nenvisages  a preliminary investigation and it is only  under
\ns.  6  that the government makes a  firm  declaration.\t The
\npurpose\t of  the notification under S. 4(1)  clearly  is  to
\nenable\tthe government to take action under S. 4(2)  in\t the
\nmatter\tof survey of land to decide what particular land  in
\nthe locality specified in the notification under s. 4(1)  it
\nwill decide to acquire.\t Another purpose of the notification
\nunder s. 4(1) is to give opportunity to persons owning\tland
\nin  that  locality to make objections under s.\t5-A.   These
\nobjections  are\t considered  by\t the  Collector\t and   after
\nconsidering all objections he makes a report containing\t his
\nrecommendation\t on  the  objections  to  the\tappropriate-
\ngovernment  whose  decision  on\t the  objections  is  final.
\nSection\t 5-A  obviously contemplates  consideration  of\t all
\nobjections,  made to thenotification under s. 4(1)  and\t one
\nreport\tthereafter  by the Collectorto the  government\twith
\nrespect\t to those objections.  The government  then  finally
\ndecides\t those objections and thereafter proceeds to make  a
\ndeclaration  under  s.\t6. There is nothing  in\t s.  5-A  to
\nsuggest\t that  the Collector can make a\t number\t of  reports
\ndealing with the objections piecemeal.\tOn the other hand S.
\n5-A specifically provides that the Collector shall hear\t all
\nobjections made before him and then make a report i.e.\tonly
\na   single   report  to\t the   government   containing\t his
\nrecommendation oil the objections.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1961] 1 S.C.R. 128).\n<\/p>\n
566<\/span><\/p>\n
It  seems  to us clear that when such a report\tis  received
\nfrom the Collector by the government it must give a decision
\non  all the objections at one stage and decide once for\t all
\nwhat  particular land out of the locality notified under  S.
\n4(1) it wishes to acquire, It has to be satisfied under s. 6
\nafter  considering  the\t report made under  S.\t5-A  that  a
\nparticular  land  is needed for a public purpose  or  for  a
\ncompany and it then makes a declaration to that effect under
\ns. 6. Reading ss. 4, 5-A and 6 together it seems to us clear
\nthat  the  notification under S. 4(1) specifies\t merely\t the
\nlocality in which the land is to be acquired and then  under
\nS. 4(2) survey is made and it is considered whether the land
\nor  part  of it is adapted to the purpose for  which  it  is
\nrequired  and maps are prepared of the land proposed  to  be
\ntaken.\t Then  after  objections  under\t s.  5-A  have\tbeen
\ndisposed  of  the government has to decide  what  particular
\nland out of the locality specified in the notification under
\nS. 4(1) it will acquire.  It then makes a declaration  under
\ns. 6 specifying the particular land that is needed.
\nSections  4,  5-A  and\t6  in  our  opinion  are  integrally
\nconnected.  ‘Section 4 specifies the locality in, which\t the
\nland  is  acquired and provides for survey to  decide  what,
\nparticular land out of the locality would be needed.   Section
\n5-A provides for hearing of objections to the acquisition     and
\nafter  these  objections are decided the government  has  to
\nmake up its mind and declare what particular land out of the
\nlocality  it will acquire.  When it has so made up its\tmind
\nit makes a declaration as to the particular land out of\t the
\nlocality  notified in S. 4(1) which it will acquire.  It  is
\nclear from this intimate connection between ss. 4, 5-A and 6
\nthat  as soon as the ,government has made up its  mind\twhat
\nparticular  land out of the locality it requires, it has  to
\nissue a declaration under S. 6 to that effect.\tThe purpose
\nof the notification under S. 4(1) is at this stage over\t and
\nit may be said that it is exhausted after the  notifi-cation
\nunder  S.  6. If the government requires more land  in\tthat
\nlocality besides that notified-under S. 6, there is  nothing
\nto  prevent  it from issuing another notification  under  S.
\n4(1)   making  a  further  survey  if\tnecessary,   heating
\nobjections and then making another declaration under S.\t 6.
\nThe notification under S. 4(1) thus informs the public\tthat
\nland  is  required  Or would be\t required  in  a  particular
\nlocality  and  thereafter the Members of the  public  owning
\nland in that locality have to make objections under S.\t5-A;
\nthe government then makes up its mind as to what  particular
\nland  in that locality is required and makes  a\t declaration
\nunder  s.  6. It seems to us clear that once  a\t declaration
\nunder s. 6 is made, the notification under S. 4(1) must\t be,
\nexhausted, for it has served its purpose.  There is  nothing
\nin  ss. 4, 5-A and 6 to suggest that S. 4 ,(1) is a kind  of
\nreservoir  from which the government may from time  to\ttime
\ndraw  out  land\t and make declarations with  respect  to  it
\n:successively.\tIf that was the intention behind sections 4,
\n5-A and
\n567<\/span>
\n6 we would have found some indication of it in the  language
\nused therein.  But as we read these three sections  together
\nwe can only find that the scheme is that s. 4 specifies\t the
\nlocality,  then there may be survey and drawing of  maps  of
\nthe  land and the consideration whether the land is  adapted
\nfor the purpose for which it has to be acquired, followed by
\nobjections and making up of its mind by the government\twhat
\nparticular  land  out of that locality it  needs.   This  is
\nfollowed by a declaration ‘Under s. 6 specifying the  parti-
\ncular  land  needed and that in our  opinion  completes\t the
\nprocess and the notification under s. 4(1) cannot be further
\nused  thereafter.   At\tthe stage of s. 4 the  land  is\t not
\nparticularised\tbut only the locality is mentioned;  at\t the
\nstage of s. 6 the land in the locality is particularised and
\nthereafter  it\tseems to us that the notification  under  s.
\n4(1)  having  served  its  purpose  exhausts  itself.\t The
\nsequence  of events from a notification of the intention  to
\nacquire (s.    4(1)   to   the\tdeclaration   under   s.   6
\nunmistakably  leads  one to the reasonable  conclusion\tthat
\nwhen once a declaration under S. 6 particularising the\tarea
\nout   of  the  area  in\t the  locality\tspecified   in\t the
\nnotification  under  s. 4(1) is issued, the  remaining\tnon-
\nparticularised\tarea  stands  automatically  released.\t  In
\neffect\tthe  scheme of these three sections  is\t that  there
\nshould be first a notification under S. 4(1) followed by one
\nnotification under S. 6 after the government has made up its
\nmind which land out of the locality it requires.
\nIt  is urged however that where the land is required  for  a
\nsmall  project and the area is not large the government\t may
\nbe able to make up its mind once for all what land it needs,
\nbut  where  as in the present case land is  required  for  a
\nlarge project requiring a large area of land government\t may
\nnot be able to make up its mind all at once.  Even if it  be
\nso  there is nothing to prevent the government from  issuing
\nanother\t nonfication under s. 4 followed by  a\tnotification
\nunder  S. 6. As we have said before, the government’s  power
\nto acquire land in a particular locality is not exhausted by
\nissuing\t one  notification  under  s.  4(1)  followed  by  a
\nnotification  under  S.\t 6.  The  interpretation  which\t has
\ncommended  itself  to  us therefore  does  not\tdeprive\t the
\ngovernment  of the power to acquire more land from the\tsame
\nlocality if later on it thinks that more land than what\t has
\nbeen declared under s. 6 is needed.  It can proceed to do so
\nby   a\tfresh  notification  under  s.\t4(1)  and  a   fresh
\ndeclaration  under  s.\t6. Such a  procedure  would  in\t our
\nopinion\t be  fair  to  all concerned; it  will\tbe  fair  to
\ngovernment where the prices have fallen and it will be\tfair
\nto those whose land is being acquired where the prices\thave
\nrisen.\tTherefore as we read these three sections we are  of
\nopinion\t that they are integrally and  intimately  connected
\nand the intention of legislature was that one,\tnotification
\nunder  S. 4(1) should be followed by survey under S.  4\t (2)
\nand objections under s. 5-A and thereafter one declaration
\n568<\/span>
\nunder  S.  6.  There is nothing in ss. 4, 5-A  and  6  which
\nsupports  the construction urged on behalf of the  appellant
\nand  in any case it seems to us that the construction  which
\ncommends  itself  to us and which has been accepted  by\t the
\nHigh  Court  is\t a fair construction  keeping  in  view\t the
\nbackground   to\t which\twe  have  referred.   Even  if\t two
\nconstructions  were possible, which we think is not  so,  we
\nwould  be inclined to the construction which  has  commended
\nitself to us because that construction does not restrict the
\npower of the government to acquire land at any time it deems
\nfit to do and at the same time works fairly towards  persons
\nwhose land is to be acquired compulsorily.\n<\/p>\n
It  now remains to consider certain other provisions of\t the
\nAct  to\t which\treference has been made\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  to show that successive notifications under s.  6
\nare  contemplated  with\t respect  to  land  in\ta   locality
\nspecified  in  the notification under s.  4(1).\t  The  first
\nprovision  is  contained in s. 17(4).  Section\t17(1)  gives
\npower  to government in cases of urgency to direct that\t the
\nCollector  should  take possession of-the  land\t before\t the
\naward is made and such possession can be taken on expiration
\nof fifteen days from the publication of the notice under  s.
\n9(1).  Further such possession can only be taken of waste or
\narable\tland  and on such possession being taken  such\tland
\nvests\tabsolutely   in\t the  government   free\t  from\t all
\nencumbrances.\tTo  carry out the purposes of S.  17(1),  S.
\n17(4)  provides that the appropriate government\t may  direct
\nthat  the provisions of S. 5-A shall not apply in  cases  of
\nurgency\t and if it so directs, a declaration under S. 6\t may
\nbe  made  in  respect  of the land at  any  time  after\t the
\npublication of the notification under s. 4(1).\tIt is  urged
\nthat  this shows that where the land notified under S.\t4(1)
\nincludes  land of the kind mentioned in S. 17 (1)  and\talso
\nland  which is not of that kind it would be open to  govern-
\nment  to make a declaration under S. 6 with respect  to\t the
\nland   mentioned   in  S.  17(1)   immediately\t after\t the
\nnotification under s. 4(1) while notification with  respect
\nto  the land which is not of the kind mentioned in s.  17(1)
\ncan follow later after the enquiry under s. 5-A is over\t and
\nobjections have been disposed of.  So it is urged that\tmore
\nthan  one declaration is contemplated under s. 6  after\t one
\nnotification  under s. 4(1).  There are two answers to\tthis
\nargument.  In the first place where the land to be  acquired
\nis  of the kind mentioned in s. 17(1) and also of  the\tkind
\nnot  included  in S. 17(1) there is nothing to\tprevent\t the
\ngovernment from issuing two notifications under s. 4(1)\t one
\nrelating  to land which comes within s. 17(1) and the  other
\nrelating to land which cannot come within S. 17(1).   There-
\nafter  the  government may issue a notification under  s.  6
\nfollowing  the. notification under s. 4(1) with\t respect  to
\nthe   land   to\t which\ts.  17(1)  applies   while   another
\nnotification  under  S. 6 with respect to land to  which  s.
\n17(1)  does not apply can follow after the enquiry under  S.
\n5-A.  So section 17(4) does not necessarily mean that
\n\t\t\t    569<\/span>
\n there\tcan  be\t two  notifications under  s.  6  where\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthat section are to be\tutilised,  for,\t the
\ngovernment  can from the beginning issue  two  notifications
\nunder  s. 4 and follow them up by two declarations under  s.\n<\/p>\n
6.  But\t even  assuming\t that it is  possible  to  make\t two
\ndeclarations under s. 6 (though in view of what we have said
\nabove this is not necessary and we express no final  opinion
\nabout it) where the land to be acquired is both of the\tkind
\nmentioned  in  s. 17(1) and also of the kind  not  comprised
\ntherein,   all\t that  the  government\tcan  do\t  in   those
\ncircumstances\tafter  one  notification  under\t s.  4\t (1)
\ncomprising both lands is to issue one notification under  s.
\n6  comprising  lands  coming within  s.\t 17(1)\tand  another
\nnotification  under  s. 6 with respect to  land\t not  coming
\nwithin s. 17(1) sometime later after the enquiry under s. 5-
\nA  is  finished.   This however\t follows  from\tthe  special
\nprovisions  contained  in s. 17(1) and (4) and\tin  a  sense
\nnegatives the contention of the appellant based only, on ss.
\n4, 5-A and 6. It may be added that that is not the  position
\nin the present case.  Therefore even if it were possible  to
\nissue\ttwo  notifications  under  s.  6  in   the   special
\ncircumstances  arising out of the application of  s.  17(4),
\nall  that is possible is to issue one notification  relating
\nto land to which S. 17(1) applies and another.\tnotification
\nrelating to land to which s.  17(1)  cannot apply.   Further
\nif both these kinds of land are included in the notification
\nunder  S.  4(1), the issue of two notifications under  s.  6
\nfollows\t from the special provisions contained in  s.  17(1)
\nand  S. 17(4) and not from the provisions of ss. 4, 5-A\t and\n<\/p>\n
6.  The\t present  is  not  a case  of  this  kind,  for\t the
\nnotification  under S. 4(1) in this case issued in May\t1949
\ndid  not contain any direction relevant to S. 17(4).  It  is
\ntrue  that the declaration under S. 6 dated August 12,\t1960
\ncontains a direction under s. 17(4), but the effect of\tthat
\nmerely is to allow the government to take possession of\t the
\nland within 15 days after the issue of notice under S. 9(1).
\nThis  is on the assumption that a direction under  s.  17(4)
\ncan  be issued along with the notification under S. 6 as  to
\nwhich  we express no opinion.  We are therefore\t of  opinion
\nthat  the  provisions  in  S.  17(4)  do  not  lead  to\t the
\nconclusion   that   section   6\t  contemplates\t  successive
\nnotifications following one notification under s. 4(1).\t  As
\nwe interpret ss. 4, 5-A and 6 that is not the intention in a
\nnormal\tcase.\tEven in a case of urgency there can  at\t the
\nmost  be  only two notifications under s.  6  following\t one
\nnotification  under s. 4(1), one relating to land  which  is
\ncovered by s. 17(1) and the other relating to land which  is
\nnot  covered  by S. 17(1), provided both kinds of  land\t are
\nnotified by one notification under s. 4(1).  As we have said
\neven  that  is not necessary for we are of opinion  that  in
\nsuch a case the government can issue two notifications under
\ns. 4(1), one relating to land to which S. 17(1) applies\t and
\nthe other relating to land to which s. 17(1) does not  apply
\nand  thereafter there will be two notifications under  s.  6
\neach following its own predecessor under s. 4(1).\n<\/p>\n
570<\/span><\/p>\n
Then  reliance\tis  placed  on\tS.  48\twhich  provides\t for
\nwithdrawal from acquisition.  The argument is that S. 48  is
\nthe  only provision in the Act which deals  with  withdrawal
\nfrom  acquisition  and\tthat  is  the  only  way  in   which
\ngovernment  can\t withdraw from the  acquisition\t and  unless
\naction\tis  taken under S. 48(1) the notification  under  S.
\n4(1)  would remain (presumably for ever).  It is urged\tthat
\nthe  only  way in which the notification under S.  4(1)\t can
\ncome to an end is by withdrawal under S. 48(1).\t We are\t not
\nimpressed by this argument.  In the first place, under S. 21
\nof  the General Clauses Act, (No. 10 of 1897), the power  to
\nissue  a  notification\tincludes the power  to\trescind\t it.
\nTherefore  it  is  always open to government  to  rescind  a
\nnotification under s. 4 or under s. 6, and withdrawal  under
\nS.  48(1) is not the only way in which a notification  under
\ns.  4  or  S. 6 can be brought to  an  end.   Section  48(1)
\nconfers\t a  special power on government of  withdrawal\tfrom
\nacquisition without canceling the notifications under ss.  4
\nand  6,\t provided it has not taken possession  of  the\tland
\ncovered\t  by   the  notification  under\t S.   6.   In\tsuch
\ncircumstances the government has to give compensation  under
\nS.  48(2).  This compensation is for the damage suffered  by
\nthe owner in consequence of the notice under S. 9 or of\t any
\nproceedings  thereafter\t and includes costs  reasonably\t in-
\ncurred\tby him in the prosecution of the  proceedings  under
\nthe Act relating to the said land.  The notice mentioned  in
\nsub-s.\t(2) obviously refers to the notice under S. 9(1)  to
\npersons interested.  It seems that S. 48 refers to the stage
\nafter  the  Collector  has  been asked\tto  take  order\t for
\nacquisition under S. 7 and has issued notice under S.  9(1).
\nIt  does  not refer to the stage prior to the issue  of\t the
\ndeclaration  under  s. 6. Section 5 says  that\tthe  officer
\ntaking action under s. 4(2) shall pay or tender payment\t for
\nall  necessary\tdamage\tdone by his acting  under  s.  4(2).
\nTherefore  the damage if any, caused after the\tnotification
\nunder  S.  4(1)\t is provided in\t section  5.  Section  48(2)
\nprovides for compensation after notice has been issued under
\nS.  9(1)  and  the  Collector  has  taken  proceedings\t for
\nacquisition of the land by virtue of the direction under  s.\n<\/p>\n
7. Section 48(1) thus gives power to government to  withdraw
\nfrom  the  acquisition without canceling  the  notifications
\nunder ss. 4 and 6 after notice under s. 9(1) has been issued
\nand before possession is taken.\t This power can be exercised
\neven after the Collector has made the award under S. 11\t but
\nbefore\the  takes  possession  under  s.  15  Section  48(2)
\nprovides for compensation in such a case.  The argument that
\nS.  48(1)  is the only method in which\tthe  government\t can
\nwithdraw from the acquisition has therefore no force because
\nthe government can always cancel the notifications under ss.
\n4  and 6 by virtue of its power under S. 21 of\tthe  General
\nClauses\t Act  and  this power can be  exercised\t before\t the
\ngovernment directs the Collector to take action under S.  7.
\nSection\t 48(1) is a special provision for those cases  where
\nproceedings  for acquisition have’ gone beyond the stage  of
\nthe issue of notice under S. 9(1) and
\n571<\/span>
\nit   provides  for payment of compensation under.  s.  48(2)
\nread with S.   48(3).\t We  cannot  therefore\taccept\t the
\nargument that without an order\t   under     S.48(1)\t the
\nnotification under S. 4 must remain outstanding.  It can  be
\ncancelled  at  any  time by government under s.\t 21  of\t the
\nGeneral\t Clauses  Act and what s. 48(1) shows is  that\tonce
\ngovernment has taken possession it cannot withdraw from\t the
\nacquisition.   Before that it may cancel  the  notifications
\nunder  ss. 4 and 6 or it may withdraw from  the\t acquisition
\nunder s. 48(1).\t If no notice has been issued under s.\t9(1)
\nall  that the government has to do is to pay for the  damage
\ncaused\tas provided in s. 5; if on the other hand  a  notice
\nhas been issued under s. 9(1), damage has also to be paid in
\naccordance with the provisions of s. 48(2) and (3).  Section
\n48(1)  therefore  is of no assistance to the  appellant\t for
\nshowing that successive declarations under S. 6 can be\tmade
\nwith  respect  to  land in the\tlocality  specified  in\t the
\nnotification under s. 4(1).\n<\/p>\n
Then  reference\t is made to s. 49(2) and  (3).\t These\tsub-
\nsections. lay down a special provision applicable in certain
\ncircumstances.\t  Among\t the  factors  to  be\ttaken\tinto
\nconsideration  in fixing the compensation is the  damage  if
\nany  sustained by the person interested at the time  of\t the
\nCollector’s  taking  possession\t of the land  by  reason  of
\nsevering  such\tland  from his other  land.   Section  49(2)
\nprovides.  that if a person is claiming an unreasonable\t and
\nexcessive   compensation  for  this  kind  of  damage,\t the
\ngovernment  can order the acqui-sition of the whole  of\t the
\nland  even though under s. 6 only part of the land may\thave
\nbeen declared.\tSub-section (3) provides that in such a case
\nno  action under S. 6 to S. 10 would be necessary  and\tthat
\nall that the Collector is to do is to give an award under s.\n<\/p>\n
11. The argument is that S. 49(3) does not mention S. 4\t and
\ntherefore it follows that successive notifications under  S.
\n6  can\tbe  issued  with respect to  land  in  the  locality
\nspecified  in the notification under s. 4(1).  We  have\t not
\nbeen able to understand how this follows from the fact\tthat
\nS.  4(1)  is  not mentioned in S. 49(3).. As  we  have\tsaid
\nalready s. 49(2) and (3) provide for a very special case and
\nthe  order  of government under s. 49(2) may in a  sense  be
\ntaken  to  serve the purpose of S. 4(1) in  such  a  special
\ncase.\tThereafter  all that s. 49(3) provides is  that\t the
\nCollector may proceed straight off to determine compensation
\nunder  s. 11, the reason for this being that all  the  other
\nsteps  necessary  for determining compensation under  s.  11
\nhave already been taken in the presence of the parties.
\nLastly it is urged that vesting is also contemplated in two,
\nstages\tand that shows that successive notifications can  be
\nissued under s. 6 following one notification under s.  4(1).
\nSection 16 provides for taking possession and vesting  after
\nthe  award hap, been made.  Section 17 provides\t for  taking
\npossession  and consequent vesting before the award is\tmade
\nin case of urgency.  We
\n572<\/span>
\nfail to see how these provisions as to vesting can make\t any
\ndifference  to\tthe  interpretation of ss.  4,\t5-A  and  6.
\nSection\t 16  deals with a normal case  where  possession  is
\ntaken  after the award is made while s. 17(1) deals with  a
\nspecial\t case where possession is taken fifteen\t days  after
\nthe notice tinder s. 9(1).  Vesting always follows taking of
\npossession  and\t there can be vestin either under s.  16  or
\nunder  s. 17(1) depending upon whether the case is a  normal
\none or an urgent one.  What we have said with respect to  s.
\n17(1)  .and S. 17(4) would apply in this matter\t of  vesting
\nalso  and  if the matter is of urgency\tthe  government\t can
\nalways issue two notifi-cations under s. 4, one relating  to
\nland urgently required and covered by S. 17(1) and the other
\nrelating  to  land not covered by S.  17(1).   The  argument
\nbased  on  these provisions in s. 16 and s. 17 can  have  no
\neffect on the interpretation of ss. 4, 5-A and 6 for reasons
\nwhich  we have given when dealing with ss. 17(1) and  17(4).
\nWe are therefore of opinion that the High Court was right in
\nholding :that there can be no successive notifications under
\nS.  6  with respect to land in a locality specified  in\t one
\nnotification under S. 4(1).  As it is not in dispute in this
\ncase that there have been a number of notifications under s.
\n6  with\t respect to this village based on  the\tnotification
\nunder  S. 4(1) dated May 16, 1949, the High Court was  right
\nin quashing the notification under s. 6 issued on August 12,
\n1960 based on the same notification under S. 4(1).
\nThe   petition\t had   also  raised  a\t ground\t  that\t the
\nnotification .under S. 6 was vague.  However, in view of our
\ndecision on the main point raised in the case we express  no
\nopinion on this aspect .of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  therefore fails and is  hereby  dismissed\twith
\ncosts
\n\t\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
573<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1593, 1966 SCR (3) 557 Author: A Sarkar Bench: Sarkar, A.K. PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: VISHNU PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/02\/1966 BENCH: SARKAR, […]<\/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-243175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-27T06:20:30+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=\"41 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-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-27T06:20:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966\"},\"wordCount\":7306,\"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-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-27T06:20:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966\"}]},{\"@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 Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-27T06:20:30+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":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966","datePublished":"1966-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-27T06:20:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966"},"wordCount":7306,"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-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-27T06:20:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-vishnu-prasad-sharma-and-ors-on-9-february-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors on 9 February, 1966"}]},{"@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\/243175","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=243175"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243175\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}