{"id":245076,"date":"1991-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991"},"modified":"2015-09-17T04:35:32","modified_gmt":"2015-09-16T23:05:32","slug":"kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991","title":{"rendered":"Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 477, \t\t 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 257<\/div>\n
Author: N Kasliwal<\/div>\n
Bench: Kasliwal, N.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKANTILAL AND ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHANTILAL AND ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/11\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nKANIA, M.H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR  477\t\t  1991 SCR  Supl. (2) 257\n 1992 SCC  (1) 481\t  JT 1991 (4)\t337\n 1991 SCALE  (2)1037\n\n\nACT:\nMadhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. 1959.'\n    Section  50--Court\tsale  of  property--Mutation   order\npassed\tby  Tehsildar on the basis of sale  certificate\t and\ncompromise application-Collector issuing notice in suo\tmotu\nproceedings initiated after 17 years on the legality of\t the\nmutation----Subsequently   setting   aside   the    mutation\norder--Whether justified.\nTown Improvement Trust Act. 1960.\n    Sections 68, 73--Acquisition proceedings and  determina-\ntion of compensation  Party entitled to compensation on\t the\nbasis  of mutation order passed by Tehsildar--Collector\t suo\nmotu interfering after 17years--Validity of--Enhancement  of\ncompensation--Whether justified.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t land in question was granted by the Ruler of  erst-\nwhile State of Ratlam in favour of ancestors of\t respondents\n(Pitaliyas) for installation of a ginning factory. Ancestors\nof  appellants\t(Jhalanis) entered into a  partnership\twith\nPitaliyas and started a ginning factory on a portion of\t the\nsaid land. In the revenue records, in respect of the  entire\nland the names of Jhalanis and Pitaliyas were entered.\n    According  to  the\tJhalanis in execution  of  a  decree\nagainst\t Pitaliyas  the\t above land was\t sold  and  Jhalanis\npurchased  the said land in an auction.\t On  an\t application\nmoved by the Jhalanis, the Tehsildar passed an order  mutat-\ning the names of Jhalanis in respect of the entire land. The\nsaid mutation was allowed on the basis of compromise between\nthe parties and on the basis of a sale certificate issued by\nthe Civil Court.\n    The Town Improvement Trust started acquisition  proceed-\nings for a housing scheme and acquired certain lands includ-\ning  the  land in question. The Collector started  suo\tmotu\nproceedings, issued notice to the Jhalanis and set aside the\norder  of mutation passed by the Tehsildar. An\tappeal\tpre-\nferred by the Jhalanis before the Addi-\n258\ntional\tCommissioner  was dismissed. The  Board\t of  Revenue\nallowed\t the further appeal and held that  pending  mutation\nproceedings,  there  was  compromise  between  the  parties,\nobjections were withdrawn by the Pitaliyas and no appeal  or\nrevision  was filed against the mutation order nor any\tsuit\nwas filed challenging the order of the Tehsildar. The  Pita-\nliyas  then  filed a writ petition before  the\tHigh  Court,\nwhich was allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue\t was\nset aside. Against the said judgment of the High Court,\t the\nJhalanis have preferred an appeal before this Court.\n    In\tthe  acquisition  proceedings the  Tribunal  gave  a\nfinding\t that Pitaliyas had no right to\t claim\tcompensation\nand  Jhalanis  alone were entitled to the entire  amount  of\ncompensation.  The order of the Tribunal was  challenged  by\nthe  parties  by  filing separate appeals  before  the\tHigh\nCourt. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by  Pitaliyas\nand  held that they were entitled to claim  compensation  in\nequal  proportion  with Jhalanis; it  dismissed\t the  appeal\nfiled  on behalf of the Trust for reducing compensation\t and\nallowed\t the appeal filed by Jhalanis in part and  increased\nthe rate of compensation from 65 paise per sq.ft to 75 paise\nper  sq.ft. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of\t the\nHigh Court in acquisition proceedings, the Jhalanis and\t the\nTrust have filed the other two appeals before this Court.\n    Allowing the appeals on the questions of validity of the\nmutation  made and entitlement to receive compensation,\t and\npartly allowing the appeal on the question whether  enhance-\nment of compensation was justified, this Court,\n    HELD:  1.1. There was a decree of a Civil Court  and  in\nexecution of the same the properties were auctioned. Even if\nthere  was any dispute as to whether any share of  Pitaliyas\nin  the land was sold or not in the auction proceedings\t the\nsame  does  not\t survive after the  compromise\tbetween\t the\nparties.  In  the order of the Tehsildar passed as  back  as\n20th February, 1953 the Jhalanis alone were recorded as full\nowners\tof  the properties and they continued to  remain  in\npossession. The Trust took possession from Jhalanis on\t21st\nMarch,\t1968 in the land acquisition proceedings.  There  is\nnothing\t on record to show that Pitaliyas ever\tremained  in\npossession of the land in question after 20th February, 1953\ntill the time they made a claim of half share in the compen-\nsation before the Tribunal. [264 D, E]\n    1.2.  The Collector had no justification at all to\thave\ninitiated the proceedings suo motu in 1970 after 17 years of\nthe order passed\n259\nby  the Tehsildar. Even under the law of limitation no\tsuit\nfor possession could have been maintained after 12 years  by\nPitaliyas  and\tthey were not entitled to any share  in\t the\namount of compensation. There was also no justification\t for\nentering  the names of Pitaliyas in the revenue records\t and\nto set aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 20th February,\n1953, after 17 years. The Tehsildar was perfectly  justified\nin  passing  the order dated 20.2.1953 on the basis  of\t the\nsale certificate, as well as compromise application and\t the\nstatement made before him on 16.10.1952. [264 F, G]\n    2.\t One  bigha is equivalent to 22500 sq.\tft.  and  no\ncontention was raised before the Tribunal that one bigha was\nequivalent to 21511 sq. ft. prevalent in the erstwhile State\nof Ratlam. For the first time, this point was raised  before\nthe High Court. This being a controversial question of\tfact\nand  the  other\t side did not have the chance  to  lead\t any\nevidence on this point, the High Court rightly negatived  it\nand  held that the compensation for one bigha of land  would\nbe calculated as equivalent to 22500 sq. ft. [265 A-C]\n    3.\tThe District Judge after consideriug large number of\ndocumentary  evidence placed on record by both\tthe  parties\narrived\t at the conclusion based on good and  valid  reasons\nthat  the  fair market price of the acquired  land  on\t22nd\nAugust,\t 1964 was 65 paise per sq. ft. The High\t Court\twent\nwrong  in  increasing  the rate from 65 paise  to  75  paise\nwithout any valid reasons whatsoever. In the  circumstances,\nenhancement  ordered by the High Court is set aside and\t the\ncompensation determined by the District Judge at the rate of\n65 paise per sq. ft. is maintained. [266 C-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1345 of 1986.
\n    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  29.8.1984  of\t the
\nMadhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No.613 of 1983.
\n    Avadh  Behari Rohtagi. S.K. Gambhir, Vivek\tGambhir\t and
\nK.K. Mohan for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    U.R. Lalit, S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra, B.K Satija\t and
\nSurinder Karnai for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n260<\/span>
\n    KASLIWAL,  J. In all the above appeals the\tparties\t are
\nthe  same and the controversies raised are  intimately\tcon-
\nnected and dependent on each other, hence all the cases\t are
\ndisposed of by one single order.\n<\/p>\n
    Land measuring 19 bighas was granted by the ruler of the
\nerstwhile State of Ratlam in favour of ancestors of respond-
\nents  Shantilal\t and  Poonam  Chand  Pitaliyas\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to as ‘Pitaliyas’) for installation of  a  Ginning
\nfactory. Ancestors of Kantilal Jhalani and other  appellants
\n(hereinafter  referred to as ‘Jhalanis’) entered into  part-
\nnership with Pitaliyas and the partnership started a Ginning
\nfactory\t on  a portion of the above 19 bighas of  land.\t The
\nnames of Jhalanis and Pitaliyas were recorded in the revenue
\nrecords\t in respect of the entire land. The above 19  bighas
\nof  land had some different survey numbers but\tsubsequently
\nat the time of settlement in Ratlam in the year 1956-57, the
\nnumbers\t were changed to survey numbers 120 and 121.  Survey
\nNo. 120 comprised of 2 biswas and survey No.121 of 18 bighas
\nand  18 biswas. According to the Jhalanis in execution of  a
\ndecree against Pitaliyas the above land was sold and  Jhala-
\nnis  purchased the said land in an auction.  Thereafter,  an
\napplication  was moved by the Jhalanis on 13th\tApril,\t1951
\nfor mutation of their names before the Tehsildar in  respect
\nof the entire lands bearing survey Nos. 120 and 121  leaving
\nsuch  portion of the land on which the Ginniing factory\t was
\nstanding. The Tehsildar vide his order dated 20th  February,
\n1953  allowed the application and passed an  order  mutating
\nthe  names of Jhalanis on the entire 19 bighas of land.\t The
\nsaid mutation was allowed on the basis of compromise between
\nPitaliyas  and\tJhalanis  and also on the basis\t of  a\tsale
\ncertificate issued by the Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam (hereinafter referred
\nto  as\t‘the Trust’) started acquisition proceedings  for  a
\nhousing scheme under the provisions of the Town\t Improvement
\nTrust  Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)\t and
\nissued\ta notification on 28th August, 1964 under Sec.68  of
\nthe Act. Survey Nos. 120 and 121 were shown in the notifica-
\ntion leaving out some area of survey No.121. In the acquisi-
\ntion  proceedings,  the\t Trust obtained\t possession  of\t the
\nacquired land on 21st March, 1968.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Collector started svomotu proceedings under  Sec.50
\nof  the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and issued  a
\nnotice\ton 17th December, 1970 to the Jhalanis stating\tthat
\nthe  mutation proceedings did not appear to be legal. It  is
\nnot  necessary to state the details of other proceedings  by
\nwhich  the Jhalanis went to the higher authorities as  ulti-
\nmately the matter came back to the Collector by remand.\t The
\nJhalanis contested the proceedings before the Collector\t and
\nprayed for the cancellation of the
\n     261<\/span>
\nnotice dated 15th February, 1972 which was issued afresh  by
\nthe  Collector\tafter  the remand of the case  to  him.\t The
\nCollector ultimately by an order dated 31st March, 1977\t set
\naside the order of mutation passed by the Tehsildar and gave
\na  direction that the Tehsildar, Ratlam will again make\t the
\nsame entry in the revenue records which was done  previously
\nin  respect of disputed land. It was further  directed\tthat
\nthereafter  the Tehsildar will do proper  investigation\t and
\nanalyse\t all the concerned facts and events which  had\thap-
\npened in the case and take steps for making the record\tupto
\ndate.  Particularly he will see by which lease and  on\twhat
\nconditions  originally how much land was given\tfor  factory
\npurpose by the State and whether that lease is effective  or
\nlapsed.\t An appeal filed by the Jhalanis to  the  Additional
\nCommissioner  was  dismissed by order dated  11th  December,
\n1981. The Jhalanis then filed an appeal before the Board  of
\nRevenue.  This appeal filed by the Jhalanis was\t allowed  in
\ntheir  favour  by the Board of Revenue by order\t dated\t26th
\nMarch, 1983. The Board inter alia held that pending mutation
\nproceedings,  there  was  compromise  between  the  parties,
\nobjections were withdrawn by the Pitaliyas and no appeal  or
\nrevision  was filed against the mutation order nor any\tsuit
\nwas  filed  challenging\t the order of  the  Tehsildar.\t The
\nPitaliyas  then filed a writ petition before the High  Court
\nfor  setting  aside the order of the Board of  Revenue.\t The
\nHigh Court by order dated 29th August, 1984 allowed the Writ
\nPetition and set aside the order of the Board of Revenue and
\nrestored  the orders of the Additional Commissioner and\t the
\nCollector.  Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of\t the
\nHigh Court, the Jhalanis have filed Civil Appeal No. 1345 of
\n1986 by grant of Special leave.\n<\/p>\n
    In the acquisition proceedings the question of compensa-
\ntion was decided by the Tribunal constituted under Sec.73 of
\nthe Act. The Tribunal by its order dated 30th November, 1973
\nheld  that Pitaliyas had no right to claim compensation\t and
\nthe  Jhalanis  alone were entitled to the entire  amount  of
\ncompensation.  The Order of the Tribunal was  challenged  by
\nPitaliyas, for apportionment of the amount of  compensation,
\nalso  by Jhalanis for increasing the amount of\tcompensation
\nand by the trust for reducing the amount of compensation  by
\nfiling separate appeals in the High Court. The High Court by
\nits order dated 29th July, 1984 allowed the appeal filed  by
\nthe  Pitaliyas\tand held that they were\t entitled  to  claim
\ncompensation  in  equal proportion with Jhalanis.  The\tHigh
\nCourt dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the Trust. The
\nHigh Court allowed the appeal filed by Jhalanis in part\t and
\nincreased  the rate of compensation from 0.65 paisa per\t Sq.
\nFt.  10 0.75 paisa per Sq. Ft. Aggrieved against the  afore-
\nsaid judgment of the High Court in acquisition\tproceedings,
\nthe  Jhalanis have filed Civil Appeal No. 1346 of  1986\t and
\nthe  Trust  has\t flied appeal No.3426 of 1987  by  grant  of
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
262<\/span><\/p>\n
    We\thave heard learned counsel for the parties and\thave
\nthoroughly perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
    The land in question was given by the Ruler of erstwhile
\nState of Ratlam for establishing a Cotton Ginning factory at
\nRatlam.\t The deed of partnership between the  Pitaliyas\t and
\nJhalanis  has not been produced on the record of  this\tcase
\nbut the admitted position is that the Janlabandi entries  in
\nthe  revenue records of the year 1921-22 show  tllat  survey
\nNos.  1326  to 1336, 1337\/2 and 1340 to\t 1342  (subsequently
\nchanged\t to Survey Nos. 120 and 121), stood in the  name  of
\nKeshrimal Vardhman Pitaliya and Keshrimalji Dhanrajji Jhala-
\nni  in equal shares. Keshrimal Vardhman Pitaliya  proprietor
\nof  firm Vardhman Keshrimal died sometime prior to 1932\t and
\nhe left behind two sons Sagarmal and Vinayakrao Pitaliya who
\nbecame the proprietors of Hindu Undivided Family firm  Vard-
\nhuman  Keshrimal. Sagarmal and Vinayakrao Pitaliyas did\t not
\napply  for  the mutation of their names in the\trevenue\t re-
\ncords,\tafter the death of their father Keshrimal  Pitaliya.
\nKeshrimal  Dhanraj Jhalani had to recover some\tamount\tfrom
\nthe  firm Vardhman Keshrimal and he filed a civil  suit\t for
\nthe  recovery of the money against Sagarmal  and  Vinayakrao
\nPitaliyas. A degree was passed in favour of Keshrimal  Dhan-
\nraj  Jhalani and they filed an application for execution  of
\nthe  decree.  In the execution case No.\t 161\/42\t the  right,
\ntitle and interest of Pitaliyas in the Ginning Factory\twere
\nsold  in  auction  for Rs.6541 and which  was  purchased  by
\nKeshrimal  Dhanraj  Jhalani on 2nd November,  1946.  A\tsale
\ncertificate  was also issued in favour of Keshrimal  Dhanraj
\nJhalani\t by the Civil Court Ratlam on 3rd October, 1950.  On
\nthe basis of this sale certificate Keshrimal Dhanraj Jhalani
\napplied\t for mutation in the revenue records on\t 3rd  April,
\n1951 before the Tehsildar, Ratlam. Alongwith the application
\nKeshrimal Jhalani filed a copy of the sale certificate and a
\ncertified  copy of the Jamabandi of the land of Samwar\tyear
\n20,35  (1948-49 A.D). During the pendency of  this  mutation
\napplication  Vinayakrao\t Pitaliya  died\t leaving  no  heirs.
\nSagarmal  who  was  Karta of the Joint\tHindu  Family  filed
\nobjections to the mutation application on 17th March.  1952.
\nIt  is important to note that in these\tobjections  Sagannal
\nclearly\t raised the ground that in the\tauction\t proceedings
\nonly  movable property of the factory was sold and  as\tsuch
\nKeshrimal  Dhanraj Jhalani had no right to clam mutation  of
\nthe  entire agricultural land in his favour.  Thereafter  an
\nagreement took place between Sagarmal Pitaliya and Keshrimal
\nDhanraj\t Jhalani on 16th October. 1952. This agreement\tmade
\nin writing was filed before the Tehsildar in which  Sagarmal
\nPitaliya agreed to with draw his objections for the mutation
\nof his share in 19 bighas of land. in favour of Shri Keshri-
\nmal Dhanraj Jhalani in lieu of Shri Keshrimal Dhanraj JhaIa-
\nni  having agreed not to recover Rs.4941. being the  balance
\namount\tof decree passed in suit No.2 of 1932 against  Pita-
\nliyas. Apart from the
\n263<\/span>
\naforesaid  compromise application the statement of  Sagarmal
\nPitaliya was also recorded on 16th October, 1952 itself\t and
\nSagarmal  clearly made a statement that he  was\t withdrawing
\nhis  objections as regards mutation in respect of his  share
\nin the land of 19 bighas and that he had no objection to the
\nmutation  of Shri Keshrimal Dhanraj Jahalani’s name  in\t re-
\nspect  of  the land in dispute. Thereafter,  the  Teshsildar
\nrejected  the  objections filed by Sagarmal  and  passed  an
\norder on 20th February, 1953 granting mutations in the\tname
\nof  Shri  Keshrimal  Dhanraj Jhalani. After  this  order  of
\nmutation  passed  by the Tehsildar on  20th  February,\t1953
\nSagaramal or any other member of the family of Pitaliyas did
\nnot  take any steps for challenging the aforesaid  order  of
\nthe Tehsildar. It is further proved on record that  thereaf-
\nter  names  of Jhalanis alone was continued in\tthe  revenue
\nrecords in respect of the entire 19 bighas of land. The land
\nacquisition proceedings then commenced in the year 1964\t and
\npossession  over  the land was taken by the  Trust  on\t21st
\nMarch,\t1968  from  Jhalanis. The Collector  took  suo\tmotu
\nproceedings in 1970 and passed an order on 31st March,\t1977
\nsetting\t aside the order of the Tehsildar. In the above\t set
\nof  circumstances  Pitaliyas came forward and  claimed\thalf
\nshare  in the compensation amount in land  acquicition\tpro-
\nceedings  before  the Tribunal. The  Tribunal  rejected\t the
\nclaim  of the Pitaliyas but High Court by order\t dated\t29th
\nAugust,1984 granted half share in favour of Pitaliyas taking
\nthe  view that they were persons interested under  the\tTown
\nImprovement  Trust Act. On the same day by a separate  judg-
\nment the High Court set aside the order of Board of  Revenue
\nand maintained the order of the Additional Commissioner\t and
\nthe Collector passed in mutation proceedings.
\n    After going through the entire record ,’red hearing\t the
\narguments  at  length, we are clearly of the view  that\t the
\nHigh  Court  went wrong in passing the impugned\t orders.  As
\nalready\t mentioned  above  from the year  1922\tonwards\t the
\nentries\t in the Revenue records in respect of 19  bighas  of
\nland  was made in favour of Jhalanis and Pitaliyas  both  in
\nequal share. Jhalanis had a decree against Pitaliyas and  in
\nexecution  of said decree share of Pitaliyas  was  auctioned
\nand  was purchased by Jhalanis for a sum of Rs.\t 6541.\tSale
\ncertificate was also issued in favour of Jhalanis. According
\nto Jhalanis the half share of Pitaliyas in the land was also
\nsold  and on that basis an application was filed before\t the
\nTehsildar for ranration of the entire land in their  favour.
\nAccording  to Sagarmal Pitaliya who was also Karta of  Joint
\nHindu  Family, no such land was sold in auction. 11  may  be
\nnoted  that the bid in auction was for an amount of  Rs.6541
\nbut  it did not satisfy the entire decretal amount  and\t the
\nbalance\t  of   Rs.4941\tstill  remained\t due   against\t the
\nPitaliyas–Judgment debtors. In view of these  circumstances
\na  compromise  took place between the parties  according  to
\nwhich Sagarmal agreed to withdraw his objections in  consid-
\neration of
\n264<\/span>
\nsatisfaction of the aforesaid amount of Rs.4941\t outstanding
\nagainst\t him. On 16th October, 1952 the compromise  applica-
\ntion  was  filed in writing and statement of  Sagarmal.\t was
\nalso  recorded in which he clearly agreed that he  will\t not
\nclaim any right in the land and withdraw his objections\t and
\nthe  amount of Rs.4941 was taken as satisfied  and  Jhalanis
\nagreed not to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.4941. It is
\nan admitted position that the order passed by the  Tehsildar
\non 20th February, 1953 rejecting the objections of  Sagarmal
\nPitaliya  and mutating the name of Jhalanis for\t the  entire
\nland, was not challenged and the same became final.
\n    Mr.U.R.Lalit,  learned Sr. Advocate appearing on  behalf
\nof Pitaliyas did not argue, that the compromise\t application
\nfiled  on 16th October, 1952 and the statement\trecorded  on
\nthe same day were forged or not genuine. The only submission
\nmade  by  Mr. Lalit was that any order\tpassed\tin  mutation
\nproceedings  cannot  confer  any legal title  in  favour  of
\nJhalanis  nor such order can divest the ownership rights  of
\nPitaliyas in the agricultural land. We do not find any force
\nin  this  submission. Admittedly, there was a  decree  of  a
\nCivil Court and in execution of the same the properties were
\nauctioned.  Even if there was any dispute as to whether\t any
\nshare  of Pitaliyas in the land was sold or not in the\tauc-
\ntion  proceedings, the same was settled at rest by making  a
\ncompromise  between  the parties. Not only  that  after\t the
\norder of the Tehsildar passed as back as 20th February, 1953
\nthe  Jhalanis  alone  were recorded as full  owners  of\t the
\nproperties and also continued to remain in possession. It is
\nalso proved that the Trust took possession from Jhalanis  on
\n21st March, 1968 in the land acquisition proceedings. It  is
\nno  where proved on record that the Pitaliyas ever  remained
\nin  possession of the land in question after 20th  February,
\n1953  till the time they made a claim of half share  in\t the
\ncompensation before the Tribunal. The Collector in our\tview
\nhad no justification at all to have initiated such  proceed-
\nings suo motu in 1970 after 17 years of the order passed  by
\nthe Tehsildar. Even under the law of limitation no suit\t for
\npossession  could  have been maintained after  12  years  by
\nPitaliyas  and\tthey were not entitled to any share  in\t the
\namount of compensation. There was also no Justification\t for
\nentering  the names of pitaliyas in the revenue records\t and
\nto  set aside the order of the Tehsildar dated\t20th  Febru-
\nary,1953 after 17 years, As already mentioned above, Tehsil-
\ndar  was  perfectly  justified in passing  the\torder  dated
\n20.2.1953  on the basis of the sale certificate, as well  as
\ncompromise  application and the statement of Sagarmal  marie
\nbefore him on 16.10.52.\n<\/p>\n
    Now,  we  shall deal with Civil Appeal No.3426  of\t1987
\nfiled  by the Trust. It was argued on behalf of\t the  appel-
\nlant-Trust  that in the erstwhile State of Ratlam one  bigha
\nwas equivalent to 21511 Sq. Ft. as per Jantri
\n265<\/span>
\nMilan  Bigha Va Ekad prepared in 1911 and the  lower  courts
\nwrongly\t calculated the area acquired by treating one  bigha
\nequivalent  to 22500 Sq. Ft. as now prevalent  according  to
\nthe  prescribed standards. We do not find any force  in\t the
\nabvoe  contention.  No such argument was raised\t before\t the
\nTribunal  and  it was raised for the first time\t before\t the
\nHigh  Court. The High Court rejected the aforesaid  argument
\non  the\t ground\t that admittedly at present  one  bigha\t was
\nequivalent  to\t22500 Sq. Ft. and no contention\t was  raised
\nbefore\tthe Tribunal that one bigha was equivalent to  21511
\nSq.  Ft.  prevalent in the erstwhile State of  Ratlam.\tThis
\nbeing  a controvercial question of fact and the\t other\tside
\nhaving given no chance to lead any evidence on this point it
\nwas difficult to rely on the Jantri Milan Bigha Va Ekad. The
\nHigh Court thus held that the compensation for one Bigha  of
\nland  would be calculated as equivalent to 22500 Sq. Ft.  We
\ndo  not\t find any error in the aforesaid view taken  by\t the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas next contended on behalf of the Trust  that\t the
\nTribunal had awarded compensation at the rate of 0.65  paisa
\nper Sq. Ft. and there was no ground or justification for the
\nHigh  Court to have increased the same at the rate  of\t0.75
\npaisa  per sq. Ft. There is some force in the above  conten-
\ntion  raised on behalf of the Trust. The High Court  in\t in-
\ncreasing the rate of compensation to 0.75 paise per Sq.\t Ft.
\nhas given no reason. The High Court in this regard  observed
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Thus, after going through the oral as well as
\n\t      documentary  evidence and material  placed  on
\n\t      record and after beatifing the learned counsel
\n\t      for the Trust as also appellant No. 1 and also
\n\t      after  going through the case law\t cited,\t the
\n\t      question\tarises\tat  what  rate\tcompensation
\n\t      should be paid for the land which is compulso-
\n\t      rily  acquired.  It cannot  be  disputed\tthat
\n\t      either  party No. 1 nor party No.2 was  making
\n\t      any  use of the land at the time\tof  acquisi-
\n\t      tion. On the contrary it was being treated  as
\n\t      a waste and fallow land having no\t importance.
\n\t      There  is no satisfactory evidence  placed  on
\n\t      record  to  prove that in fact  the  land\t was
\n\t      being used as an agricultural land from  which
\n\t      certain  income was derived. It  appears\tthis
\n\t      land  gained  importance only when  the  trust
\n\t      proposed to acquire the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Therefore, though the principles enunciated in
\n\t      the various authorities cited and referred  to
\n\t      above are not disputed, we are of opinion that
\n\t      considering the facts and circumstances of the
\n\t      case  it would be just, proper and  reasonable
\n\t      to award compensation for the land at the rate
\n\t      of  0.75 p. per square feet and not  more\t be-
\n\t      cause  the  price fetched\t for  the  developed
\n\t      lands  also  the price fetched for  the  small
\n\t      plots of land cannot be taken
\n\t      266<\/span>
\n\t      into consideration for purposes of comparision
\n\t      in respect of such big lands. After all for  a
\n\t      developed plot of land the cost of development
\n\t      has also to be taken into consideration  which
\n\t      cannot  be said to be quite  meagre,  Besides,
\n\t      admittedly there is a big nala in the land  in
\n\t      question, that there was no direct independent
\n\t      road  to approach this land and that even\t the
\n\t      factory was also not working for several years
\n\t      before the acquisition. All these facts  indi-
\n\t      cate that the potential value of the land even
\n\t      as a building site was not so high.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Learned  Distt. Judge after considering large number  of
\ndocumentary  evidence placed on record by both\tthe  parties
\narrived to the conclusion that the fair market price of\t the
\nacquired  land on 22nd August, 1964 was 0.65 p. per Sq.\t Ft.
\nThe finding recorded by the Distt. Judge in this regard\t was
\nbased on adequate material placed on record and supported by
\ngood  reasons.\tIn  our view the High Court  went  wrong  in
\nincreasing the rate from 0.65p. to 0.75p. without any  valid
\nreasons\t whatsoever.  As a result of the  findings  recorded
\nabove, the appeal Nos. 1345 and 1346 of 1986 filed by Kanti-
\nlal  & Ors. are allowed. The appellants therein would  alone
\nbe entitled to claim the entire amount of compensation.\t The
\norders\tof the High Court, Addl. Commissioner and  Collector
\nin the matter of mutation proceedings are set aside and that
\nof  the\t Board of Revenue is upheld. The appeal\t No.3426  of
\n1987 filed by the Trust is allowed in part. The market value
\ndetermined  by the High Court at the rate of 0.75p. per\t Sq.
\nFt.  is\t set aside and the rate determined by  the  District
\nJudge at 0.65p. per Sq. Ft. is maintained. In the facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of  the case, there would be no order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\nallowed.\n267<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 477, 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 257 Author: N Kasliwal Bench: Kasliwal, N.M. (J) PETITIONER: KANTILAL AND ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: SHANTILAL AND ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/11\/1991 BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. […]<\/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-245076","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991 - 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\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-16T23:05:32+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-16T23:05:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991\"},\"wordCount\":3314,\"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\\\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991\",\"name\":\"Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-16T23:05:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991 - 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\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-16T23:05:32+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991","datePublished":"1991-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-16T23:05:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991"},"wordCount":3314,"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\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991","name":"Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-16T23:05:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-and-ors-etc-vs-shantilal-and-ors-etc-on-14-november-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kantilal And Ors. Etc vs Shantilal And Ors. Etc on 14 November, 1991"}]},{"@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\/245076","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=245076"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245076\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245076"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245076"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245076"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}