{"id":256579,"date":"1973-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973"},"modified":"2017-08-20T01:42:20","modified_gmt":"2017-08-19T20:12:20","slug":"union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern … vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj … on 22 February, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern … vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj … on 22 February, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 1185, 1973 SCR (3) 541<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Ray, A.N., Palekar, D.G., Dwivedi, S.N., Mukherjea, B.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA OWNER OF THE EASTERN RAILWAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SAHIBGANJ MUNICIPALITY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/02\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nRAY, A.N.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 1185\t\t  1973 SCR  (3) 541\n 1973 SCC  (1) 676\n\n\nACT:\nThe  Railways (Local Authorities Taxation) Act<\/a>, 1941, Ss.  3\nand  4--Scope of-Liability of Railway Administration to\t pay\nmunicipal Tax with respect to their buildings under s.\t154<\/a>,\nGovernment  of\tIndia  Act,  1935,  and\t Art.  285<\/a>  of\t the\nConstitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nPursuant  to  s. 135<\/a> of the Indian Railways Act,  1890,\t the\nGovernor General in Council issued a notification dated\t 24\nAugust, 1911, declaring that the administration of the\tEast\nIndian Railway shall be liable to pay in aid of the funds of\nthe  local authorities set out in the Schedule\tthereto\t the\ntaxes specified therein.  In one of the local authorities so\nset  out, 'the railway administration constructed 32  blocks\nof  buildings,\tsome after 31 March 1937 and some  after  25\nJanuary\t 1950.\tThese buildings were assessed  to  municipal\ntax by the respondent with effect from the fourth quarter of\n1965-66.    The\t appellant  contended  that  there  was\t  no\nliability to pay the municipal tax because of s. 154 of\t the\nGovernment of India Act, 1935, and Art. 285<\/a> of the Constitu-\ntion.\tThe High Court held that the notification issued  by\nthe  Government in 1911 continued by virtue of s. 4<\/a>  of\t the\nRailways  (Local Authorities Taxation) Act, 1941,  that\t the\n1941-Act was a federal law, that the 1.911 notification was.\nnot  in\t respect  of  any  particular  property,  and  that,\ntherefore,  the\t railway  properties  whether  in  existence\nbefore 1st April, 1937, or coming into existence thereafter,\nwere liable to pay the taxes.\nAllowing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD, : The High Court was in error in construing that\tthe,\nnotification issued in 1911 under the 1890-Act continued  by\nvirtue of s.   4<\/a> of the 1941-Act. [544G-H]\nUnder  S.  154<\/a> of the 1935-Act all property  vested  in\t His\nMajesty for purposes of the Federation shall save in so\t far\nas any Federal law may otherwise provide, be exempt from all\ntaxes  imposed by, or by ,,any authority within, a  Province\nor  a State.  The proviso to the section states\t that  until\nany  Federal law otherwise provides any property so  vested,\nwhich  was immediately before the commencement of Part\tIII.\nof  the\t 1935-Act liable to any such tax shall, so  long  as\nthat  tax continues, continue to be liable.  Article 285<\/a>  of\nthe  Constitution  also provides that the  property  of\t the\nUnion  shall,  save  in\t so far as  Parliament\tmay  by\t law\notherwise  provide,  be exempt from all taxes imposed  by  a\nState  or by any authority within a State, and, cl.  (2)  of\nthat  Article  states that nothing in cl. (1)  shall,  until\nParliament  by\tlaw  or\t otherwise  provides,  prevent\t any\nauthority in a State from levying any tax on any property of\nthe  Union to which such property was immediate\t before\t the\ncommencement  of the Constitution. liable, so long  as\tthat\ntax continues to be levied in that State. [543B-F]\nThe  32 blocks of buildings were not in existence  before  1\nApril,\t1937, and hence were not vested in His\tMajesty\t for\npurposes  of the Federation, and were not liable to pay\t the\nmunicipal tax before that\n542\ndate.  They were, therefore. exempt from all taxes  imposed\nby any authority within a Province until a Federal law other\nwise provided; and could be made liable only if\t Parliament,\nby law, provided to that effect.  Section 4<\/a> of the  1941-Act\ndid not provide, for payment of taxes in respect of  Railway\nproperty.  Section  3<\/a>  of the Act,  however  states  that  a\nrailway administration shall be liable to pay any tax in aid\nof  the\t funds\tof  any, local\tauthority'  if\tthe  Central\ngovernment by notification in the official gazettee declares\nit  to\tbe so liable.  But no  such  notification  declaring\nrailway properties to be liable to pay any tax in aid of the\nfunds of any local authority under s. 3<\/a> of the 1941-Act\t has\nbeen issued. [544C-F]\nCorporation of Calcutta v. Governors of St<\/a>'.  Thomas School,\nCalcutta [1949] F.C.R. 368, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2304\t and
\n2042 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by certificate from the judgments and orders  dated
\n22nd  September\t 1965 and 2nd July 1968 of  the\t Patna\tHigh
\nCourt at Patna in C.W.J.C. Nos. 431 of 1962 and 344 of 1968.
\nF.   S. Nariman, Addl.\tSolicitor-General of India, B. D.
\nSharma\t  and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C. Setalvad and D. Goburdhun, for the respondent
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRAY,  J. The only question which falls for determination  in
\nthese  two appeals by certificate is whether the  respondent
\nMunicipality  is  entitled to levy and collect taxes  on  31
\nblocks,\t of buildings some constructed after 31 March,\t1937
\nand some after 25 January, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
The  buildings are situated within the municipal  limits  of
\nthe Sahibganj Municipality in the State of Bihar.
\nPursuant  to  section 135<\/a> of the Indian Railways  Act,\t1890
\nreferred to as the 1890 Act, the Governor General in Council
\nby a Railway Department, Railway Board notification No.\t 225
\ndated  24 August, 1911 declared that the  administration  of
\nEast  India  Railway shall be liable to pay in\taid  of\t the
\nfunds  of  the\tlocal authorities set out  in  the  Schedule
\nthereto\t annexed, the taxes specified in the, second  column
\nthereof.   In  the  Schedule; the  names  of  various  local
\nauthorities  are  set out.  Sahibganj is one such.   In\t the
\nsecond\tcolumn\tthe  taxes are\tmentioned.   In\t respect  of
\nSahibganj  Municipality the taxes specified are\t House\trate
\nand latrine fees.\n<\/p>\n
In 1961 the Sahibganj Municipality revised the valuation  of
\nthe  buildings and premises with effect from 1 April,  1961.
\nThe  32 blocks of buildings forming subject matter of  these
\ntwo  appeals  were  assessed with  effect  from\t the  fourth
\nquarter of 1965-66.\n<\/p>\n
543<\/span><\/p>\n
It  is common ground that these 32 blocks of  buildings\t and
\npremises were constructed some after 31 March, 1937 and some
\nafter 25 January, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant contended that these 32 blocks  of  buildings
\ncould not be. made liable to pay the municipal tax by virtue
\nof the provisions contained in section 154 of the Government
\nof India Act, 1935 and Article 285<\/a> of the Constitution.
\nPart  III of the Government of India Act, 1935 referred\t to,
\n4s  the\t 1935 Act came into force on 1 April,  1937.   Under
\nsection\t 154<\/a>  of the 1935 Act all property  vested  in\t‘His
\nMajesty’  for purposes to the Federation shall, save  in  so
\nfar as any Federal law may otherwise provide, be exempt from
\nall taxes imposed by, or by any authority within, a Province
\nor  Federal State.  The proviso to section 154<\/a> of  the\t1935
\nAct  states that until any Federal law\totherwise  provides,
\nany  property  so vested which was  immediately\t before\t the
\ncommencement of Part III of the 1935 Act liable or  treated
\nas  liable,  to\t any such tax shall, so\t long  as  that\t tax
\ncontinues,  continue  to  be liable, or\t to  be\t treated  as
\nliable, or to be treated as liable thereto.
\nArticle 285<\/a> of the Constitution also provides that the\tpro-
\nperty of the Union shall’, save in so far as Parliament\t may
\nby  law otherwise provide, be exempt from all taxes  imposed
\nby  a State or by any authority within a State.\t Clause\t (2)
\nof  Article  285<\/a> states that nothing in\t clause\t (1)  shall,
\nuntil  Parliament  by law otherwise  provides,\tprevent\t any
\nauthority  within  a  State  from levying  any\ttax  on\t any
\nproperty of the Union to which such property was immediately
\nbefore\tthe commencement of this’ Constitution\tliable\toil,
\ntreated\t as  liable,  so long as that tax  continues  to  be
\nlevied in that State.\n<\/p>\n
The,  High Court held. that the Railways Local\t Authorities
\nTaxation)  Act<\/a>,\t 1941  referred to as the  1941\t Act  was  a
\nfederal\t law and section 4<\/a> of-the 1941 Act thereof  rendered
\nthe buildings liable to taxation.  The reasons given by\t the
\nHigh  Court  were  these.  The notification  issued  by\t the
\nGovernment in 1911 under the 1890 Act continued by virtue of
\nthe provisions contained in section 4<\/a> of the 1941 Act.\t The
\n1911  notification  was\t not in respect\t of  any  particular
\nproperty.   Therefore  the  railway  properties\t whether  in
\nexistence before 1 April 1937 or coming into existence after
\nthat date were liable to pay taxes.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 4<\/a> of the 1941 Act provided as follows\tThe  Central
\nGovernment   may   be  notification  revoke  or\t  vary\t any
\nnotification  issued under clause (1) of section 135<\/a> of\t the
\n1890 Act.  Where a: notification is so revoked any liability
\narising out of the notification to pay any tax to the  legal
\nauthority shall cease.\tWhere a
\n544<\/span>
\nnotification  is so varied the liability arising out of\t the
\nnotification,\tshall  be  varied  accordingly.\t   There-was
\nneither\t  revocation   nor  variation\tof   the   aforesaid
\nnotification issued under section 135<\/a> of the 1890 Act.
\nThe  High  Court overlooked the effect of section 3<\/a>  of\t the
\n1941  Act.   Section 3<\/a> provides that  any  railway  property
\nvested\tfor  purposes  of the Central  Government  shall  be
\nliable\tto pay tax in aid of the funds of a local  authority
\nif the Central Government by notification declares it to  be
\nso  liable.  This section therefore requires a\tnotification
\ndeclaring liability to pay.  The notification under the 1941
\nAct  creates  a liability for railway property\tcoming\tinto
\nexistence after the 1941 Act.  But no such notification\t was
\nissued.\n<\/p>\n
The  32 blocks of buildings were not in existence  before  1
\nApril,\t1937.  These 32 blocks of buildings  were  therefore
\nnot vested for purposes of the Government of the  Federation
\nbefore the commencement of Part III of the 1935 Act.   These
\n32  blocks  of buildings were thus exempt  from,  all  taxes
\nimposed by any :authority within a province until a  federal
\nlaw  otherwise provided.  Section 4<\/a> of the 1941 Act did\t not
\npro  ‘de  for  payment\tof  taxes  in  ,respect\t of  railway
\nproperty.  Section 3<\/a> of the 1941 Act stated that a  railway
\nadministration shall be liable to pay any tax in aid ,of the
\nfunds  of any local authority if the Central  Government  by
\nnotification  in the official gazette declares it to  be  so
\nliable.\t  It  is an admitted feature in these  appeals\tthat
\nthere was no notification under section 3<\/a> of the 194 1,\t Act
\ndeclaring the railway properties to be liable to pay any tax
\nin aid of the funds of any local authority.\n<\/p>\n
Under Article 285<\/a> of the Constitution property of the  Union
\nwas exempt from all taxes until Parliament by law  otherwise
\nprovides.   There is no such law providing for taxation\t of
\nrailway property.\n<\/p>\n
Clause\t(2)  of Article 285<\/a> speaks of liability\t of  railway
\nproperty  to pay taxes where such property  was\t immediately
\nbefore\tthe  commencement  of  the  Constitution  liable  or
\ntreated\t as liable to pay- any tax levied by  any  authority
\nwithin\ta  State.   These 32 blocks of\tbuildings  were\t not
\nliable\tto, pay any tax because they were not  in  existence
\nbefore,\t 1st  April 1937 or before the commencement  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court was in error in construing the\tnotification
\nissued in 1911 under the 1890 Act to, continue by virtue  of
\nthe  provisions\t contained  in section 4<\/a> of  the  1941\tAct.
\nThese  32  blocks of buildings vested in the Union  some  of
\nthem after 1 April 1937 and some after the Constitution came
\ninto  existence.  These properties could be made  liable  to
\npay  tax  to  the municipality only  if\t Parliament  by\t law
\nprovided to that effect.\n<\/p>\n
 545<\/span><\/p>\n
The  High  Court referred to the decision of this  Court  in
\nCorporation of Calcutta v. Governors of St. Thomas’  School,
\nCalcutta<\/a>(1) 1949 F.C.R. 368 and held that the ruling in that
\ndecision  did not apply to the facts in the present  appeals
\nby  reason  of\tsection\t 4<\/a> of the  1941\t Act  rendering\t the
\nproperties  liable to tax.  The High Court misconstrued\t the
\nprovisions  of section 4<\/a> of the 1941 Act.  The\tdecision  of
\nthis  Court  in\t St. Thomas’ School  case  (supra)  directly
\napplies to these appeals.  St. Thomas School was situated at
\n4,  Diamond  Harbour  Road, Calcutta.\tThe  buildings\twere
\nconstructed before April, 1942.\t The premises were  assessed
\nto consolidated rates under the Calcutta Municipal Act.\t  In
\nApril, 1942 the premises were requisitioned for the purposes
\nof  the\t Central  Government.\tAfter  the  requisition\t the
\nCentral\t  Government  erected  several\tstructures  on\t the
\npremises.   In 1944-45 there was, a general  revaluation  by
\nthe  Corporation  of Calcutta.\tThe cost of  the  additional
\nstructures erected by the Central Government was taken\tinto
\naccount\t in  determining the annual value of  the  premises.
\nThe Governors of St. Thomas School objected to the valuation
\nand  claimed that the value of the buildings put up, by\t the
\nGovernment  should  be\texcluded in  the  revaluation.\t The
\nCalcutta High Court held that section 154 of the  Government
\nof  India Act, 1935 applied to the buildings constructed  by
\nthe Central Government and the proviso to section 154<\/a> of the
\n1935  Act  was\tnot applicable.\t This Court  held  that\t the
\nbuildings constructed by the Central Government were, vested
\nin the Government.  In view of the fact that the  additional
\nstructures were put up by the Central Government after\t1942
\nit  was\t held that these were not subject to  municipal\t tax
\nbefore April, 1937.\n<\/p>\n
The  32 blocks of buildings in the present appeals were\t not
\nin existence before 1 April, 1937 and 26 January, 1950.\t The
\nnotification  under the 1890 Act did not apply to  these  32
\nblocks\tof  buildings.\tThere is no law declaring  these  32
\nblocks of buildings to be liable to payment of municipal fax
\nas claimed by the respondent municipality.
\nFor  these  reasons the judgment of the High, Court  is\t set
\naside and the appeals are allowed.  Each party will pay\t and
\nbear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal allowed.\n546<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern … vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj … on 22 February, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 1185, 1973 SCR (3) 541 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Ray, A.N., Palekar, D.G., Dwivedi, S.N., Mukherjea, B.K. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA OWNER OF THE EASTERN RAILWAY […]<\/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-256579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India Owner Of The Eastern ... vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj ... on 22 February, 1973 - 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\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern ... vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj ... on 22 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-19T20:12:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern … vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj … on 22 February, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-19T20:12:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973\"},\"wordCount\":1544,\"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\\\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973\",\"name\":\"Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern ... vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj ... on 22 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-19T20:12:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern … vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj … on 22 February, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern ... vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj ... on 22 February, 1973 - 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\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern ... vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj ... on 22 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-19T20:12:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern … vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj … on 22 February, 1973","datePublished":"1973-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-19T20:12:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973"},"wordCount":1544,"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\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973","name":"Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern ... vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj ... on 22 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-19T20:12:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-owner-of-the-eastern-vs-the-commissioner-of-sahibganj-on-22-february-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India Owner Of The Eastern … vs The Commissioner Of Sahibganj … on 22 February, 1973"}]},{"@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\/256579","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=256579"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256579\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}