{"id":259300,"date":"1964-01-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-01-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964"},"modified":"2016-05-21T22:32:30","modified_gmt":"2016-05-21T17:02:30","slug":"rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964","title":{"rendered":"Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba … vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba … vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1195, 1964 SCR (6) 301<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Das, S.K., Shah, J.C., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRANI RATNA PROVA DEVI RANI SAHEBA OF  DHENKENAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n23\/01\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nDAS, S.K.\nSHAH, J.C.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR 1195\t\t  1964 SCR  (6) 301\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  of India, 1950, Arts, 14\tand  366(22)--Orissa\nPrivate\t Lands\tof Rulers (Assessment of Rent)\tAct  (13  of\n1958), ss. 5 and 6--Validity--\"Ruler\", meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe petitioners in these three writ petitions challenged the\noperative  provisions of the Orissa Private Lands of  Rulers\n(Assessment  of\t Rent)\tAct,  1958  and\t the,  Rules  framed\nthereunder.  These petitioners possess\n302\nprivate\t lands\tin  the State of Orissa,  which\t before\t the\nimpugned Act were not subjected to the payment of rent,\t but\nwhich  were assessed by the Revenue Officers  in  conformity\nwith the Rules framed under the Act.  The petitioners claims\na writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the said  orders\nof assessment.\tThe Act was passed by the Orissa Legislature\nbecause\t it was thought expedient to provide for  assessment\nof  rent with respert to the private lands of Rulers in\t the\nState of Orissa.\nThe main object of the Act is to authorise the levy of\trent\nin  respect of the private lands of persons included in\t the\ndefinition of the word \"Ruler\" prescribed by s. 2(h) of\t the\nAct.  Section 2(h) defines a \"Ruler\" as meaning the Ruler of\na  merged territory in the State of Orissa and includes\t his\nrelatives and dependants.  The petitioners attacked the pro-\nvisions\t  of  the  Act\tmainly\ton  the\t ground\t that\tthey\ncontravened Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution.\nHeld:(i) that s. 6 of the Act does not contravene Art. 14<\/a> of\nthe  Constitution  for the reason that\tfair  and  equitable\ntests  have  been  laid\t down under s.\t6  of  the  Act\t for\ndetermining the rent which should be assessed in respect  of\nthe  private lands of the Rulers.  In the present  case\t the\nlegislature  had  prescribed the method of  determining\t the\nrent payable on the private lands; and the relevant  factors\nspecified  by  s.  6 appear to\tbe  just  and  substantially\nsimilar to the considerations which are generally taken into\naccount at the time of survey settlement for determining the\nproper revenue assessment on ryotwari lands.\nThe  problem posed by the requirement to levy assessment  on\nthese private lands had to be dealt with by the\t legislature\non  an ad hoc basis.  The settlement of rent and  assessment\nintroduced  by\tthe Act had been made  applicable  to  these\nlands  for the first time, and so, these lands could not  be\ntreated as comparable in every respect with the lands  which\nwere  governed\tby the rates prescribed under  the  previous\nsettlement.\n(ii)In\tconsidering the validity of a statute under Art.  14<\/a>\nthe  wellestablished principle is that the  legislature\t can\nmake class legislation, provided the classification on which\nit  purports  to be based is rational and has  a  reasonable\nnexus with the object intended to be achieved by it.  If the\nparty  fails  to  show\tthat  the  said\t classification\t  is\nirrational,  or has no nexus with the object intended to  be\nachieved  by  the impugned Act, the initial  presumption  of\nconstitutionality  would  help the State to  urge  that\t the\nfailure\t of the party challenging the validity to rebut\t the\ninitial\t presumption goes against his claim that the Act  is\ninvalid.\nIn all cases where the material adduced before the court  in\nmatters relating to Art. 14<\/a> is unsatisfactory, the court may\nhave  to allow the State to lean on the initial\t presumption\nof constitutionality.\n(iii)There  is\tno  substance in  the  contention  that\t the\nimpugned  Act  is void because the definition  of  the\tword\n\"Ruler\"\t  is   inconsistent  with  Art,\t  366(22)   of\t the\nConstitution.  There is no doubt that the definition of\t the\nword \"Ruler\" prescribed by s. 2(h) of the Act is wider\tthan\nthat prescribed by Art. 366(22)<\/a> of the Constitution.\n\t\t\t    303\nThe definitions prescribed by Art. 366<\/a> are intended for\t the\npurpose\t of  interpreting the articles in  the\tConstitution\nitself,\t unless the context otherwise requires.\t  The  whole\nobject of defining the word \"Ruler\" in the Act is to specify\nand  describe  the lands in respect of which  the  operative\nprovisions  of the Act would come into play.  It is in\tthat\nconnection that the word \"Ruler\" has been broadly defined in\nan inclusive manner.\n(iv) The  impugned  Act is entirely outside the\t purview  of\nArt.  31<\/a> of the Constitution as it has not purported  either\nto  deprive the Rulers of their property, or to\t acquire  or\nrequisition  the  said\tproperty.  It is  a  simple  measure\nauthorising  the  levy of a tax in respect  of\tagricultural\nlands.\nPratap Kesari Deo v. The State of Orissa<\/a>, A.I.R. 1961 Orissa\n131, relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 79 and 80 of 1963
\nand 140 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
Petitions under Art. 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India for the
\nenforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
S.   N.\t Andley,  Rameshawar Nath and P. L. Vohra,  for\t the
\npetitioner (in Petition Nos. 79 and 80 of 1963).
\nSarjoo Prasad, Ajoy Kumar Gajdhar Mahapatra and
\nA.   D.\t  Mathur  for  the  petitioner\t(in   Petition\t No.
\n140\/1962).\n<\/p>\n
S.  V.\tGupte  Additional Solicitor-General,  S.  B.  Misra,
\nR.Ganapathi lyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents (in
\nall the petitions).\n<\/p>\n
M. C. Setalvad, J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and O.   C.
\nMathur, for the interveners (in Petition No. 140\/ 1962).
\nJanuary\t 23, 1964.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nGAJENDRAGADKAR\tJ.-The petitioners in these three  petitions
\nhave moved this Court under Art. 32<\/a> of the Constitution\t and
\nclaimed\t a declaration that the operative provisions of\t the
\nOrissa\tPrivate Lands of Rulers (Assessment of\tRent)  Act,,
\n1958  (hereinafter  called `the Act’) and the  Rules  framed
\nthereunder  are\t unconstitutional  and\tultra  vires.\t The
\nprivate\t lands in the possession and enjoyment of the  three
\nrespective  petitioners\t have been assessed by\tthe  Revenue
\nOfficers in conformity with the Rules framed under the\tAct.
\nThe petitioners claim a writ or direction, or order
\n304<\/span>
\nin  the\t nature of certiorari quashing the  said  orders  of
\nassessment.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 140\/1962 is the  Patrani
\nSaheba\tof  Keonjhar and is in possession and  enjoyment  of
\neight  villages,  viz.,\t Mangalpur;  Barigan;  Nua   Rampas;
\nNilung; Ghutru; Mohadijore; Patang and Anara in the district
\nof  Keonjhar.\tThese  villages\t were  granted\tto  her\t for
\nmaintenance  a\tlong time ago and as such,  they  have\tbeen
\nrecorded   in\tthe  village  papers   as   Khoraki   Posaki
\n(Maintenance Grant) Lands since the last settlement of 1918.
\nShe has held these lands without paying assessment; and\t her
\ncase  is  that\tthe relevant provisions\t of  the  Act  which
\nauthorise the levy of assessment in respect of her lands are
\nunconstitutional  and  invalid.\t In her\t petition,  she\t has
\nreferred to the fact that from time to time, the  Government
\nof  the\t day had refrained from levying\t any  assessment  in
\nrespect\t of  her lands and thereby recognised her  right  to
\nhold  the  said\t villages  on  assessment-free\tbasis.\t The
\nRevenue Officer of Keonjhar levied an assessment in  respect
\nof  the\t said  villages purporting to act  under  the  Rules
\nframed under the provisions of the Act.\t The petitioner then
\npreferred  appeals to the Board of Revenue against the\tsaid
\nassessment  orders  but these appeals were  dismissed.\t The
\nassessment levied against the petitioner in respect of these
\nlands is of the order of Rs. 9,000 and odd and it has to  be
\npaid by her from 1958 retrospectively.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner in W.P. No. 79\/1963 is Smt.  Rani Ratna Prova
\nDevi  who  is  the  wife of Raja  Sankar  Pratap  Singh\t Deo
\nMahindra Bahadur, ex-Ruler of Dhenkanal State in Orissa.  At
\nthe time when the State of Dhenkanal. merged with India, the
\npetitioner was in possession and enjoyment of lands in\tfive
\nvillages  as  a\t Proprietor.  In  respect  of  these  lands,
\nassessment  had\t never been levied; but purporting  to\tgive
\neffect\tto the relevant provisions of the Act,\tthe  Revenue
\nOfficer Dhenkanal assessed rent in respect of all the  lands
\nwhich  are  in possession and enjoyment of  the\t petitioner.
\nThe  appeals  preferred by the petitioner against  the\tsaid
\norder of assessment failed; and so, the petitioner filed the
\npresent writ petition challenging the validity of the Act as
\nwell as the validity of the assessment order.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    305<\/span><\/p>\n
The  petitioner\t in W.P. No. 80 of 1963 is the\tex-Ruler  of
\nDhenkanal.   On\t the  date  of merger he  held\tand  was  in
\npossession  of 89 acres 18 dec. and 5 kadis of land in\tNiz-
\ngarh  Town  as his private lands.  These  lands\t were  never
\nsubjected  to the payment of rent and yet the Revenue  Offi-
\ncers  assessed\trents in respect of these  lands  under\t the
\nprovisions of the Act.\tThe petitioner failed in  persuading
\nthe  Appellate Authority to set aside the -order of  assess-
\nment,\tand  so,  has  filed  the  present   writ   petition
\nchallenging  the  validity  of\tthe Act\t and  the  order  of
\nassessment.   Thus, the facts on which the  three  petitions
\nclaim relief are substantially similar and they have  raised
\ncommon\tpoints\tof law for our decision.  That\tis  why\t the
\nthree  petitions  have\tbeen heard  together  and  would  be
\ndisposed of by a common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
The  Act which is challenged in the present proceedings\t was
\npassed\tby  the Orissa Legislature because “it\twas  thought
\nexpedient to provide for assessment of rent with respect  to
\nthe  private  lands of Rulers in the State of  Orissa”.\t  It
\nreceived  the assent of the Governor on the 21st  May.\t1958
\nand  was  published in the State Gazette on  the  6th  June,
\n1958.  It consists of 15 sections and the main object of the
\nAct  is\t to  authorise the levy of rent in  respect  of\t the
\nprivate\t lands of persons included in the definition of\t the
\nword “Ruler” prescribed by s. 2(h) of the Act.\tSection 2(e)
\ndefines ‘Private land’ as meaning any land held on the\tdate
\nof  merger by a Ruler free from payment of rent, while s.  2\n<\/p>\n
(h)  defines  a\t “Ruler” as meaning the Ruler  of  a  merged
\nterritory in the State of Orissa and includes his  relatives
\nand defendants.\t Thus, the definition of the word “Ruler” is
\nan  inclusive definition and takes within its sweep the\t re-
\nlatives\t of  the Ruler and his dependents, with\t the  result
\nthat  private lands held by such relatives or dependents  by
\nvirtue of the grants made by the ruling Prince or  otherwise
\ncome within the mischief of the operative provisions of\t the
\nAct.  Section 2(i) provides that all other expressions\tused
\nand  not defined in the Act shall have the same\t meaning  as
\nare respectively assigned to them under the tenancy laws  in
\nforce  in the concerned areas.\tSection 3 contains the\tmain
\noperative provision and it lays down that notwith-
\n134-159 S.C.–20
\n306<\/span>
\nstanding  anything contained in any other law, custom,\tcon-
\ntract or agreement to the contrary, the private lands  field
\nby a Ruler shall, with effect from the date of\tcommencement
\nof  this  Act, be liable to assessment and levy of  rent  as
\nprovided in the Act.  Thus, the effect of this provision  is
\nthat  private lands held by Rulers which till then were\t not
\nliable\tto pay rent or assessment, were made liable  to\t pay
\nthe same.  In other words the exemption from the payment  of
\nassessment or rent which the private lands of Rulers enjoyed
\ntill  then ceased to be operative, and the said\t lands\twere
\ntreated\t like  other  lands  in\t the  State  liable  to\t pay
\nassessment and rent.\n<\/p>\n
Section 4 provides for the appointment of Revenue  Officers,
\nand  sections 5 and 6 deal with the classification of  lands
\nand  prescribe the maximum rates of rent, and the  procedure
\nin determining the rent respectively.  Under s. 5, the lands
\nhave  to  be classified as irrigated-wet  land,\t rainfed-wet
\nland,  and dry land; this section provides that\t subject  to
\nthe  provisions\t of s. 6, the rates at which  the  fair\t and
\nequitable  rent shall be assessed with respect to  the\tsaid
\nthree categories of land shall not exceed the amount as\t may
\nbe  prescribed\tfrom time to time by the  State\t Government.
\nThe proviso to s. 5 deals with the special category of cases
\nwhere the tenants of the Ruler have already acquired  rights
\nof  occupancy,\tand lays down that the rent payable  by\t the
\nRuler  in respect of such lands shall be such proportion  of
\nthe  rent  received  by\t him from  the\ttenants\t as  may  be
\nprescribed.  Under s. 6, the considerations which have to be
\nborne in mind in determining the rates of fair and equitable
\nrent  are specified by clauses (a) to (e), viz., the  nature
\nof the soil and general productivity of such land; the class
\nunder  which  the land is assessable; market  value  of\t the
\nland;  the  prevailing rates of rent obtaining\tfor  similar
\nlands in the neighbourhood; and such other matters  relating
\nthereto as may be prescribed.  It is thus clear that whereas
\ns.  5  requires the classification of  the  Ruler’s  private
\nlands  to be made and provides for the prescription  of\t the
\nmaximum of the rent which may be levied in respect of  them,
\ns. 6 indicates the factors which have to be borne in mind in
\ndetermining  the rates of fair and equitable  rent.   Clause\n<\/p>\n
(e)
\n307<\/span>
\nshows  that in addition to the factors mentioned in  clauses\n<\/p>\n
(a)  to\t (d),  other matters may also be  specified  by\t the
\nRules.\tThe rest of the sections deal with matters  relating
\nto the levy and recovery of assessment with which we are not
\nconcerned in the present petitions.\n<\/p>\n
The first contention which has been raised before us by\t the
\npetitioners  is that the provisions contained in sections  5
\nand 6 are invalid inasmuch as they contravene Art. 14<\/a> of the
\nConstitution.\tIt is convenient to refer to some facts\t set
\nout  in\t W.P. No. 79\/1963 in support of this  argument.\t  We
\nhave already noticed that under s. 6 certain  considerations
\nwhich the Act considers to be relevant have been prescribed,
\nand so, the Revenue Officer has to bear those considerations
\nin  mind  in  determining the fair  and\t equitable  rent  in
\nrespect\t of a given land.  W.P. No. 79\/1963 points out\tthat
\nas  a  result of the consideration of the  relevant  factors
\nmentioned in s. 6, the rates fixed by the preliminary pattas
\nin  respect  of\t the petitioner’s lands are  in\t every\tcase
\nhigher than the rates of rent which are in operation in res-
\npect  of  the Revisional Settlement Khatian.   Basing  them-
\nselves on the fact that in the calculation of the rent\tmade
\nby  the Revenue Officers in respect of the private lands  of
\nRulers they have arrived at a figure of rent which is  gene-
\nrally higher than the rent which would be determined in case
\nthe rates current under the Settlement prevailing in respect
\nof  the\t other lands were applied, the\tpetitioners  contend
\nthat  in their operation the relevant provisions of the\t Act
\nhave  introduced an illegal discrimination as between  their
\nlands  and the other lands liable to assessment of  rent  in
\nthe  State of Orissa.  It is also urged in support  of\tthis
\nargument  that\tit would not be a  valid  consideration\t for
\nlevying higher assessment in respect of the private lands of
\nRuler  that they were not required to pay  assessment  until
\nthe  Act was passed.  The legislature may in  its  authority
\nmake  the  private lands of Rulers liable to  assessment  of
\nrent,  but when these lands are brought within the class  of
\nassessable lands, they should be treated in the same way  as
\nthe  other  assessable lands are treated in  Orissa.   That,
\nbriefly\t stated, is the contention on which the validity  of
\nthe Act is challenged under Art. 14.<\/a>  Prima facie, there is
\n308<\/span>
\nsome force in this contention.\tBut, on the whole we are not
\nsatisfied  that the plea thus raised by the petitioners\t can
\nbe  said  to displace and rebut the initial  presumption  of
\nconstitutionality in favour of the impugned statute.
\nIn dealing with the question raised before us, it is  neces-
\nsary  to  bear\tin mind the fact that  in  regard  to  other
\nassessable lands, a survey settlement which had already been
\nmade was in operation and was expected to continue in opera-
\ntion for a certain specified period; usually, when a settle-
\nment has been made and assessment levied in pursuance of it,
\nit cannot be revised merely by an executive order during the
\nstipulated  period, though, of course, the legislature\tcan,
\nif it so desires, make a law prescribing for a fresh assess-
\nment  even  during the said specified period.  But,  in\t the
\npresent case, the legislature appears to have taken the view
\nthat it was not necessary or expedient to introduce a  fresh
\nsettlement in regard to all the other assessable lands,\t and
\nso, it has passed the present statute only in regard to\t the
\nprivate\t  lands\t of  Rulers.   That  is\t one  relevant\t and
\nhistorical fact which cannot be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
Proceeding to deal with the private lands of Rulers on\tthis
\nbasis,\tthe  legislature  had to  prescribe  the  method  of
\ndetermining the rent payable by the said lands; and the\t re-
\nlevant\tfactors\t specified  by s. 6 appear to  be  just\t and
\nsubstantially  similar\tto  the\t considerations\t which\t are
\ngenerally   taken  into\t account  at  the  time\t of   survey
\nsettlement for determining the proper revenue assessment  on
\nryotwari  lands.   There has been some argument at  the\t Bar
\nbefore\tus as to whether the market value of the land  which
\nhas been prescribed as a relevant consideration by s. 6\t was
\nalso  treated  as relevant on the occasion  of\tthe  earlier
\nsettlement.  No material has, however, been placed before us
\nin that behalf, and so, it is not possible to decide whether
\nthis  consideration  was taken into account on\tthe  earlier
\noccasion  or not, and if it was not, what the effect of\t the
\nsaid  circumstance would be on the validity of the  impugned
\nstatute.   Having regard to the relevant factors  prescribed
\nby s. 6, it would, however, not be unreasonable to take\t the
\nview  that fair and equitable tests have been laid down\t for
\ndetermin-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    309<\/span><\/p>\n
ing the rent which should be assessed in respect of the pri-
\nvate  lands of the Rulers, and in the absence of  any  proof
\nthat there has been a material departure in that behalf,  we
\nfind  it  difficult  to uphold the plea that  s.  6  can  be
\nattacked  on the ground that it has contravened Art.  14<\/a>  of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  problem posed by the requirement to levy assessment  on
\nthese private lands had to be dealt with by the\t legislature
\non  an ad hoc basis.  The settlement of rent and  assessment
\nintroduced  by\tthe Act had been made  applicable  to  these
\nlands  for the first time, and so, strictly speaking,  these
\nlands cannot be treated as comparable in every respect\twith
\nthe lands which were governed by the rates prescribed  under
\nthe  previous  settlement  and that may\t help  to  meet\t the
\nargument  that the impugned Act contravenes Art. 14.<\/a> If\t the
\ntwo  categories of lands do not constitute similar lands  in
\nall  particulars,  no valid complaint can. be  made  on\t the
\nground\tthat there has been discrimination as between  them.
\nThat is another aspect which may be relevant.
\nThere  is yet another factor which may be mentioned in\tthis
\nconnection.  It appears that in 1959, the Orissa Legislature
\nhas passed an Act, No. 3 of 1959 with a view to\t consolidate
\nand amend the laws relating to survey, record of rights\t and
\nsettlement  operations\tin the State of Orissa, and  so,  it
\nappears\t that  after  the  settlement  operations  are\tduly
\nconducted  and\tcompleted under the relevant  provisions  of
\nthis latter Act, assessment in regard to all the  assessable
\nlands,\tincluding the private lands with which we  are\tcon-
\ncerned in the present proceedings would be made on the basis
\nprescribed  by it.  The operation of sections 3, 5 and 6  of
\nthe  impugned  Act  is, therefore,  limited  to\t the  period
\nbetween June, 1958 when the Act came into force and the date
\nwhen  the assessment determined under the provisions of\t the
\nsubsequent  Act actually come into operation in\t respect  of
\nall  the  lands.   That is another factor which\t has  to  be
\nconsidered  in dealing with the question about the  validity
\nof the impugned Act.\n<\/p>\n
The allegations made by the petitioners, in challenging\t the
\nvalidity of the Act are somewhat vague and the mate-
\n31O
\nrials  placed by them in support of their challenge are\t in-
\nsufficient,  inadequate and unsatisfactory.  The reply\tmade
\nby  the State is also not very helpful or satisfactory.\t  It
\nis precisely where a challenge to the validity of a  statute
\nis  made by a party under Article 14<\/a> and he fails to  adduce
\nsatisfactory  evidence in support of his challenge that\t the
\ntask  of  the  Court  to  decide  the  issue  becomes\tvery
\ndifficult.   In considering the validity of a statute  under
\nArt.  14<\/a>,  we cannot ignore the\t well-established  principle
\nthat  the legislature can make class  legislation,  provided
\nthe  classification  on\t which it purports to  be  based  is
\nrational and has a reasonable nexus with the object intended
\nto be achieved by it, and so, on the failure of the party to
\nshow  that the said classification is irrational, or has  no
\nnexus  with  the  object  intended to  be  achieved  by\t the
\nimpugned  Act, the initial presumption of  constitutionality
\nwould  help the State to urge that the failure of the  party
\nchallenging  the validity to rebut the\tinitial\t presumption
\ngoes  against  his claim that the Act is  invalid.   In\t all
\ncases where the material adduced before the Court in matters
\nrelating to Art. 14<\/a> is unsatisfactory, the Court may have to
\nallow  the  State  to  lean  on\t the  doctrine\tof   initial
\npresumption of constitutionality and that is precisely\twhat
\nhas happened in these cases.  On the whole therefore we must
\nhold  that  the\t petitioners have failed to  show  that\t the
\nimpugned Act contravenes Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution.
\nit  is\tthen  argued that the Act  is  invalid\tbecause\t the
\ndefinition  of the expression “Ruler” is  inconsistent\twith
\nthe  definition of the said word prescribed by Art.  366(22)<\/a>
\nof  the\t Constitution.\tArt. 366(22)<\/a> defines  a\t “Ruler”  in
\nrelation to an Indian State as meaning the Prince, Chief, or
\nother  person by whom any such covenant or agreement  as  is
\nreferred  to in clause (1) of Art. 291<\/a> was entered into\t and
\nwho for the time being is recognised by the President as the
\nRuler of the State, and includes any person who for the time
\nbeing  is  recognised by the President as the  successor  of
\nsuch  Ruler.  There is no doubt that the definition  of\t the
\nword ” Ruler” prescribed by s. 2(h) of the Act is wider than
\nthat  prescribed  by Art. 366(22).<\/a>  The\t dependents  of\t the
\nRuler  and  his\t relatives are not included  in\t the  latter
\ndefini-\n<\/p>\n
311<\/span><\/p>\n
tion, though they are expressly included in the former.\t But
\nit  must  be remembered that the definitions  prescribed  by
\nArt.  366<\/a> are intended for the purpose of  interpreting\t the
\narticles  in  the Constitution itself,\tunless\tthe  context
\notherwise requires, and so, the argument that the definition
\nof  the word “Ruler” prescribed by the Act  is\tinconsistent
\nwith  the definition prescribed by Art. 366(22<\/a>), has  really
\nno  substance  or  meaning.  Besides, it  is  fallacious  to
\nassume\tthat  the Act has made any provision in\t respect  of
\nRulers\tas  such;  what the Act has purported to  do  is  to
\nauthorise  the\tlevy of assessment and rent  in\t respect  of
\nlands situated in Orissa; these lands are the private  lands
\nof  the Rulers as defined by s. 2 (h), and so, there  is  no
\ndoubt that the whole object of defining the word “Ruler”  is
\nto  specify and describe the lands in respect of  which\t the
\noperative  provisions of the Act would come into play.\t The
\nsubject-matter of the levy consists of the private lands and
\nthe compendious way adopted by the legislature in describing
\nthe  said  lands is that they are the private lands  of\t the
\nRulers.\t It is in that connection that the word “Ruler”\t has
\nbeen  broadly  defined\tin  an\tinclusive  manner.   If\t the
\nlegislature had said that the private lands of the Rulers as
\nwell as the private lands of the dependents and relatives of
\nRulers\twere  liable to the levy permitted under s.  3,\t the
\npetitioners would not have been able to raise any  objection
\nbecause, then, it would have been unnecessary to define\t the
\nword “Ruler” in a comprehensive. way.  Once it is  conceded,
\nas it must be, that the Orissa Legislature was competent  to
\npass  the  Act\tunder Entry 18 of List\tII  of\tthe  Seventh
\nSchedule,  it is idle to suggest that the method adopted  by
\nthe Act in describing the lands which are made liable to pay
\nassessment,  introduces\t any infirmity in  the\tArt  itself.
\nTherefore,  we\tare satisfied that the contention  that\t the
\ndefinition  of\tthe word “Ruler” is inconsistent  with\tArt.
\n366(22)<\/a>\t and that makes the whole Act void, is\twithout\t any
\nsubstance.\n<\/p>\n
The third argument which was faintly urged before us is that
\nthe  Act  contravenes  the  provisions of  Art.\t 31<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThis argument is wholly misconceived.\tArt.
\n31(1)<\/a> deals with the deprivation of property save by  autho-
\nrity of law, and cannot obviously be invoked against any
\n312<\/span>
\nof  the\t provisions of the Act; and Art.  31(2)<\/a>\t deals\twith
\ncompulsory acquisition or requisition which also is entirely
\ninapplicable to the present Act.  What the Act has purported
\nto  do is to authorise the levy of assessment in respect  of
\nlands which till then had been exempted from the said  levy,
\nand as Art. 31(5)(b)(i)<\/a> provides nothing contained in clause
\n(2)  shall affect the provisions of any law which the  State
\nmay  make for the purpose of imposing or levying any tax  or
\npenalty.  If the Orissa Legislature has imposed a tax in the
\nform  of  the  assessment of the private  lands\t of  Rulers,
\nclearly it has not purported either to deprive the Rulers of
\ntheir  property,  or  to acquire  or  requisition  the\tsaid
\nproperty;  it is a simple measure authorising the levy of  a
\ntax  in\t respect of agricultural lands and as  such,  it  is
\nentirely outside the purview of Art. 31.<\/a>  It appears that in
\nPratap\tKessari\t Deo v. The State of Orissa  &\tOrs<\/a>.(1)\t the
\nvalidity  of the Act was challenged before the\tOrissa\tHigh
\nCourt and the said High Court has repelled the challenge and
\nupheld\tthe validity of the Act.  In our opinion,  the\tview
\ntaken by the Orissa High Court is right.\n<\/p>\n
The  result  is. the petitions fail and are  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\tOne set of hearing fees.\n<\/p>\n
Petition dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba … vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1195, 1964 SCR (6) 301 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Das, S.K., Shah, J.C., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala PETITIONER: RANI RATNA PROVA DEVI RANI SAHEBA OF DHENKENAL Vs. […]<\/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-259300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba ... vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964 - 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\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba ... vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-01-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-21T17:02:30+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=\"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\\\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba … vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-01-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-21T17:02:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964\"},\"wordCount\":3625,\"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\\\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964\",\"name\":\"Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba ... vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-01-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-21T17:02:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba … vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba ... vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964 - 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\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba ... vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-01-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-21T17:02:30+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba … vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964","datePublished":"1964-01-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-21T17:02:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964"},"wordCount":3625,"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\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964","name":"Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba ... vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-01-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-21T17:02:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rani-ratna-prova-devi-rani-saheba-vs-state-of-orissa-and-another-on-23-january-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba … vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964"}]},{"@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\/259300","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=259300"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259300\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}