{"id":259967,"date":"1993-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-10-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993"},"modified":"2015-07-04T11:31:39","modified_gmt":"2015-07-04T06:01:39","slug":"jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993","title":{"rendered":"Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC  (1)\t27, JT 1993 (6)\t504<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S N.P.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Singh N.P. (J)<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           PETITIONER:\nJODHA RAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nFINANCIAL COMMISSIONER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/10\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH N.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nSINGH N.P. (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (1)\t27\t  JT 1993 (6)\t504\n 1993 SCALE  (4)119\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nN.P.  SINGH, J.- These appeals have been filed\tagainst\t the<br \/>\norders\tdate&#8211;&#8216; January 8, 1981, passed by the\tHigh  Court,<br \/>\ndismissing the writ petitions filed on behalf of Jodha\tRam,<br \/>\nOm Parkash, Lekh Ram and others, for quashing the orders  of<br \/>\nthe  Collector and the Financial Commissioner, holding\tthat<br \/>\nthe lands in question had been rightly declared surplus area<br \/>\nunder the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land  Tenures<br \/>\nAct,  1953  (,hereinafter referred to as the  &#8220;Land  Tenures<br \/>\nAct&#8221;).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">2.   It appears to be an admitted position that Om  Parkash,<br \/>\nappellant   in\tone  of\t the  appeals,\thad   entered\tinto<br \/>\npartnership   agreement\t  with\t Lott  Ram   and   Rup\t Ram<br \/>\n(predecessor-in-interest of respondents 5 to 10), to run  an<br \/>\nagricultural farm on the lands of aforesaid Om Parkash.\t  In<br \/>\nthe  year 1949, Om Parkash filed a case for  dissolution  of<br \/>\npartnership and rendition of accounts.\tLoti Ram and Rup Ram<br \/>\ntook a plea that as per the terms of the partnership, on the<br \/>\ndissolution  of the partnership, they were entitled  to\t get<br \/>\n150 bighas of land as tenants.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">3.   The Land Tenures Act came into force on April 15, 1953.<br \/>\nThe appellant Jodha Ram purchased the lands in dispute\tfrom<br \/>\nOm Parkash through a sale deed dated November 21, 1953.\t The<br \/>\nCollector in exercise of the powers conferred on him by\t the<br \/>\nLand  Tenures Act, declared the lands in dispute as  surplus<br \/>\narea, by an order dated June 28, 1960.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">4.   In\t the  civil dispute, which was\tpending\t between  Om<br \/>\nParkash\t and Loti Ram, the District Judge by an order  dated<br \/>\nJune 18, 1970, held that Loti Ram and Rup Ram were  entitled<br \/>\nto  remain  in\tpossession  of the  lands  in  question,  as<br \/>\ntenants.   Jodha  Ram, the appellant, who had  acquired\t the<br \/>\nright,\ttitle and interest of Om Parkash by  aforesaid\tsale<br \/>\ndeed  dated November 21, 1953, did not care to\tget  himself<br \/>\nimpleaded as a party to that proceeding.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">5.   The  appellant,  Jodha Ram, however, filed\t a  petition<br \/>\nunder Section 9(1)(i) of the Land Tenures Act on August\t 16,<br \/>\n1973,  for  eviction  of Loti Ram and Rup  Ram,\t before\t the<br \/>\nAssistant  Collector,  on the ground that he himself  was  a<br \/>\nsmall landholder and the aforesaid tenants held large  areas<br \/>\nof land and as such he was entitled to the possession of the<br \/>\nlands in question under Section 9(1)(i) of the Land  Tenures<br \/>\nAct.  The Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that as<br \/>\nLott  Ram  and Rup Ram, the tenants, held 269 kanals  and  5<br \/>\nmarlas of land in addition to the lands in dispute and Jodha<br \/>\nRam  was  a  small landowner, he  was  entitled\t to  recover<br \/>\npossession  of\tthe lands in dispute.  On that\tfinding,  he<br \/>\ndirected  eviction of the tenants.  The Collector,  however,<br \/>\nallowed\t the appeals of the tenants, on the ground that\t the<br \/>\nlands which were the subject-matter of controversy, had been<br \/>\ndeclared  as surplus area of Om Parkash and Jodha  Ram,\t the<br \/>\nappellant, was not entitled to evict the tenants and to take<br \/>\npossession  thereof.   That  finding  was  affirmed  by\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner,  Ambala  Division, as well  as  the  Financial<br \/>\nCommissioner.\tUltimately,  a writ petition  was  filed  on<br \/>\nbehalf\tof the appellant, Jodha Ram, which was dismissed  by<br \/>\nthe  High  Court.  The High Court was of the view  that\t the<br \/>\nlands having been declared as surplus area<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">30<\/span><br \/>\nunder  the Land Tenures Act, and the validity of the  order,<br \/>\nhaving\tnot  been  questioned  by Om  Parkash  or  the\twrit<br \/>\npetitioner at any stage earlier, it was not open to the writ<br \/>\npetitioner to question the same in a proceeding initiated by<br \/>\nhim  under  Section  9(1)(i) of the Land  Tenures  Act,\t for<br \/>\neviction of the tenants, Loti Ram and Rup Ram.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">6.   Section 2(5-a) of the Land Tenures Act defines &#8216;Surplus<br \/>\nArea&#8217;:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>\t      &#8220;2. (5-a) &#8216;Surplus Area&#8217; means the area  other<br \/>\n\t      than  the reserved area, and, where,  no\tarea<br \/>\n\t      has  been reserved, the area in excess of\t the<br \/>\n\t      permissible area selected under Section 5-B or<br \/>\n\t      the  area which is deemed to be  surplus\tarea<br \/>\n\t      under  sub-section  (1)  of  Section  5-C\t and<br \/>\n\t      includes the area in excess of the permissible<br \/>\n\t      area selected under Section 19-B; but it\twill<br \/>\n\t      not include a tenants&#8217; permissible area:<br \/>\n\t      Provided\tthat  it will include  the  reserved<br \/>\n\t      area, or part thereof, where such area or part<br \/>\n\t      has  not been brought  under  self-cultivation<br \/>\n\t      within  six  months of reserving the  same  or<br \/>\n\t      getting  possession thereof after\t ejecting  a<br \/>\n\t      tenant from it, whichever is later, or if the<br \/>\n\t      landowner\t admits a new tenant,  within  three<br \/>\n\t      years of the expiry of the said six months.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_6\">On  a  plain reading any area in excess of  the\t permissible<br \/>\nlimit,\tdeclared  in accordance with the provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nLand Tenures Act, shall be deemed to be surplus area.<br \/>\nThe relevant pan of Section 9 is as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;9.  Liability of tenant to be ejected.- (1) Notwithstanding<br \/>\nanything  contained in any other law for the time  being  in<br \/>\nforce  no  landowner shall be competent to  eject  a  tenant<br \/>\nexcept when such tenant-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">(i)  is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or is a<br \/>\ntenant of a small landowner;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">Section 10-A provides:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">&#8220;10-A. (a) The State Government or any officer empowered  by<br \/>\nit in this behalf, shall be competent to utilize any surplus<br \/>\narea  for  the\tresettlement of tenants ejected,  or  to  be<br \/>\nejected, under clause (i) of subsection (1) of Section 9.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">(b)  Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for<br \/>\nthe  time  being  in  force and save in\t the  case  of\tland<br \/>\nacquired by the State Government under any law for the\ttime<br \/>\nbeing  in force or by an heir by inheritance no transfer  or<br \/>\nother disposition of land which is comprised in surplus area<br \/>\nat   the  commencement\tof  this  Act,\tshall\taffect\t the<br \/>\nutilization thereof in clause (a).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">Explanation.- Such utilization of any surplus area will\t not<br \/>\naffect\tthe right of the landowner to receive rent from\t the<br \/>\ntenant so settled.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">(c)  For the purposes of determining the surplus area of any<br \/>\nperson under this section, any judgment, decree or order  of<br \/>\na court or other authority, obtained after the\tcommencement<br \/>\nof this Act and having the effect of diminishing the area of<br \/>\nsuch  person which could have been declared as\this  surplus<br \/>\narea shall be ignored.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">31<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">There  is  no  dispute\tthat  in  exercise  of\tthe   powers<br \/>\nconferred,  by the provisions of the Land Tenures  Act,\t the<br \/>\nauthority concerned declared the lands in dispute as surplus<br \/>\narea  of  Om  Parkash on June 28, 1960.\t  According  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant, Jodha Ram, even if the land had been declared  as<br \/>\nsurplus area, as there was no provision in the Land  Tenures<br \/>\nAct  in respect of vesting of such lands in the\t State,\t the<br \/>\ntitle and ownership of the lands in question of Om  Parkash,<br \/>\nshall  be deemed to have been conveyed to the appellant,  in<br \/>\nview  of the sale deed dated November 21, 1953, executed  by<br \/>\nOm  Parkash in favour of the appellant.\t As such even  after<br \/>\nthe declaration of the lands as surplus area, the  appellant<br \/>\ncontinued  to be the owner thereof and entitled to get\tLoti<br \/>\nRam and Rup Ram, the tenants, evicted in accordance with the<br \/>\nprocedure prescribed under Section 9 aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">7.   Section  9(1)(i) confers the right on the landowner  to<br \/>\nget  a tenant evicted from such land, if the landowner is  a<br \/>\n&#8220;small\tlandowner&#8221;.   In the present  case,  the  appellant,<br \/>\nJodha Ram, was a small landowner vis-a-vis the two  tenants,<br \/>\nas  such  his  application was\tmaintainable  under  Section<br \/>\n9(1)(i).  But the question which has to be answered is as to<br \/>\nwhether after declaration of the lands as surplus area under<br \/>\nthe  provision of the Land Tenures Act, the appellant  could<br \/>\nhave taken possession of the lands under Section 9(1)(i)  by<br \/>\nevicting  the tenants.\tSection 10-A(a) empowers  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment  or\tany  officer authorised in  that  behalf  to<br \/>\nutilize\t any  surplus area for the resettlement\t of  tenants<br \/>\nejected, or to be ejected.  Section 10-A(b) enjoins that  no<br \/>\ntransfer or other disposition of land which is comprised  in<br \/>\nsurplus area, at the commencement of this Act, shall  affect<br \/>\nthe  utilization  thereof  in clause (a).  In  view  of\t the<br \/>\nexplanation,  the utilization of the surplus area is  to  be<br \/>\nmade by the State Government, only the right to receive rent<br \/>\nfrom  the  tenant, settled on such land,  remains  with\t the<br \/>\nlandowner.  In view of clauses (a) and b) of Section 10-A of<br \/>\nthe  Land Tenures Act, once any land is declared as  surplus<br \/>\narea,  in accordance with the provisions of that  Act,\tthen<br \/>\nthe right of utilization of such land remains with the State<br \/>\nGovernment  and the and owner has only the right to  receive<br \/>\nrent  from  the tenants settled on such lands.\tIt  is\ttrue<br \/>\nthat  there was no provision in the Land Tenures Act,  under<br \/>\nhigh all the right, title and interest of the landowner used<br \/>\nto  vest,  even after declaration of such  land\t as  surplus<br \/>\narea.  But his right to utilize the said land r to remain in<br \/>\npossession   thereof  was  absolutely  curtailed.   If\t the<br \/>\nlandowner,  as\tin the present case, the appellant,  had  no<br \/>\nright  to utilize the land, declared as surplus area  or  to<br \/>\nremain in possession thereof, we fail to understand, how any<br \/>\napplication on his behalf under Section 9(1)(i) to evict the<br \/>\ntenants\t and to resume possession of the lands\tin  question<br \/>\ncould  have  been entertained by  he  authorities.   Section<br \/>\n9(1)(i) obviously conceives lands, over which the and  owner<br \/>\nafter  eviction\t of  the tenant, on any\t of  the  conditions<br \/>\nmentioned herein, can resume possession of such lands.\t But<br \/>\nif in view of Section 10-A, he utilization of lands declared<br \/>\nas  surplus area, has to be with the State Government,\tthen<br \/>\nappellant  could not have exercised his power of  resumption<br \/>\nof  the possession, by evicting the tenants under Section  9<br \/>\nof the and Tenures Act.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">32<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">8.   Faced  with  this situation, it was  urged\t that  after<br \/>\ncoming\tinto force of the Haryana Ceiling on  Land  Holdings<br \/>\nAct,  1972,  the  situation  has  changed  inasmuch  as\t all<br \/>\ntransfers  made\t by the landholders prior to July  30,\t1958<br \/>\neven in respect of excess areas have been exempted from\t the<br \/>\nscope  and operation of the Ceiling Act.  Reference in\tthis<br \/>\nconnection  was made to Section 8 of that Act, the  relevant<br \/>\npart whereof is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>\t      &#8220;8.  Certain transfers or dispositions not  to<br \/>\n\t      affect surplus area.- (1) Save in the case  of<br \/>\n\t      land  acquired by the Union Government or\t the<br \/>\n\t      State  under  any law for the  time  being  in<br \/>\n\t      force  or by a tenant under the Pepsu  law  or<br \/>\n\t      the   Punjab law or by an heir by inheritance,<br \/>\n\t      no transfer or disposition     of\t  land\t  in<br \/>\n\t      excess of-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>\t      (a)   the permissible area under the Pepsu law<br \/>\n\t      or the Punjab law after the 30th day of  July,<br \/>\n\t      1958; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_3\"><p>\t      (b)   the\t permissible  area under  this\tAct,<br \/>\n\t      except  a bona fide transfer,  or\t disposition<br \/>\n\t      after  the  appointed day,  shall\t affect\t the<br \/>\n\t      right  of\t the  State  Government\t under\t the<br \/>\n\t      aforesaid Acts to the surplus area to which it<br \/>\n\t      would  be\t entitled but for such\ttransfer  or<br \/>\n\t      disposition:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_4\"><p>\t      Provided\tthat any person who has received  an<br \/>\n\t      advantage\t under such transfer or\t disposition<br \/>\n\t      of  land shall be bound to restore it,  or  to<br \/>\n\t      pay  compensation for it, to the\tperson\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      whom he received it.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_16\">It  was\t urged\tthat Section  8(1)(a)  specifically  exempts<br \/>\ntransfer  of even surplus area made prior to July 30,  1958,<br \/>\nas is the case in the present appeals.\tSection 12  contains<br \/>\nthe provision in respect of vesting of the surplus area.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_5\"><p>\t      &#8220;12.   Vesting  of  surplus  area.-  (1)\t The<br \/>\n\t      surplus  area of a landowner shall,  from\t the<br \/>\n\t      date  on\twhich  it is declared  as  such,  be<br \/>\n\t      deemed  to  have been acquired  by  the  State<br \/>\n\t      Government  for  a  public  purpose  and\t all<br \/>\n\t      rights,  title  and  interest  including\t the<br \/>\n\t      contingent interest, if any, recognised by any<br \/>\n\t      law,  custom  or usage for the time  being  in<br \/>\n\t      force, of all persons in such area shall stand<br \/>\n\t      extinguished   and  such\trights,\t title\t and<br \/>\n\t      interest\tshall vest in the  State  Government<br \/>\n\t      free from any encumbrance:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_6\"><p>\t      Provided\tthat  where  any  land\twithin\t the<br \/>\n\t      permissible area of the mortgagor is mortgaged<br \/>\n\t      with  possession and falls within the  surplus<br \/>\n\t      area  of\tthe mortgagee,\tonly  the  mortgagee<br \/>\n\t      rights  shall be deemed to have been  acquired<br \/>\n\t      by  the  State Government and the\t same  shall<br \/>\n\t      vest in it.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_7\"><p>\t      (2)   The right and interest of the tenant  in<br \/>\n\t      his surplus area which is included within\t the<br \/>\n\t      permissible area of the landowner shall  stand<br \/>\n\t      extinguished.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_8\"><p>\t      (3)   The\t area declared surplus\tor  tenant&#8217;s<br \/>\n\t      permissible area under the Punjab law and\t the<br \/>\n\t      area  declared  surplus under the\t Pepsu\tlaw,<br \/>\n\t      which  has  not  so far vested  in  the  State<br \/>\n\t      Government, shall be deemed to have vested  in<br \/>\n\t      the  State  Government with  effect  from\t the<br \/>\n\t      appointed\t day  and the area which may  be  so<br \/>\n\t      declared under the Punjab law or the Pepsu<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">\t      33<\/span><br \/>\n\t      law after the appointed day shall be deemed to<br \/>\n\t      have  vested  in\tthe  State  Government\twith<br \/>\n\t      effect from the date of such declaration.<br \/>\n\t      (4)   For the purposes of determination of the<br \/>\n\t      surplus  area  under this Act,  any  judgment,<br \/>\n\t      decree or order of a court or other authority,<br \/>\n\t      obtained\tafter the appointed day\t and  having<br \/>\n\t      the  effect  of diminishing the  surplus\tarea<br \/>\n\t      shall be ignored.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_17\">It  is\ttrue that Section 8(1)(a) says that no\ttransfer  or<br \/>\ndisposition of land in excess of the permissible area  under<br \/>\nthe  Punjab Law after July 30, 1958, shall affect the  right<br \/>\nof  the State Government under the aforesaid Act,  to  which<br \/>\nsurplus area the State Government would be entitled but\t for<br \/>\nthe  transfer or disposition.  July 30, 1958 has been  fixed<br \/>\nas  the\t cut-off date.\tTransfer or disposition of  land  in<br \/>\nexcess\tof the permissible area, under the Punjab  Law\tmade<br \/>\nafter July 30, 1958, will only be covered under the  Haryana<br \/>\nCeiling\t on Land Holdings Act.\tAny transfer made  prior  to<br \/>\nJuly  30, 1958 in respect of an excess area under  the\tLand<br \/>\nTenures\t Act, is not covered and has been exempted.  It\t was<br \/>\npointed out that as such lands transferred prior to July 30,<br \/>\n1958,  shall not vest in the State Government under  Section<br \/>\n12(3) of the Act.  Reference in this connection was made  to<br \/>\na  Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court<br \/>\nin  the\t case  of <a href=\"\/doc\/1380712\/\" id=\"a_1\">Jaswant Kaur v.  State  of  Haryana<\/a>&#8216;.\t  Mr<br \/>\nJustice\t O. Chinnappa Reddy (as he then was),  speaking\t for<br \/>\nthe Full Bench said:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_9\"><p>\t      &#8220;Shri  Naubat  Singh,  the  learned  Assistant<br \/>\n\t      Advocate-General,\t also agreed that we  should<br \/>\n\t      harmonise\t Section 8 and Section 12(3) in\t the<br \/>\n\t      manner that we have done but he suggested that<br \/>\n\t      the  date up to which transfers of  the  three<br \/>\n\t      categories specified by us earlier as (1), (2)<br \/>\n\t      and  (3) should be recognised, should  be\t the<br \/>\n\t      appointed\t day (January 24, 1971) and not\t the<br \/>\n\t      date  on which Section 12(3) came into  force.<br \/>\n\t      We do not agree.\tSection 1(2) of Act XVII  of<br \/>\n\t      1976  expressly  provides that the  Act  shall<br \/>\n\t      come into force on December 23, 1972.  We must<br \/>\n\t      give  some meaning and effect to it.   In\t our<br \/>\n\t      view, the effect of Section 12(3) coming\tinto<br \/>\n\t      force  from December 23, 1972 on Section 8  is<br \/>\n\t      that   transfers\tof  the\t  three\t  categories<br \/>\n\t      specified\t by us made up to December 23,\t1972<br \/>\n\t      would  be\t excluded  from\t the  operation\t  of<br \/>\n\t      Section  12(3),  that  transfers\tof  land  in<br \/>\n\t      excess  of  the  permissible  area  under\t the<br \/>\n\t      Punjab or Pepsu Law would be protected if made<br \/>\n\t      before  July 30, 1958 and that all other\tland<br \/>\n\t      not  excepted by Section 8 would vest  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      State   Government   with\t effect\t  from\t the<br \/>\n\t      appointed day.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_18\">9.   Even if it is held that the transfer made in favour  of<br \/>\nthe appellant in respect of the excess area on November\t 21,<br \/>\n1953  being prior to July 30, 1958, will not be affected  by<br \/>\nSection 12(3) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, still<br \/>\nthe  application for recovery of possession filed on  behalf<br \/>\nof  the appellant under Section 9(1)(i) of the Land  Tenures<br \/>\nAct has to be dismissed, because in view of Section 10-A  of<br \/>\nthat Act, the appellant is not entitled to resume possession<br \/>\nof the lands in question, after evicting the tenants.  These<br \/>\nappeals\t are  accordingly dismissed. But, in the  facts\t and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the cases,  there shall be no orders as  to<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">1 AIR 1977 P &amp; H 221, 229: 1977 Punj LJ 230: 1977 Rev LR 418<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_4\">36<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (1) 27, JT 1993 (6) 504 Author: S N.P. Bench: Singh N.P. (J) PETITIONER: JODHA RAM Vs. RESPONDENT: FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER DATE OF JUDGMENT11\/10\/1993 BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) RAMASWAMY, K. CITATION: 1994 SCC (1) 27 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-259967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-04T06:01:39+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-04T06:01:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2659,\"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\\\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993\",\"name\":\"Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-04T06:01:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-04T06:01:39+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993","datePublished":"1993-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-04T06:01:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993"},"wordCount":2659,"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\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993","name":"Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-04T06:01:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jodha-ram-vs-financial-commissioner-on-11-october-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jodha Ram vs Financial Commissioner on 11 October, 1993"}]},{"@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\/259967","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=259967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259967\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}