{"id":268838,"date":"2010-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-23T02:08:41","modified_gmt":"2017-06-22T20:38:41","slug":"smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT or' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 1 1TH DAY OF NOVEMBER\n\nBEFORE\n\n{\nK\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 1)  A T.  \n\nWRIT PETITION Nos. 1O<v924--1A1Og9:2\u00a7-5\/20O;C?_'.(I;.4\\ BDM \nBETWEEN: 'V  "' A V'  M V\n\n1. Smt. Savithramma\nAged about 72 yea1*__s';,\nW\/0. Rangaiah. " '\n\n2. Sri.R. Subba=Raju  - \nAged about  \u00a77ears g \nS\/0. Late\ufb01-.4 F?;a_n_gaigh   ._  V\nBoth R\/at '\u00a7Jefx1k\u00e9itesh\u00e9ipu1*a~A--\nArabic.gCb11\u00e9ge.:;PQst,_"  " \nBar,iga1o'ree~,560_  j\n\nBoth _represe\ufb02te'd by.  Holder\nsr1.K.M. Abdul Hamrr; A\n\nAged abi;ut"'.74; 'yea-.1;s"~~*"\n\nS\/'()" Late KIM,' Mohammed Ismail Saheb\n  ..... \n<\/pre>\n
 ‘ V.Venka.tev\ufb01a.rapuram
\nA   VKad\u00a7i’gp11da_rig1ha11i
\n~. ‘Arabic College Post<\/p>\n
A Bangalore  — 560 045.\n<\/p>\n
— ‘  Sri: Venkateshalu,<\/p>\n
n .Aged'”7O years,<\/p>\n
 , gs\/go. Late Subbaiah.\n<\/p>\n
 Venkateshpura<\/p>\n
 Arabic College 130.\n<\/p>\n
” Bangalore — 560 045. …Petitioners.<\/p>\n
[By Sri.K. Suman, Adv. for P1 and P2,
\nSri. Narasimhan, Adv. for
\nM \/ s. Crest Law Partners for P3]<\/p>\n
AND:\n<\/p>\n
1. The State of Karnataka
\nBy its Secretary
\nUrban Development Authority,
\nl\\\/LS. Building,
\nBangalore — 560 001.    .\n<\/p>\n
2. The Commissioner
\nBangalore Development Authority,. 2
\nT. Chowdaiah Road, ”\n<\/p>\n
KP. West,
\nBangalore — 560 020.’<\/p>\n
3. The Addl. Land Acqiiils-itlion\ufb01 t\ufb01ffic-etr”,
\nBangalore Developmeiit.}?u.1tIr1ority’. ..
\nT. Chowdaial’:\u00abg..f?.oad:, {   ” ~ <\/p>\n
Bangalore —  it A it  …Respondents.<\/p>\n
[By S_ri,.Venliateshbolddelri, AGA for R-1,
\nUttam;  for R-2 and R3]<\/p>\n
=\u00a3==l<=ll==l==l==\u00a7=<\/p>\n
“rwi’r\ufb01e\u00a7\u00a5\u00e9*;\\i.~*\u00a31t Petitions are filed under Articles 226 &<\/p>\n
227~._of the\ufb01lonstitution of India with a prayer to declare<\/p>\n
 4  that theacquisition proceedings initiated by the R1 and 2
\n fag per preliminary notification dated 29.05.1978
\n._ ‘Cpublished in the Karnataka Gazette dated. 21.09.1978
\n9 2.  Annexure-A and the final noti\ufb01cation dated 28.2.1985<\/p>\n
  vide Annexure–B, in respect of the lands in Sy.No.136,
\n ~\u00bbmeasur1ng 5 acres 10 guntas and Sy.No.I38\/4 measuring<\/p>\n
 1 acre 22 guntas situated at Kadugondanahalli village,<\/p>\n
Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, insofar as it relates<\/p>\n
S  the” petition.\n<\/p>\n
to petitioners concerned only, has lapsed and\/ or
\nabandoned on account of non utilization of the lands by
\nthe BDA for more than three decades.\n<\/p>\n
These Writ Petitions coming on for pvrelliniinary<\/p>\n
hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the CouIjt.__I’I1a’de “the
\nfollowing: —\n<\/p>\n
These Writ petitions are stale <\/p>\n
and laches. Petitioners’ clai_rn~…inter’esVt in landj’1neasurir’ig<\/p>\n
an extent of 5 acres  guntas.in..Sy_i\\To..l3\u20acx_and 1 acre 22<\/p>\n
guntas in Sy.No. 1 38\/ –  ‘Kadugondanahalli<\/p>\n
Village of Kasapba__I~Ic-‘bVli,S  N.o’rth Taluk. Such<\/p>\n
lands *  acquisition under the
\nprovisions   Development Authority Act<\/a>,<\/p>\n
1976,’ {h_ereinavfterireferred to as ‘the BDA Act’) in terms of<\/p>\n
notificlation issued under Section 17<\/a> (1) and<\/p>\n
  dated 29.05.1978, copy at AnneXure\u00bb~A<\/p>\n
to the petition and \ufb01nal notification under Section 19<\/a> (1)<\/p>\n
  the EDA Act, dated 28.04.1985, copy at AnneXure–B to<\/p>\n
M <\/p>\n
2. It is the case of the petitioners that BDA had passed<\/p>\n
a resolution on 30.07.1988, copy at Anr1eXure–C to the
\npetition, resolving to give up the subject lands <\/p>\n
to the petitioners from the scope of
\nreason that though awards had bee.n__passeld’
\nthese lands also, physical posseslsiorr <\/p>\n
by the BDA, from the ownerls:,p:lb_nt  was’
\nreceived from one  said to be
\npower of attorney holdlerl sii:ch’_\u00bbl.rep’resentation and<\/p>\n
under such circu_rr_ista5r1ces,:}th-eAlntgti\ufb01catilon was denotified<\/p>\n
in respect ‘of?.*l_.and,’measuring an extent of 5 acres 16
\nguntas  Sy._No;-1,_3’6__””‘\u00abai1d 1 acre 22 guntas in<\/p>\n
Sy.No;138\/   the ‘version of the petitioners that the<\/p>\n
 fwas followed by a letter addressed to the<\/p>\n
8’Secreta1y’*\u00ab.__tol.l”Vv’-the Government, Housing and Urban<\/p>\n
Dev”elop.rnenlt Department by communicating the same as<\/p>\n
 the letter dated 28.1.1989 signed by the<\/p>\n
—  Commissioner, BDA, as per Annexure D to the petition.<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
3. It is the further Version of the petitioners that
\nthough the lands originally stood in the namejrocf one
\nRangaiah, on and after his demise on 5.8._..1\u00a7t
\npetitioner — wife and 2nd petitioner —
\nhave pursued the matter before  l’<\/p>\n
petitioner had been apprised’?.V_’by <\/p>\n
Development Authority (BDA)u”thatu_the’reduestv} of the 2nd
\npetitioner for pern1is”Sii:On’ ‘to ;_ the lands under
\n“Group Housing. Schen1–e.’7:jvvil1_b_e” fcorisidlered favourably,<\/p>\n
after the _ petition.er~s’:\u00ab _subrn_i’t 1] necessary material and<\/p>\n
records as -.in’..’..cornrnVunication dated 6.02.1997
\naddressed “to lthe:-m\ufb02ilfd’-[petitioner by the BDA as per<\/p>\n
Annexure E.’ ‘-\n<\/p>\n
i”4._  veontended by the petitioners that the efforts<\/p>\n
of the peititioners bore fruits by the Government issuing<\/p>\n
.c,.iv:(3oiv_erniT”1ent Order dated 17.11.1995 according approval<\/p>\n
.’  ‘the proposal of the BDA and also indicating that<\/p>\n
 “depending upon the nature of the project to be taken up<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
by the petitioners certain percentage of the land area
\nshould be earmarked for development activity in fav-our of
\nthe Low Income Group persons etc. V<\/p>\n
5. However, this aspiration of the petitioners
\nwas short lived, even as narrated; in”tl<3\u00a2  2
\nGovernment Order, which pwas   \u00ab.\n<\/p>\n
Petition came to be quashed  Clourt  of V<\/p>\n
a public spirited pers.i\u00a7pn.iA’   Court
\nthat the BDA could  \ufb01lvresollution nor could
\nhave accordeds_p’approval.  as it was not in<\/p>\n
their polwer etc;  .. ‘ <\/p>\n
6. In the.__’rnearixvhille,.illpetitioners claim that they were<\/p>\n
 madefjtlo run from  to post for making efforts not only<\/p>\n
 the lands for the purpose of “Group<\/p>\n
 but also for making efforts, to get the<\/p>\n
‘land  released from the purview of acquisition<\/p>\n
 ‘proceedings by the Government issuing the enabling<\/p>\n
 _.._ll”‘lnolti\ufb01cation under the provisions of section 48<\/a> of the Act.<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
7. It is in this background the present writ petitions on
\nthe premise that while such were the developments,
\nnevertheless, the officials of the 2nd respondent — EDA<\/p>\n
have caused interference affecting the interestVV_*o_:fi..Vthe<\/p>\n
petitioners in taking possession of the lands,<\/p>\n
by high hand action as on 8,\/\u00a320095′”‘as*.:’_axrerred  <\/p>\n
paragraph 17 of the petition which.prea_AdsV asvfoiijows:E”f*–._””1I_’<\/p>\n
“17. Under the cireumstanccs,’* there is an
\nimminent threat'”‘qf’ _fc;rcibZeV; dispossession,
\nwhich made ‘it “0-bviouufs by sending
\ntheir ~t’1′;_’:f’iCt(_Zl_.l_;f?\/\u20acI1_.’:1iT1\u20ac\u20acFS is the lands of the
\npetitioners on 408j.;04′.-2009 ‘to measure the
\n ‘  :;.peti-tioners h.ai_:,e therefore forthwith
\nfiled ‘the, above’ ‘writ petition by invoking the
\ntvritjurrisdiction “under Articles 226 and 227 of
\nthe Const_itu.toion”—._of\u00ab “India, as they have no
\nalternative .e_[Fica:;ious remedy and urges the
\ngjiailowing  main grounds in support of the
\n P.T.CiU_\u20acr.”  …..\n<\/p>\n
 T a ‘q;rieved”vpetitioners have therefore, approached this<\/p>\n
Co.tn’~t  following prayer.\n<\/p>\n
‘..’i.’7.. to declare that the acquisition proceedings<\/p>\n
.. _ in’itiated by the respondents 1 and 2 as per
\n” V V kpreiiminarg notification bearing No.High
\nV ‘ –*Court\/PE’1’1TIONER\/ALAO\/ 12\/ 78-79 dated\n<\/p>\n
29. 05.1978 published in the Karnataka Gazette
\ndated 21.09.1978 i.e. Annexure-A and the final
\nnotification No.HUD 567 MNX 84 dated
\n28.02.1985 published in the Karnataka Gazette<\/p>\n
3′<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
on June 6 1985 i.e., Annexure–B, in respect of<\/p>\n
the lands in Sy.No.I36, measuring 5 Acres 10
\nguntas and Sy.No.138\/4 measuring 1 Acre 23
\nGuntas, situated at Kadugondanahalli Village;
\nKasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Tatuk,
\nas it relates to petitioners; are concerned only  ”
\nhas lapsed and \/ or abandoned on acc’o._unt’r~of .,
\nnon utilization of the lands bathe BDA’for’_mo’re” ,
\nthat three decades; 7     .\n<\/p>\n
ii. to award costs andgrant such other-l’-relief(s}\u00b0’;
\nas this Hon’ble Court deenesfit  in<\/p>\n
the circumstances, of the i”n-the interests of<\/p>\n
justice and equity?’  <\/p>\n
8. Notice of .the.se   issued to the<\/p>\n
respondents’  –Governme1’1t’Advocate was directed to
\ntake no”tipe’e._ fort’ “if?’–..:tespondent — State and Sn’.<\/p>\n
Basavpataj ~VSabarad’;V_l1e’a;rned counsel had been directed<\/p>\n
 “to  motiee forlllfespondent Nos.2 and 3 on the very day.<\/p>\n
‘”1slpe.2o09 learned counsel Sri KM. Nataraj,<\/p>\n
hadappearanee and henceforth his name was<\/p>\n
diteetedvtt) be shown in the eause~1ist.<\/p>\n
  ‘*9, . {:1 the meanwhile, an application Mise.W.9547\/2009<\/p>\n
  impleading appears to have been filed for impleading<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
the applicant as 3″? petitioner, which was entertained and<\/p>\n
ordered by this Court on 9.10.2009.\n<\/p>\n
10. Be that as it may, While the interim <\/p>\n
20.4.2010 reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“HNNDJ:\n<\/p>\n
20\/04\/201 0<\/p>\n
Both the pdrii\u00a7\u00a7s._pare hfierebyl <\/p>\n
to rnaintain stat1.Ls–qt:ov’tillV the”nc3xt’ date of<\/p>\n
List these rnti-tiers _irniifLe\u00e9iiately after
\nvarration.”  * V  <\/p>\n
No further’ideifciopii:ien’t*tohave taken place and the<\/p>\n
15* 1’espo:iide_nt  Karnataka, 2nd Respondent —<\/p>\n
The C0n:1mi\u00e9ei9’I1er’,— “and 3rd respondent — The Addl.<\/p>\n
‘ll'”Land.l:A\u00a3;quisitioril’Officer, BDA, have blissfully remained<\/p>\n
 to file counters either on the factual<\/p>\n
situationasn\u00e9ayerred in the writ petition or to point out any<\/p>\n
  legal position on the merits of the petition.<\/p>\n
  it is in this state of affairs the petition is listed today<\/p>\n
 .bel”ore the Court in ‘B’ Group category of cases. I have<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
heard Sr}. Suman, learned counsel and Sri. Diwakar,
\nlearned counsel appearing for petitioners 1 and 2 and Sr}.
\nNarasimhan, learned counsel appearing for vppetltioner
\nNo.3, Sri. Venkatesh Dodderi, learned ‘lei<\/p>\n
respondent — State and Sri. Uttam, 1ea_rn.ed’v.Vvcoi:insel<\/p>\n
respondents 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
12. Even after hearing elab:o’r.ate
\nSri Suman, learned co–i1.nsel&..fo’i lpet1tione1*’s,’il find these
\nwrit petitions are while’  and laches<\/p>\n
are also not  eliiciting the’~vdjiscreVf:1on of this Court in<\/p>\n
the exercise .ofv=tl1eljnrisdietion under Article 226<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Constitutic-.nlo,f   it to be dismissed only on the<\/p>\n
 4. .t groiiiildt delay.  ‘   ttttt .. \u00bb<\/p>\n
0’   learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
respond_erit0s”‘2 and 3 submits that as per the records of<\/p>\n
 Jthet_.BD’1–‘i “possession of the subject lands had been taken<\/p>\n
2.-fr_oni”‘:the petitioners as on 7.08.2008 in terms of the<\/p>\n
0  lvlahazar drawn on that day etc., but no original records is<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
placed and while that cannot be characterized as a
\ndereliction of duty, as these writ petitions have nvct___\u00bbeven
\nbeen admitted by issue of rule, the
\ncounters by the 2″” and 3″ respondent is
\nMany factual averments are made: the V
\nif it is not countered, it has to
\nassertions of the petitioner’\u00a7,:’.’~. is V  the
\nrespondents. Such   b3rthelVSupreme
\nCourt in terms of the   HINDUSTAN
\nPETROLEUM   “ve3pAmUs SHAPUR
\n 3520, .in situations
\nwhere  file a counter to deny or<\/p>\n
dispute-va factual averinent made even in a writ petition.<\/p>\n
  Sri Uttam, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
 and 3, submits that the of\ufb01cials of the<\/p>\n
 _ respondent-a’uthority had taken physical possession of the<\/p>\n
 .s:uAb;;ect land even as on 7-8-2008 in terms of the records<\/p>\n
l.’_;~1.ai;V:ii1ab1e at the office of the authority [no such records in<\/p>\n
“the original are either placed before the court nor has the<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
authority filed any written statements to indicate this
\nfactual position] or to counter the assertion on theppart of
\nthe petitioners that they are still in physicai
\nthe subject land is either wrong or incorrect.  it  H<\/p>\n
15. Submission of Sri Venkateshfiflljodderi,.;vl\u00ableai*ned’l’
\nappearing for the first responVdent:’statei. even
\nno counter is filed, it is openl”‘to:”the  forth
\nthe authority to  is to be
\ndismissed on the  as the
\npossession of  taken over by
\nBDA,   nor any other authority can<\/p>\n
rescile from acqufisitiion proceedings and it is because<\/p>\n
 this Was…_.realized, the principal secretary to<\/p>\n
the department of urban development had<\/p>\n
addreslsed’a’i._letter to the commissioner. BDA on 23-2-<\/p>\n
  at Annexure–J to the writ petition], eiiciting<\/p>\n
   factual information and the View of the<\/p>\n
 “–\ufb02lcporhmissioner to submit the government as to whether the<\/p>\n
Lllsubject land and the surrounding lands as indicated in<\/p>\n
i
\nI<\/p>\n
13<\/span>
\nthe sketch have been taken possession of by the BDA and<\/p>\n
as to whether a notification had been 1’SSu(3C1V.-‘L_1_l’1Cl\u20acI’
\nSection 16(2)<\/a> of the Act for such
\ninformation was elicited in the wake of”
\nrepresentation submitted by Sri
\nformer minister, to the governor
\na copy of such a representationajalidpitsVanri’cnure;s’Hetc., for
\nthe purpose of examining  to whether
\nacquisition proceedingsiyyinrespect  land can be\n<\/p>\n
16. Howe’verV,d   learned AGA is that the<\/p>\n
government   reply till date, but no reply<\/p>\n
 has,_b’eenp’1’eVceive’d\u00abVby\ufb01the government in response to this<\/p>\n
 Learned AGA submits that he is not<\/p>\n
conversant instructed as to whether the letter had<\/p>\n
dli”‘~,.._”~been folloived up by the government for securing a reply<\/p>\n
A   the commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
~\u00a7\/<\/p>\n
 2 Vof\ufb01cer.  *2<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
17. While the manner in which the respondents have
\nconducted themselves and have responded to the notice
\nissued by this court calling upon them to respon.d\u00b0–.as to
\nWhether rule can be issued to examine this
\nleaves much to be desired by them
\nsilent as though both the stated’
\ndevelopment authority are not__.accou!ntableV
\nthe notices issued by this  have degree<\/p>\n
of irresponsible,   factual<\/p>\n
averments are .sough,tw–to’= be in terms of<\/p>\n
submissionsi’ court by the learned counsel
\nappearinguforpthepfirstrespcndent–state and respondents 2<\/p>\n
and  –\u00a2developm’ent’ authority and its land acquisition<\/p>\n
 VA11″-oral*va.submission to counter a factual assertion<\/p>\n
made by  petitioners, affirmed and supported by oath<\/p>\n
 ‘cf the povver of attorney holder of the petitioner, is no good<\/p>\n
  even in terms of the law declared by the Supreme<\/p>\n
\u00a32\/,<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
19. Added to such irresponsible conduct and n0n~<\/p>\n
production of any record before this court, which, at’–least.<\/p>\n
could have bailed out the respondents for <\/p>\n
the submission made by their counsel,.V__thatfalsod <\/p>\n
having been done, though the  <\/p>\n
this court for the past more than.’\/2  <\/p>\n
respondents remained blissfullydlgdsilentr ‘t\u00abh:is’V’:cori\u00a7duct and
\nattitude only creates  ‘a,s\u00bbito.ythe bona fides of
\nthe conduct of the respo.nci_ents   such matters<\/p>\n
on behalf ofthe  authorities in either a<\/p>\n
diligent or proper Trnarinelr or even in terms of available
\ndefences”avai1ableto.”the-respondents. It is suffice to say<\/p>\n
that ;the con.duct  the response of the three<\/p>\n
  ‘~1eavesV”rnuch to be desired and if such is the
\n tli_ei’:’notices issued by this court, it is rather
\n _ doub’tful._’:as:”‘to the quality of the governance the state<\/p>\n
H K   gotresrnrnent is providing to the citizens of the state!<\/p>\n
 “Even drawing attention of the court by Sri Dodderi.<\/p>\n
T  learned AGA, to Annexured, in itself speaks a story and<\/p>\n
l7<\/p>\n
desirous of defending the interest of the state, which is the
\nhighest public body in the state or as to whether they are
\nmore in collusion with the petitioners and such’.
\nbefore the court is only to enable the petitio;i1’elrsV~:::t_\u00e9iJ H
\nrelief sought for in the writ petition more due. ., 2 <\/p>\n
the part of the respondents!<\/p>\n
23. What is examined  ‘petit1jt)nl”‘:,vpi7\u00a3}h1le is’
\nundoubtedly the action._of theandl’its”‘agencies,
\nwhich partake the character tstatef the meaning<\/p>\n
of Article 12<\/a> of..t\u00abhe ‘1Constitgu:tionexobf.j\u00a711\u00a7i_1\u00a7\u00a7.’ and it is judicial<\/p>\n
review of adn1inistrat.ive’\u00bb,act,ion and suspect or gullible<\/p>\n
action on  ot’Athe::_’lstate government, while can be<\/p>\n
.-v..found’-ifauplt an.d”_t.l1e court quashing the same, if so<\/p>\n
l’~warrantevd;’*by.issue of a writ of certiorari, it does not mean<\/p>\n
that  conferred on any person approaching<\/p>\n
 _ ‘court for relief in writ jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
 2\u00a5L’.’..p_\u00a7etitioners. if have any right, constitutional,<\/p>\n
.lsta’_t\u00a7utory or otherwise, can only sustain those rights<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
before the court and cannot either augment such rights or
\nacquire new rights by orders passed in exerci_se_V of
\njurisdiction under Articles 226 and <\/p>\n
Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
25. While the action on the
\nthe conduct on their part anti  their” to
\nsome extent favour  ‘petit_i’o’n_er~:’fh\u00a7p’tVi’c.reatingA avsituation
\nthat the factual’ assertioitpp  writ petition,
\nperhaps, wouidlhhfnave  of denial or<\/p>\n
counter, the present  petitions are one which is<\/p>\n
Woefullfphiti by’   , for the simple reason<\/p>\n
that the reI’1eef the touchstone of Section 27<\/a><\/p>\n
 V. of the reading \u00abasunder:\n<\/p>\n
   to execute the scheme<\/p>\n
 . -.”_within five years:- Where within a period of
\n7 jive yearsifrom the date of the publication in the
\n ism: “gazette of the declaration under sub-
\n section (1) of Section 19<\/a>, the authority fails to
\nV A. eexecute the scheme substantially, the scheme
\nV Shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36<\/a>
\n shall become inoperative.\n<\/p>\n
\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
is further based on the ground that the scheme mooted by
\nthe development authority is a failed scheme, in the -“sense,<\/p>\n
a scheme which has substantially
\nimplementation and therefore Section
\noperates. Petitioners have not
\nthe court to indicate that the
\nfailed in its implementation    tound
\nin the petition. On  of Sri K
\nSuman, learned _counsel_for_ is that in so<\/p>\n
far as the petitioinersp’V3′-lands are “concerned, the scheme<\/p>\n
has failed einiplemevntation, particularly in the
\nwake of tlrie” asserti”o’11iVon’.’tl1’e part of the petitioners that<\/p>\n
they have still rer’r1aine’d  possession of the subject land.<\/p>\n
 ’26.VV.’i”W1t;uether_ the petitioners are in possession, as<\/p>\n
Vlaslserfted-illfby  or as to Whether the respondent<\/p>\n
 _ authority’  taken possession of the land as claimed by<\/p>\n
.their__ learned counsel is a disputed aspect, as even oral<\/p>\n
piA*_.su.b’missions are made on behalf of the respondents 2 and<\/p>\n
3′”that they have taken possession and on behalf of the<\/p>\n
3’zf\/<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
first respondent-state, learned AGA is not in a position to
\nassert one way or the other, in the absence of a specific
\nreply to the communication under AnneXure~JVV.an:dr._’the<\/p>\n
situation or scenario is shrouded in mystery,__ha2y..’_’p_<\/p>\n
unclear, it is hazardous for this court to ver1tu:re’t’o r–eco_rd <\/p>\n
a finding on such a hotly disputed, vaijit
\njurisdiction. 9 V9 V 9 I 9<\/p>\n
27. But, more importantly,~p_e’titions vvoefully hit
\nby delay and laches sought for based
\non Section 27<\/a> ofithte   if it is not<\/p>\n
substantially ‘- Within a period of five years<\/p>\n
from the  of of a declaration by the state<\/p>\n
 < that"th.e…subject land was required for a public<\/p>\n
 so the cause of action for invoking Section<\/p>\n
27<\/a>   five years from the date of publication of<\/p>\n
 dated 28\u00bb4\u00ab\u00ab1985 notification, i.e. the cause of<\/p>\n
VA   for seeking any relief before a court arose five years<\/p>\n
‘ad”–llithereafter i.e. on 29-4-1990, these writ petitions filed in<\/p>\n
 respect of such a cause of action which arose in the year<\/p>\n
iv<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
1990 only in the year 2009, i.e. 19 years after the lapse of
\nthe arisal of cause of action, and is therefore wti:efuflgly”‘hit<\/p>\n
by delay and laches.\n<\/p>\n
28. Though the learned counsei forathelpetiti-onersl has<\/p>\n
submitted that the promise.___ held out  <\/p>\n
government and the resoiution\u00a7lj4ofll.tl1\u20ac:_pBI9}X   the first
\ninstance that they   of the state
\ngovernment for  proceedings
\netc., encouraged  ailpossible relief at the
\nhands   Estate government and
\nthereforedid’  to approach this court for<\/p>\n
relief and  the  of the authority going back on<\/p>\n
.–‘V.such:”}’3ron1ises ant} precipitating action by interfering with<\/p>\n
 the subject land by the petitioners in or<\/p>\n
around  2009 was the cause for presenting the<\/p>\n
  9 p.resent*~vvrit petitions, but the relief sought for being based
\n   Vthlejcause of action which definitely arose even as per
\nH   pleadings in the petition in the year 1990, all<\/p>\n
 ._.subsequent events are not of much significance, as the<\/p>\n
……Mwwmwmm\u00ab <\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners, if at all, are fence sitters and not seeking for
\nrelief at the right time and are definitely carele’s:sj’.o:and<\/p>\n
negligent in seeking relief before Writ court. <\/p>\n
.1′<\/p>\n
29. Writ jurisdiction under Article   “tithe<\/p>\n
Constitution of India is a r.iis<:_retioi1ary jurilsrjiie.tion and,"<\/p>\n
relief in this jurisdiction is atibona fide
\nperson who  for a rightful
\nrelief. It is onlyrwheni-a'   be granted in
\nlaw, one gets  and not based on
\nsympathv…,ed'u:it}f*:or_  ailiedhonsiderations. A writ
\npetitioner has ground for seeking relief<\/p>\n
on the touchstone of fc_oI1s~titutional provisions or statutory<\/p>\n
 V. provislioris.  Relief 'isnot based on other considerations.<\/p>\n
  of affairs, 1 am of the clear opinion that<\/p>\n
 _ irrespiectiireolf the conduct or inaction on the part of the
\n writ petitioners are not entitled for any relief
\n',1_'in7-theigexercise of discretionary jurisdiction by this court<\/p>\n
 while this writ petition is only to be dismissed, that<\/p>\n
3 23<\/p>\n
does not absolve the state government from its inaction,
\nirresponsible conduct and virtually showing disresp'ec't,.A4to<\/p>\n
the notice issued by this court.\n<\/p>\n
31. Such action on the part
\nstrongly depreciated and “it is -onlydfhoped
\nat least the state governmen’t”\u00ab..f’a1id\u00bb   and its
\nagencies like a   respondent
\nevince comrriensurate ire-spoinsef issued and
\nimprove thsiri.\/’iv   in an efficient
\nmanner  of the state and the
\nleast  has   the present writ petitions
\nagainst  having put the petitioners
\n  about one year, is to mulct the
\n,,,__\u00a25t.3d..te –. and the second respondent–BDA with
\n [Rupees twenty five thousand only]
\n   to be paid by Way of exemplary costs levied
\n “for their gross inaction bordering on possible<\/p>\n
 ..__b”co1lusion with the petitioners to ensure that relief which<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010 Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT or’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1 1TH DAY OF NOVEMBER BEFORE { K THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE 1) A T. WRIT PETITION Nos. 1O<v924–1A1Og9:2\u00a7-5\/20O;C?_'.(I;.4\\ BDM BETWEEN: 'V "' A V' M V 1. […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268838","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010 - 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\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-22T20:38:41+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-22T20:38:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3321,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-22T20:38:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010 - 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\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-22T20:38:41+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-22T20:38:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010"},"wordCount":3321,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010","name":"Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-22T20:38:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-savithramma-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Savithramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/268838","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=268838"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268838\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268838"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268838"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268838"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}