{"id":270100,"date":"1996-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996"},"modified":"2016-04-18T21:33:33","modified_gmt":"2016-04-18T16:03:33","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nD.R. LAXMI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t12\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nFAIZAN UDDIN (J)\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     This appeal  by special  leave arises from the Division
\nBench Judgment\tof the\tHigh  Court  of\t Rajasthan  made  on
\nSeptember 2, 1985 in W.P. No.602\/78. The  admitted facts are
\nthat  the  notification\t under\tSection\t 4(1)<\/a>  of  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the ‘Act’) was
\npublished in  the State\t Gazette on March 23, 1977 acquiring
\n31.28 acres  of land  for  defence  purpose.  Enquiry  under
\nSection 5-A<\/a>  was dispensed  with in  exercise of  the  power
\nunder Section 17(4)<\/a> of the Act and declaration under Section
\n6<\/a> was  published on  April 28, 1976. Possession was taken on
\nMay 19,\t 1977. The  award was  passed under  Section 18<\/a>\t was
\nsought and made in March 1978 to Civil Court for enhancement
\nof the compensation. In September 1978, the respondent filed
\nwrit petition  in the  High Court  seeking  to\t  quash\t the
\nnotification under  Section 4(1)<\/a>  and  the declaration under
\nSection 6<\/a>.  The learned\t single Judge referred the matter to
\nthe Division  Bench. The  Division Bench  has held  that the
\nacquired land is not an arable or waste land and, therefore,
\nthe exercise of the power under Section 17(4)<\/a> of the Act was
\nbad in\tlaw. Substance\tof the\tnotification   under Section
\n4(1)<\/a> was  not published\t in   the locality. The notification
\nunder Section  4(1)<\/a> did\t not mention  that it was a waste of
\narable land.  On these\t grounds,  the learned\tJudges\thave
\nquashed the  notification.  Thus,  this\t appeal\t by  special
\nleave.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri  Aruneshwar\tGupta,\tlearned\t  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants,   has contended that the  view of the High Court
\nis clearly  erroneous. It is not necessary that notification
\nunder Section  4(1)<\/a> should  contain a  declaration that\t the
\nneeded land  is a  waste or arable land. The finding that it
\nis neither  nor arable\tland is\t not correct  so long as the
\nland is\t capable of  cultivation. If no cultivation was made
\nit would  still be  arable land. Therefore, the view that it
\nis neither  waste nor  arable land  is not  correct.  It  is
\ndifficult to  accept the  entire six  acres of land which is
\nnow claimed  by the respondents was within the compound wall
\nas found  by the  High Court. The view that substance of the
\nnotification was  not published\t in locality was not correct
\nin law\twithout any  further discussion\t on facts  or  legal
\nprinciples. Even the finding cannot be well supported by any
\nmaterial on  record; in\t law the  High Court  was  wrong  in
\ninterfering under  Article 226<\/a>\tof  the\t Constitution.\tShri
\nRajinder Sachar, learned senior counsel for the respondents,
\ncontended that since the substance of the notification under
\nSection 4(1)<\/a>  was not  published which\t is  mandatory,\t the
\nnotification  under  Section  4<\/a>(10,  and  declaration  under
\nSection 6<\/a>  could be  challenged at  any time  even after the
\naward was made or possession was taken. Since publication of
\nthe notification  under Section\t 4(1)<\/a> is  the foundation for
\ntaking\t further steps for the acquisition, procedural steps
\nrequired under\tthe Act should be followed. The substance of
\nthe notification  under Section\t 4(1)<\/a> was  not published  in
\nthe locality.  So all the proceedings which had subsequently
\nbeen taken place stand nullified. Therefore, the Court would
\nin an  appropriate case\t grant the  declaration including to
\nquash the   award  future steps.  He also  contended that it
\nwould be   difficult  to accept\t that the  lands are  arable
\nlands, if  not\t waste land.  The finding  that the  land is
\narable land  is based  on consideration\t of the\t material on
\nrecord. Therefore,  it\t is not\t arable land. Further, it is
\ncontended that the  respondent had stated in the High  Court
\nthat he\t was prepared  to accept  the  compensation provided
\nthe date  of notification  under Section 4(1)<\/a> was shifted to
\nfour five years later to the actual date of the notification
\nunder Section  4(1)<\/a> published  on March\t 23, 1977.  He would
\nstand by  the same  offer and,\ttherefore, it  is not a case
\nwarranting interference.\n<\/p>\n
     The  questions,   therefore  are\t:  (1)\twhether\t the
\nnotification  under   Section  4<\/a>(10   should   contain\t the
\ndeclaration that  the lands  are waste\tor arable lands; (20
\nwhether the  exercise of  the power  under Section 17(4)<\/a> was
\nvitiated by  the finding  that the lands were not capable of
\ncultivation being  situated in\turban area;  (3) whether the
\nsubstance of  the notification\tpublished under Section 4(1)<\/a>
\nwas not\t published in the locality; if it not complied with,
\nwhen the  entire acquisition  proceedings had  become final,
\nwhether the High Court was justified in exercising the power
\nunder Article  226?<\/a> It\tis not necessary to recapitulate all
\nthe facts narrated above. Suffice it to state that after the
\nreference was  made to\tthe Civil  Court, it passed an award
\nunder Section 26<\/a> which was challenged by the State by filing
\nan  appeal   under   Section   54<\/a>   against   the   enhanced
\ncompensation. Thereby,\tthe  respondents  had  accepted\t the
\naward.\tThe   State  feeling   aggrieved  by   the  enhanced
\ncompensation, filed  an appeal\tin the\tHigh Court. The High
\nCourt,\t by judgments  dated May  5, 1982  and September 23,
\n1982, dismissed\t the appeals  which became  final. Thus, the
\nacquisition proceedings became final.\n<\/p>\n
     The question,  therefore, as  said above,\tis : whether
\nthe High  Court\t is  justified\tin  interfering\t with  these
\nmatters ?  Section 4<\/a>(10\t of the\t Act does  not\trequired  to
\nspecify the nature of the land, i.e. whether it is arable or
\nwaste  land.   The  object   of\t the   publication  of\t the
\nnotification under  Section 4(1)<\/a>  was that  (1) the  land is
\nneeded for  a public  purpose or is likely to  be needed;(2)
\nthe officers  of the  State are authorised to enter upon the
\nland  and   carry  on\tmeasurement   etc;   and   (3)\t the
\nowner\/interested  person   was\tput   on  notice   that\t any
\nencumbrance  hereafter\twould  not  bind  State.  Therefore,
\nSection 4(1)<\/a>  does not\tenvisage specification of the nature
\nof the\tland, i.e.  whether it is waste or arable land, when
\nthe same  was published.  The view,  therefore, of  the High
\nCourt  that  the  notification\tunder  Section\t4(1)<\/a>  should
\ncontain a  declaration of  the nature of the land is clearly
\nerroneous.\n<\/p>\n
     Second question  whether the  land is waster or arable,
\nis a  mixed question  of facts\tand law. It depends upon the
\nfacts in  each case.  In this case, it is seen that on their
\nown showing,  the land\tof an extent of 6 acres belonging to
\nthe respondents\t was sought  to be acquired along with other
\nvast extent  of land.  It consists  of\topen  land  as\twell
\nbuilding and  the servant  quarters. The  award of  the Land
\nAcquisition Officer  has been placed before us. The building
\nwas not\t acquired for  the public  purpose but\tonly servant
\nquarters came  to be  acquired. From  this  background,\t the
\nquestion arises\t : whether  the land  is arable\t land > This
\nquestion was  considered by  a\tBench  of  three  Judges  in
\nIshwarlal Girdharilal  Joshi vs.  State of Gujarat<\/a> [(1968) 2
\nSCR 267].  After  elaborate  consideration  of\tthe  various
\njudgments of  the High\tCourts and dictionary meaning of the
\nwords “arable” in that behalf, this Court has relied thus :\n<\/p>\n
     “There is no definition of the word
\n     ‘arable’  in   the\t original   Land
\n     Acquisition Act<\/a>.  A local amendment
\n     includes  garden\tlands\tin   the
\n     expression.  Now\tlands\tare   of
\n     different kinds  : there  is waste-
\n     land   desert-land,   pasture-land,
\n     meadow land, grass-land, wood-land,
\n     marshy-land, hilly\t land, etc.  and
\n     arable land.  The Oxford Dictionary
\n     gives the\tmeaning of  ‘arable’  as
\n     capable of\t being ploughed; fit for
\n     tillage ;\topposed to  pasture-land
\n     or wood  land and gives the root as
\n     arable is\tin  Latin.  The\t learned
\n     Judges have unfortunately not given
\n     sufficient\t  attention to the kinds
\n     of land  and the contrast mentioned
\n     with the  meaning. Waste-land comes
\n     from the  Latin vastitas  or vastus
\n     (empty, buildings).  It was  always
\n     usual  to\tcontrast  vastus  within
\n     incultus (uncultivated)  as in  the
\n     phrase   ‘to   lay\t  waste’   (agri
\n     vastate). A  meadow or pasture-land
\n     is pratum\tand arable  is arvum and
\n     Cicero  spoke   of\t prata\tet  arva
\n     (meadow and  arable lands).  Grass-
\n     land is  not meadow or pasture-land
\n     and in  Latin in known as campus as
\n     for example  the well-known  Campus
\n     Martius at\t Rome, where the comitia
\n     (assembly of the Roman people) used
\n     to\t meet.\tWoodlands    is\t silvae,
\n     nemora or saltus.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This was  considered also\tbe the Constitution Bench in
\nRaja Anand Brahma Shah vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors<\/a>.
\n[AIR 1967  SC 1801].  In that  case, the acquired lands were
\nmineral lands  for mining  purpose. Therefore,\tthe question
\narose; whether they were arable lands ? On the facts of this
\ncase, the  Constitution Bench  came to\tthe conclusion\tthat
\nsince they  were not arable lands, the exercise of the power
\nunder Section 17(4)<\/a> was not justified in law. In view of the
\nfact that  the Act itself has considered as to when the land
\ncould be  considered to be arable land; as explained by this
\nCourt, the interpretation put  up in Ishwar Lal’s case is in
\nthe correct  perspective. The Court has power t consider the
\nquestion  in that light. In considering the question whether
\nthe land  is arable  or waste,\tdictionary meaning  does not
\nhelp the  Court to  solve the problem. Pragmatic approach is
\nrequired to  be adopted\t in considering\t the question on the
\nfacts in  each case.  Though the lands in this case situated
\nin urban  area, the Urban Land Ceiling Act<\/a> itself recognises
\nexistence  of\tthe  agricultural  lands  within  the  urban
\nagglomeration and  they are dealt with accordingly. When the
\nlands were capable of the raising crops, they remained to be
\narable under  Section 17(4)<\/a> by the Government was not bad in
\nlaw. On\t facts, it is an arable land capable to cultivation.
\nIt is  quarter as  part of a large area, including six areas
\nof respondent’s\t lands, it  cannot be  said that the  ret of
\nthe land  is occupied  by the  buildings or  is\t  within the
\ncompound though\t situated in  urban area.  The view  of\t the
\nHigh Court, therefore, was clearly erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
     The  question   is\t :   whether  the   absence  of\t the
\npublication of the substance of the notification in locality
\nrenders the  entire proceedings\t void? We  need\t not  dilate
\nupon the  question whether local publication of substance of
\nSection 4(1)<\/a>  notification is  mandatory or directory. Since
\nthis Court  has consistently  taken the view that compliance
\nof   the requirement  of the publication of the notification
\nunder Section  4(1)<\/a> in the Gazette as well as publication of
\nthe substance  of the notification in the locality now under
\nthe Amended  Act in the newspaper, is mandatory requirement.
\nAs the\tfacts are  not in  controversy, as  mentioned in the
\njudgment  of   the  High   Court,  the\t substance  of\t the
\nnotification was  not published\t in the locality; we proceed
\non the\tpremise that second step, namely, publication of the
\nsubstance of  the notification\tin  the\t locality,  was\t not
\ntaken.\tThe   question\tthen   is  :  whether  Section\t4(1)<\/a>
\nnotification and  Section 6<\/a>  declaration are  required to be
\nquashed ? In this regard, we have to consider the conduct of
\nthe parties  and the effect thereof. Under the scheme of the
\nAct, after the possession of the land was taken either under
\nSection 17(2)<\/a> or Section 16<\/a>, the land stands vested in State
\nfree  from   all  encumbrances.\t  Thereafter,  there  is  no
\nprovision under\t the Act  to divest  the   title  which\t was
\nvalidly vested\tin the State. Under Section 48(1)<\/a> before the
\npossession is  taken, the  State Government  is empowered to
\nwithdraw from  the acquisition\tby its\tpublication  in\t the
\nGazette. In  this regard,  a three-Judge Bench of this Court
\nhas considered\tthe  question  in  Sanjeevanagar  Medical  &
\nHealth Employees’  Co-operative Society v. Mohd. Abdul Wahab
\n& Ors<\/a>. [(1996) 3 SCC 600] and held in paragraphs 12 thus :\n<\/p>\n
     “That apart, as facts disclose, the
\n     award was\tmade on\t 24.11.1980  and
\n     the   writ petition  was  filed  on
\n     9.8.1982. It is not in dispute that
\n     compensation was  deposited in  the
\n     Court of  the Subordinate Judge. It
\n     is\t asserted   by\t the   appellant
\n     Society that possession of the land
\n     was delivered  to it  and the  land
\n     had been  divided and  allotted  to
\n     its  members  for\tconstruction  of
\n     houses  and  that\tconstruction  of
\n     some houses had petition was filed.
\n     It\t would\t be  obvious   that  the
\n     question\tof   division\tof   the
\n     properties among  its  members  and
\n     allotment of  the respective  plots
\n     to them  would arise only after the
\n     Land Acquisition  Officer had taken
\n     possession of the acquired land and
\n     handed   it   over\t  to   appellant
\n     Society. By  operation of\t Section
\n     16<\/a>, the  land stood  vested in  the
\n     State free\t from all  encumbrances.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of
\n     U.P<\/a>.[(1993)   4   SCC   369],   the
\n     question\t    arose:\t whether
\n     notification under Section 4(1)<\/a> and
\n     the  declaration  under  Section  6<\/a>
\n     gets lapsed  if the  award\t is  not
\n     made within  two years as envisaged
\n     under  Section  11-A<\/a>?  A  Bench  of
\n     three Judges  had\theld  that  once
\n     possession was  taken and\tthe land
\n     vested in\tthe Government, title to
\n     the land  so vested in the State is
\n     subject only  to  determination  of
\n     compensation and to pay the same to
\n     owner. Divesting  the title  to the
\n     land  statutorily\t vested\t in  the
\n     Government and  reverting the  same
\n     to the  owner is  not Section 48(1)<\/a>
\n     gives  power   to\t withdraw   from
\n     acquisition   that\t   too\t  before
\n     possession is  taken. That question
\n     did not  arise in\tthis  case.  The
\n     property under  acquisition  having
\n     been vested  in the  appellants, in
\n     the absence  of any power under the
\n     act to have the title of appellants
\n     divested except  by exercise of the
\n     power under  Section  48(1)<\/a>,  valid
\n     title  cannot   be\t defeated.   The
\n     exercise of  the power to quash the
\n     notification under Section 4(1)<\/a> and
\n     the  declaration  under  Section  6<\/a>
\n     would    lead    to    incongruity.
\n     Therefore,\t the  High  Court  under
\n     those circumstances should not have
\n     interfered with the acquisition and
\n     quashed   the    notification   and
\n     declaration under\tSection 4<\/a>  and 6<\/a>
\n     respectively.    Considered    from
\n     either perspective,  we are  of the
\n     view that\tthe High Court was wrong
\n     in allowing the writ petition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Satinder  Prasad Jain’s case, another Bench of three
\nJudges had held that though award under Section 11-A<\/a> was not
\nwithin two  years after\t the Amendment\tAct<\/a> 68\tof 1984 came
\ninto force,  the title having  been vested in the State, the
\nnotification  under   Section  4(1)<\/a>  and  declaration  under
\nSection 6<\/a>  do not get lapsed and non-compliance of statutory
\nprovisions does\t not have  the effect of divesting the title
\nof the land vested in the Government free from
\nall encumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
     Recently, another\tBench of  this\tCourt  in  Municipal
\nCorporation of\tGreater Bombay\tVs. Industrial Development &
\nInvestment C.  (P) Ltd.\t [C.A. No.  282 of  1989] decided on
\nSeptember 6,   1996  reexamined the entire case law and held
\nthat once  the land  was vested\t in the State, the Court was
\nnot justified in interfering with the notification published
\nunder  appropriate   provisions\t of   the  Act.\t  Delay\t  in
\nchallenging the\t notification was  fatal and  writ  petition
\nentails with  dismissal on   grounds of latches. It is thus,
\nwell settled  law that\twhen there  is inordinate  delay  in
\nfiling the  writ petition  and\t when all steps taken in the
\nacquisition proceedings\t have become final, the Court should
\nbe loathe to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no
\ndoubt,\tdiscretionary\tpowers\tunder  Article\t226<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution to\t quash the  notification under\tSection 4(1)<\/a>
\nand declaration\t under Section 6<\/a>. But it should be exercised
\ntaking all  relevant factors  into pragmatic  consideration.
\nWhen the  award was  passed and\t possession was\t taken,\t the
\nCourt should not have exercised its power to quash the award
\nwhich is  a material  factor to\t be taken into consideration
\nbefore exercising the power under Article 226.<\/a> The fact that
\nno third  party were created in the case, is hardly a ground
\nfor interference.  The Division\t Bench of the High Court was
\nnot right  in interfering  with the  discretion exercised by
\nthe learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition or the
\nground of  latches. Reliance  was placed  by Shri  Sachar on
\nM.P. Housing  Board v. Mohd. Shafi & Ors<\/a>. [(1992) 2 SCC 168]
\nin  particular\tparagraphs  8,\twherein\t it  was  held\tthat
\ncompliance  of\t the  requirements  is\tmandatory  and\tnon-
\ncompliance  thereof   renders  all   subsequent\t proceedings
\nconnected  therewith   unexceptionably\tillegal\t ;  but\t the
\nquestion is  what will\tbe its\teffect.\t That  was  not\t the
\nquestion in  that case, since no award had come to be passed
\nin Nutakki  Sesharatanam v.  Sub-Collector, L.A.,  Vijaywada<\/a>
\n[(1992) 1  SCC 114] a two-Judge Bench of this Court had held
\nthat if the requirements of Section 4<\/a> are not complied with,
\nall  proceedings  had  become  invalid\tand  possession\t was
\ndirected to  be re-delivered to the appellant. We are of the
\nview that  the ratio therein is not correctly laid down. The
\nquestion  whether  violation  of  the  mandatory  provisions
\nrenders the  result of\tthe action  as void  or voidable has
\nbeen successfully  considered  in  “Administrative  Law”  by
\nH.W.R. Wade [7th Edition] at page 342-43 thus :\n<\/p>\n
     “The truth\t of the\t matter is  that
\n     the court\twill invalidate an order
\n     only if  the right remedy is sought
\n     by the  right person  in the  right
\n     proceedings and  circumstances. The
\n     order  may\t  be  hypothetically   a
\n     nullity, but  the court  may refuse
\n     to\t quash\t it   because\tof   the
\n     plaintiff’s   lack\t  of   standing,
\n     because  he   does\t not  deserve  a
\n     discretionary  remedy,  because  he
\n     has waived\t his rights, or for some
\n     other legal  reason.  In  any  such
\n     case  the\t ‘void’\t order\t remains
\n     effective\tand    is,  in\treality,
\n     valid. It follows that an order may
\n     be void  for one  purpose and valid
\n     for another;  and that  it\t may  be
\n     void against  one\tperson but valid
\n     against  another.\t A  common  case
\n     where  an\t order,\t however   void,
\n     becomes valid  is where a statutory
\n     time limit\t expires after which its
\n     validity cannot  be questioned. The
\n     statute does  not say that the void
\n     order  shall   be\tvalid;\t but  by
\n     cutting  off   legal  remedies   it
\n     produces that result.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The order\tor action,  if ultra  vires  the  power,  it
\nbecomes void  and it  does not\tconfer any  right.  But\t the
\naction need  not necessarily  set at  naught in\t all events.
\nThough the order may be void, if the party does not approach
\nthe Court within reasonable time, which is always a question
\nof fact\t and   have the\t order invalidated  or acquiesced or
\nwaived, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised in a
\nreasonable manner. When the discretion has been conferred on
\nthe Court,  the Court  may in  appropriate case\t decline  to
\ngrant the  relief, even if it holds that the order was void.
\nThe net\t result is  that extraordinary\tjurisdiction of\t the
\nCourt may not be exercised in such circumstances. It is seen
\nthat  the   acquisition\t has   become  final  and  not\tonly
\npossession had\talready been  taken but\t reference was\talso
\nsought for  ; the  award  of  the  Court  under\t Section  26<\/a>
\nenhancing the  compensation was\t accepted. The\torder of the
\nappellate court\t had also  become final.  The order  of\t the
\nappellate  court   had\talso   become  final.\tUnder  those
\ncircumstances, the  acquisition\t proceedings  having  become
\nfinal and  the compensation  determined also  having  become
\nfinal, the  High Court was highly unjustified in interfering
\nwith and  in quashing  the notification\t under Section 4<\/a> [1]
\nand declaration under Section 6<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true that  the respondent  had offered to accept
\nthe compensation by shifting the date of the notification by
\n4 to 5 years from the date of the notification under Section
\n4(1)<\/a>. For  this view, reliance\twas placed by Shri Sachar on
\nthe judgment  of this  Court in\t Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v.
\nRaj Kumar  Johri &  Ors<\/a>. [(1992) 1 SCC 328] where this Court
\nhad allowed  the shifting  of the date for the determination
\nof the\tcompensation. In  that case  since the award had not
\nbeen passed,  this Court had given the direction but in this
\ncase  award   determining  the\t compensation  has  attained
\nfinality. It  is not  a case  to  shift\t the  date  for\t the
\ndetermination of  the compensation.  Thus considered, we are
\nof the\tview that  the\tHigh  Court  was  not  justified  in
\ninterfering with  the  notification  and  declaration  under
\nSection 4(1)<\/a> and 6<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the
\nHigh Court  stands  set\t aside.\t The  writ  petition  stands
\ndismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: D.R. LAXMI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/09\/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J) ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-270100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996 - 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\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-18T16:03:33+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-18T16:03:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3252,\"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\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-18T16:03:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996 - 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\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-18T16:03:33+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-18T16:03:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996"},"wordCount":3252,"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\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996","name":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-18T16:03:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-d-r-laxmi-ors-on-12-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/270100","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=270100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}