{"id":28966,"date":"1959-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959"},"modified":"2016-05-21T04:41:36","modified_gmt":"2016-05-20T23:11:36","slug":"state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959","title":{"rendered":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 356, \t\t 1960 SCR (2) 346<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHAKUR GANGA SINGH AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/11\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR  356\t\t  1960 SCR  (2) 346\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1965 SC 682\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\nSupreme\t Court, Appellate jurisdiction of-Special  leave  to\nappeal-When can be granted-Substantial question of law as to\nthe   interpretation   of   the\t  Constitution-Meaning\t of-\nConstitution of India, Art. 132(2).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondents filed a petition in the High Court of  Jammu\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Kashmir Motor Vehicles Rules.  The High Court held that\t the
\nsaid  rule  was\t ultra vires as offending  Art.\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThe appellants filed an application  in\t the
\nHigh  Court  for  a certificate under  Art.  132(1)  of\t the
\nConstitution  which  was  rejected on  the  ground  that  no
\nsubstantial question of law as to the interpretation of\t the
\nConstitution  was  involved  in the  case.   Thereafter\t the
\nappellant applied to this Court for special leave under Art.
\n132(2)\tof the Constitution, which was granted with  liberty
\nto the respondents to raise the question of  maintainability
\nof the appeal.\tThere was no controversy between the parties
\nin   regard  to\t the  interpretation  of  Art.\t14  of\t the
\nConstitution,  and the dispute centered round  the  question
\nwhether\t the  impugned\trule stood the\ttest  of  reasonable
\nclassification.\t   The\trespondents  raised  a\t preliminary
\nobjection  that\t special  leave under  Art.  132(2)  of\t the
\nConstitution  could be granted by this court only if it\t was
\nsatisfied  that the case involved a substantial question  of
\nlaw  as to the interpretation of the Constitution, and\tthat
\nsince, in the present case, the interpretation of Art. 14 of
\nthe Constitution was not in dispute by reason of a series of
\ndecisions of this Court and no question of law, much less  a
\nsubstantial question of law, could arise for  consideration,
\nno special leave could be granted under the said Article.
\nIt was contended on behalf of the appellants that whenever a
\nquestion  of  classification  was  raised  that\t by   itself
\ninvolved  the interpretation of Art. 14 of the\tConstitution
\nso far as the impugned classification was concerned.
\nHeld,  that  the principle underlying Art.   132(2)  of\t the
\nConstitution is that the final authority of interpreting the
\nConstitution  must rest with the Supreme Court.\t  With\tthat
\nobject that Article is freed from other limitations  imposed
\nunder  Arts.  133  and 134 and the right of  appeal  of\t the
\nwidest\tamplitude is allowed irrespective of the  nature  of
\nthe  proceedings  in  a case involving\tonly  a\t substantial
\nquestion   of\tlaw  as\t to  the   interpretation   of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
The interpretation of a provision means the method by  which
\nthe  true  sense or the meaning of the word  is\t understood.
\nWhere
\n\t\t     347<\/span>
\nthe  parties  agree  as\t to the\t true  interpretation  of  a
\nprovision  or do not raise any question in respect  thereof,
\nthe  case  does not involve any question of law\t as  to\t the
\ninterpretation of the Constitution.  A substantial  question
\nof  law\t cannot arise where that law has  been\tfinally\t and
\nauthoritatively decided by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
In  the instant case, the question raised does\tnot  involve
\nany  question  of  law\tas  to\tthe  interpretation  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
T.M.  Krishnaswami  Pillai v. Governor\tGeneral\t in  Council
\n(1947)\t52 C.W.N. (F.R.) 1, Bhudan Choudury v. The State  of
\nBihar,\t[1955]\t1 S.C.R. 1045, Chiranjit  Lal  Chowdhuri  v.
\nUnion  of  India,<\/a> [1950] S.C.R. 869, Ram Krishna  Dalmia  v.
\njustice\t Tendolkar,  [1959] S.C.R. 279 and  Mohammad  Haneef
\nQuayeshi v. State of Bihar, [1959] S.C.R.629, relied on.\n<\/p>\n
&
\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 217 of 1959.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJune 20, 1958, of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in\tWrit
\nPetition No. 108 of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
H.   N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India,
\nN.   S.\t Bindra,  R.  H.  Dhebar and  T.  M.  Sen,  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
R.   K. Garg and M. K. Ramamurthy, S. N. Andley, J.    B.
\nDadachanji,  Rameshwar\tNath  and  P.  L.  Vohra,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
1959.  November 26.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nSUBBA  RAO  J.-This  appeal  by\t special  leave\t raises\t the
\nquestion of the scope of Art. 132(2) of the Constitution.
\nThe  first  respondent\tis one of the  shareholders  of\t the
\nsecond\t respondent,  M\/s.   Jammu  Kashmir  Mechanics\t And
\nTransport   Workers  Co-operative  Society   Limited   Jammu
\n(hereinafter   called\tthe  Society).\t The   Society\t was
\nregistered   under  the\t Jammu\tand   Kashmir\tCo-operative
\nSocieties Act No. 6 of 1993 (Vikrimi).\tThey put in a number
\nof applications before the third appellant for the grant  of
\nstage  carriage\t and  public carrier  permits  to  them\t for
\nvarious\t routes\t in  the State of Jammu &  Kashmir,  but  no
\npermits were granted to them on the ground that under r.  4-
\n47 of the Jammu
\n348<\/span>
\nand  Kashmir  Motor Vehicle Rules  (hereinafter\t called\t the
\nRules), service licence could only be issued to a person  or
\na company registered under the Partnership Act and that,  as
\nthe Society was neither a person nor a partner Ship, it\t was
\nnot entitled to a licence under the Rules.   The respondents
\nfiled a petition in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir  under
\nS.  103 of the Constitution of Jammu &\tKashmir\t challenging
\nthe  vires  of r. 4-47 of the Rules.  To that  petition\t the
\nappellants  herein, viz., the Government of Jammu &  Kashmir
\nState, the Transport Minister, the Registering Authority and
\nthe Traffic Superintendent, were made party-respondents: The
\nHigh  Court  held  that the said rule  was  ultra  vires  as
\noffending Art. 14 of the Constitution, and, on that  finding
\ndirected a writ of mandamus to issue against the  appellants
\nherein from enforcing the provisions of the said rule.\t The
\nappellants  filed  an application in the High  Court  for  a
\ncertificate  under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution, but\t the
\nHigh  Court  rejected it on the ground that  no\t substantial
\nquestion of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
\nwas involved in the case.  Therefter the appellants  applied
\nfor special leave under Art. 132(2) of the Constitution\t and
\nthis  Court granted the same.  The order giving the  special
\nleave expressly granted liberty to the respondents herein to
\nraise  the question of the maintainability of the appeal  at
\nits final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t Counsel  for the respondents raises  a\t preliminary
\nobjection  to  the maintainability of the  appeal.   Shortly
\nstated\this  objection\tis that under  Art.  132(2)  of\t the
\nConstitution special leave can be given only if the  Supreme
\nCourt  is  satisfied that the case  involves  a\t substantial
\nquestion of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
\nthat  in the present case the interpretation Art. 14 of\t the
\nConstitution has been well-settled and put beyond dispute by
\na  series  of decisions of this court, that,  therefore,  no
\nquestion   of\tlaw  as\t to  the   interpretation   of\t the
\nConstitution,  much  less a substantial question of  law  in
\nregard\tto that mattter, arises for consideration and  that,
\ntherefore,  no special leave can be granted under  the\tsaid
\nArticle.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    349<\/span><\/p>\n
This argument is sought to be met by the learned  Additional
\nSolicitor-General  in  the  following  manner:\tWhenever   a
\nquestion  of  classification  is  raised,  it  involves\t the
\ninterpretation of Art. 14 of the Constitution with reference
\nto  the classification impugned.  To state  it\tdifferently,
\nthe  argument is that the question in each case\t is  whether
\nthe   classification  offends  the  principle  of   equality
\nenshrined in Art. 14.  Therefore, whether a registered firm,
\na  limited company and a person have equal attributes  is  a
\nquestion of interpretation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
\nBefore considering the validity of the rival contentions  it
\nwould  be  convenient to ascertain precisely  what  was\t the
\nquestion raised in the High Court and what was the  decision
\ngiven thereon by it.  The argument advanced before the\tHigh
\nCourt  on  behalf of the Society was that under\t r.  4-47  a
\nlicence can be issued only to a person or a firm  registered
\nunder\tthe  Partnership  Act  and  not\t to  a\t corporation
\nregistered   under   the  Co-operative\tSocieties   Act\t  or
\notherwise,   and,   therefore,\t the   said   rule,    being
\ndiscriminatory\t in   nature,  offends\tArt.   14   of\t the
\nConstitution.  The learned AdvocateGeneral appearing for the
\nappellants contended that under Art. 14 of the\tConstitution
\nrational  classification is permissible and the\t legislature
\nhas framed the impugned rule on such a basis, the object  of
\nwhich is to safeguard the interest of the public.  The\tHigh
\nCourt, after considering the rival arguments, expressed\t the
\nopinion\t that the said rule did not proceed on any  rational
\nbasis of classification and that, as a corporation had\tbeen
\narbitrarily  singled out for discriminatory  treatment,\t the
\nimpugned   rule\t  offended  the\t equality  clause   of\t the
\nConstitution.  The appellants in their petition for  special
\nleave filed in this Court questioned the correctness of\t the
\nconclusion  of the High Court.\tThey asserted that the\tsaid
\nrule was based upon reasonable classification and  therefore
\ncould  not  be struck down as repugnant to Art.\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tIn  other grounds they elaborated  the\tsame
\npoint in an attempt to bring out the different attributes of
\nthe two classes affording an intelligible differentia for
\n45<\/span>
\n350<\/span>
\nclassification.\t They clearly posed the question proposed to
\nbe  raised  by\tthem in the appeal as under  Ground
\nThe Grouns iv: ” The aforesaid rule 4-47 (of the  Motor
\nVehicles Rules) is based upon reasonable  classification and
\nis and was perfectly intra vires   and\tvalid and could\t not
\nbe  struck down as repugnant to Art. 14 of the\tConstitution
\nof India.”\n<\/p>\n
Ground\tvi:  ”\tThere  is  a  marked  difference  between  a
\ncorporate   body  and  partnership  registered\t under\t the
\nProvisions  of\tthe  Partnership Act  and  these  points  of
\ndifference   provide   an   intelligible   differentia\t for
\nclassification.\t The Hon’ble High Court has only referred to
\none  point of difference and has overlooked other points  of
\ndistinction  and  has erred in striking down  the  aforesaid
\nrule 4-47.”\n<\/p>\n
Ground viii : ” Rule 4- 47 was framed in the light of  local
\nconditions    prevailing.    Co-operative   Societies\t and
\nCorporations in the matter of transport were not  considered
\nto  be\tproper objects for the grant of licence\t or  permit.
\nThe   classification  is  rational  and\t  reasonable.\t The
\nexclusion  of artificial persons from the ambit of the\tRule
\nis natural and not discriminatory.”\n<\/p>\n
The  other grounds are only a further clarification  of\t the
\nsaid grounds.  In part It of their statement of case
\nthe appellants stated as follows;\n<\/p>\n
”  It  is now well-established that while  Art.\t 14  forbids
\nclass\tlegislation,   it   does   not\t forbid\t  reasonable
\nclassification for the purpose of legislation.”
\nThe  respondents, in their statement of case,  accepted\t the
\nsaid  legal position but contested the position\t that  there
\nwas  reasonable\t classification.  It is\t therefore  manifest
\nthat  throughout there has never been a controversy  between
\nthe  parties in regard to the interpretation of Art.  14  of
\nthe  Constitution,  but their dispute centered only  on\t the
\nquestion  whether  the\timpugned  rule\tstood  the  test  of
\nreasonable classification.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t premises,  can\t special leave\tbe  granted  to\t the
\nappellants  under Art 132(2) of the Constitution ?   Article
\n132(2) reads:\n<\/p>\n
,,Where\t  the  High  Court  has\t refused  to  give  such   a
\ncertificate, the Supreme Court may, if it is
\n\t\t\t    351<\/span>
\nsatisfied  that the case involves a substantial question  of
\nlaw  as\t to the interpretation of  the\tConstitution,  grant
\nspecial leave to appeal from such judgment, decree or  final
\norder.”\n<\/p>\n
Under  cl. (2) of Art. 132 there is no scope for granting  a
\nspecial\t leave unless two conditions are satisfied: (i)\t the
\ncase   should\tinvolve\t a  question  of  law  as   to\t the
\ninterpretation\tof  the\t Constitution;\tand  (ii)  the\tsaid
\nquestion  should  be  a substantial question  of  law.\t The
\nprinciple underlying the Article is that the final authority
\nof interpreting the Constitution must rest with the  Supreme
\nCourt.\t With  that object the Article is freed\t from  other
\nlimitations imposed under Arts. 133 and 134 and the right of
\nappeal\tof the widest amplitude is allowed  irrespective  of
\nthe  nature  of the proceedings in a case involving  only  a
\nsubstantial question of law as to the interpretation of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
What   does   interpretation   of   a\tprovision   mean   ?
\nInterpretation is the method by which the true sense or\t the
\nmeaning\t of  the  word\tis  understood.\t  The  question\t  of
\ninterpretation\tcan  arise  only if  two  or  more  possible
\nconstructions  are  sought to be placed on  a  provision-one
\nparty suggesting one construction and the other a  different
\none.  But where the parties agree on the true interpretation
\nof  a  provision  or do not raise any  question\t in  respect
\nthereof,  it is not possible to hold that the case  involves
\nany  question  of  law\tas  to\tthe  interpretation  of\t the
\nConstitution.  On an interpretation of Art. 14, a series  of
\ndecisions   of\t this\tCourt  evolved\t the   doctrine\t  of
\nclassification.\t As we have pointed out, at no stage of\t the
\nproceedings either the correctness of the interpretation  of
\nArt.  14  or  the  principles  governing  the  doctrine\t  of
\nclassification\thave  been  questioned\tby  either  of\t the
\nparties.  Indeed accepting the said doctrine, the appellants
\ncontended  that there was a valid classification  under\t the
\nrule  while  the  respondents argued  contra.\tThe  learned
\nAdditional Solicitor General contended, for the first  time,
\nbefore us that the appeal raised a new facet of the doctrine
\nof  equality,  namely, whether an artificial  person  and  a
\nnatural person have equal attributes
\n352<\/span>
\nwithin\tthe meaning of the equality clause, and,  therefore,
\nthe   case   involves  a  question  of\t interpretation\t  of
\n“the  Constitution.   This  argument,  if  we  may  say\t so,
\ninvolves  the  same  contention in  a  different  garb.\t  If
\nanalysed, the argument only comes to this: as an  artificial
\nperson\tand a natural person have different attributes,\t the
\nclassification\tmade between them is  valid.  This  argument
\ndoes  not  suggest a new interpretation of Art.\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution, but only attempts to bring the rule within the
\ndoctrine  of classification.  We, therefore, hold  that\t the
\nquestion  raised in this case does not involve any  question
\nof law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
\nAssuming  that the case raises a question of law as  to\t the
\ninterpretation of the Constitution, can it be said that\t the
\nquestion raised is a substantial question of law within\t the
\nmeaning of cl. (2) of Art 14.  This aspect was considered by
\nthe  Federal Court in T. M. Krishnaswamy,Pillai v.  Governor
\nGeneral\t In  Council  (1).  That decision  turned  upon\t the
\nprovisions  of s. 205 of the Government of India Act,  1935.
\nThe material
\nS.   205:  ”  (1) An appeal shall lie to the  Federal  Court
\nfrom any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court  if
\nthe   High  Court  certifies  that  the\t case\tinvolves   a
\nsubstantial question of law as to the interpretation of this
\nAct or any Order in Council made thereunder….”
\nThe Madras High Court gave a certificate to the effect\tthat
\nthe  case involved a substantial question of law as  to\t the
\ninterpretation of s. 240(3) of the Government of India\tAct,
\n1935.  Under s. 240(3) of the said Act, no person who was  a
\nmember\tof civil service of the Crown in India or  held\t any
\ncivil  post under the Crown in India could be  dismissed  or
\nreduced\t in  rank  until  he had  been\tgiven  a  reasonable
\nopportunity of showing cause against the action proposed  to
\nbe  taken  in regard to him.  The High Court, on  the  facts
\nfound,\theld that the appellant therein had been  offered  A
\nreasonable opportunity of showing cause within the meaning
\n(1)  (1947) 52 C.W.N. (F.R.) 1.\n<\/p>\n
part of that section says :\n<\/p>\n
353<\/span><\/p>\n
of the said section, but gave a certificate under s.  205(1)
\nof  the\t Government of India Act, 1935.In dealing  with\t the
\npropriety of issuing the certificate in the circumstances of
\nthat case, Zafrulla Khan, J., speaking on behalf the  Court,
\nconcisely and pointedly stated at p. 2 :\n<\/p>\n
”  It was urged before us that the case involved a  question
\nrelating to the interpretation of sub-section (3) of section
\n240  of the Act.  To the extent to which any guidance  might
\nhave  been  needed  for the purposes of\t this  case  on\t the
\ninterpretation\t of  that  sub-section\tthat  guidance\t was
\nfurnished so far as this Court is concerned in its  judgment
\nin  Secretary of State for India v. I.M. Lal [(1945)  F.C.R.
\n103 The rest was a simple question of fact.  In our judgment
\nno ” substantial question of law ” as to the  interpretation
\nof  the\t Constitution Act was involved in this\tcase,  which
\ncould  have formed the basis of a certificate under  section
\n205(1) of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t question  of  interpretation  of  Art.\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution  this Court in Budhan Choudhry v. The State  of
\nBihar<\/a>  (1)  explained  the true meaning and  scope  of\tthat
\nArticle thus:\n<\/p>\n
”  It is now well-established that while article 14  forbids
\nclass\tlegislation,  it  does\tnot  forbid   reason.\table
\nclassification\tfor the purposes of legislation.  In  order,
\nhowever, to pass the the test of permissible  classification
\ntwo  conditions\t must  be fulfilled, namely,  (i)  that\t the
\nclassification\t must\tbe  founded   on   an\tintelligible
\ndifferentia  which distinguishes persons or things that\t are
\ngrouped together from others left out of the group and\t(ii)
\nthat  that differentia must have a rational relation to\t the
\nobject sought to be achieved by the statue in question.\t The
\nclassification\tmay be founded on different  bases:  namely,
\ngeographical, or according to objects or occupations or\t the
\nlike.  What is necessary is that there must be nexus between
\nthe basis of classification and the object of the Act  under
\nconsideration.”\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1045,1049.\n<\/p>\n
354<\/span><\/p>\n
This  in  only\ta  restatement of  the\tlaw  that  has\tbeen
\nenunciated   by\t this  Court  in  Chiranjit  Lal   Chowdhuri
\nv. The Union of India<\/a> (1) and in other subsequent decisions.
\nThe said principles were reaffirmed in the  recent decisions
\nof this Court in Rama Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar<\/a> (2
\n)  and in Mohammed    Haneef Qureshi v. State of Bihar\t(3).
\nIn  view of the said decision there is no further scope\t for
\nputting a new interpretation on the provisions of Art. 14 of
\nthe  Constitution vis-a-vis the doctrine of  classification.
\nThe  interpretation of Art. 14 in the context  of  classifi-
\ncation has been finally settled by the highest Court of this
\nland   and   under  Art.  141  of  the\t Constitution\tthat
\ninterpretation\tis  binding  on all the\t Courts\t within\t the
\nterritory  of India.  What remained to be done by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  was only to apply that interpretation to,  the  facts
\nbefore it.  A substantial question of law, therefore, cannot
\narise  where that law has been finally\tand  authoritatively
\ndecided by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result\t we accept  the\t preliminary  objection\t and
\ndismiss the appeal with costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1950] S.C.R. 869.\t      (2) [1959] S.C.R. 279.
\n(3)  [1959] S.C.R. 629.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    355<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 356, 1960 SCR (2) 346 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS Vs. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959 - 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-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959\" \/>\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=\"1959-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-20T23:11:36+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=\"15 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-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-20T23:11:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959\"},\"wordCount\":2978,\"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-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959\",\"name\":\"State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-20T23:11:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959 - 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-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-20T23:11:36+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959","datePublished":"1959-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-20T23:11:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959"},"wordCount":2978,"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-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959","name":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-20T23:11:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-and-others-vs-thakur-ganga-singh-and-another-on-26-november-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others vs Thakur Ganga Singh And Another on 26 November, 1959"}]},{"@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\/28966","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=28966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}