{"id":32800,"date":"1968-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968"},"modified":"2016-07-07T03:56:48","modified_gmt":"2016-07-06T22:26:48","slug":"b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968","title":{"rendered":"B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 453, \t\t 1969 SCR (3)\t 1<\/div>\n
Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Shah, J.C., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nB.   SHANKARA RAO BADAMI & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MYSORE & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/12\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\nMITTER, G.K.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR  453\t\t  1969 SCR  (3)\t  1\n 1969 SCC  (1)\t 1\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1971 SC 161\t (6)\n F\t    1974 SC1480\t (8)\n R\t    1976 SC1207\t (61,77,539)\n F\t    1985 SC1416\t (70)\n RF\t    1986 SC 555\t (6)\n RF\t    1986 SC1117\t (10)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  of India, 1950,,Arts. 31, 31A, Entry 33,\tList\n1, Entry 36, List II and Entry 42, List III of 7th Schedule-\nMysore\t(Personal  and Miscellaneous)  Inams  Abolition\t Act\n(Mys.  1  of  1955), constitutional validity  of-If  can  be\nchallenged  on\tthe  ground of\tviolation  of  Art.  31(2)If\ncondition   regarding\tpublic\tpurpose\t  and\tpayment\t  of\ncompensation  could be implied in the word 'acquisition'  in\nEntries.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nBy  virtue  of a notification under s. 1(4)  of\t the  Mysore\n(Personal 'and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the\nInam  villages\tof the petitioners vested in  the  State  of\nMysore.\t  The petitioner challenged the validity of the\t Act\non two grounds, namely : (1) that the compensation  provided\nby  the Act was not the market value of the property at\t the\ntime  of  acquisition and since it did not, provide  for  an\nadequate  compensation as a 'just equivalent' there;  was  a\nviolation  of Art. 31(2); and (2) that the impugned Act\t was\nbeyond the legislative competence of the Mysore\t Legislature\nunder  Entry 36 of List 11 and Entry 42 of List III  to\t the\n7th  Schedule as the Entries stood before the 7th  Amendment\nof  the Constitution, because, (i) the existence  of  public\npurpose and the obligation to pay compensation are necessary\nconcomitants of compulsory acquisition of property, and\t so,\nthe  term  'acquisition' must be construed as  importing  by\nnecessary  implication the two conditions of public  purpose\nand  payment  of adequate compensation, and (ii)  the  words\n'subject  to the provisions of Entry 42, List III' in  Entry\n36 of List 11 reinforce the argument that a law with respect\nto  acquisition\t of property made under Entry 36  should  be\nexercised  subject to the two-fold restriction as to  public\npurpose\t and  payment  of compensation\tboth  of  which\t are\nreferred to in Entry 42, List Ill.\nHELD : (1) (a) The impugned Act provides for the acquisition\nof rights of inamdars in inam estates and it is intended  to\nabolish\t 'all intermediate holders and to  establish  direct\nrelationship between the Government and occupants of land in\nInam  villages\tin respect of which notifications  had\tbeen\nissued.\t  The  legislation  was\t undertaken  as\t a  part  of\nagrarian reform which the Mysore State Legislature  proposed\nto bring about in the State.  Therefore, the impugned Act is\na  law\tproviding for the acquisition by the  State  of\t any\nestate or of any rights therein or for the extinguishment or\nmodification of such rights as contemplated by Art. 31A\t and\nhence,\tthe  impugned Act is protected from  attack  in\t any\ncourt on the ground that it contravenes Art. 31(2). [9\tG-H;\n10 A-B]\n(b)  The  ratio of the two decisions in State of  Madras  v.\nNamasivaya  Mudaliar<\/a>  [1964]  6\t S.C.R.\t 936  and  Vajravelu\nMudaliar  v.  Spl. Dy.\tCollector, [1965] 1 S.C.R.  614,  in\nwhich  it  was held that the principle\tof  Beta  Banerjee's\ncase.,\t[1954] S.C.R. 558 that the Legislature in  making  a\nlaw  of acquisition must provide for a 'just equivalent'  as\ncompensation,  has  no\tapplication to\tthe  present  -case,\nbecause, those two cases related to legislation not  dealing\nwith agrarian reform and the protection of Art. 31A was\t not\navailable  to  either of the statutes  challenged  in  those\ncases. [10 F; 11 A-B]\n2\n(2)  (1)  Under the common law of eminent domain  the  State\ncannot take the property of its subject unless such property\nis  required for a public purpose and  without\tcompensating\nthe  owner  for its loss.  But, when these  limitations\t are\nexpressly  provided  for  in Art. 31(2) and  it\t is  further\nenacted\t that  no  law shall be made  which  takes  away  or\nabridges those safeguards, and any such law, if made,  shall\nbe void, there can be no room for implication, and the words\n'acquisition of property' in Entry 36 must be understood  in\ntheir  natural sense of the mere 'act of acquiring  property\nwithout\t importing  into  the phrase an\t obligation  to\t pay\ncompensation or a condition as to the existence of a  public\npurpose.   The entries in the Lists of the VII Schedule\t are\ndesigned  to  define  and delimit the  respective  areas  of\nlegislative competence, of the Union and State\tLegislatures\nand  the  principle  of the maxim  expressum  facit  cessare\ntacitum,  makes it inappropriate to treat the obligation  to\npay compensation as implicit in Entry 33 of List I or  Entry\n36  of List 11 when it is separately and expressly  provided\nfor in Art. 31(2). [12 C-F]\n(3)  The words 'subject to the provision of Entry 42 of List\nIII' mean no more than that any law made under Entry 36 by a\nState  Legislature can be displaced or overridden by the\nUnion  Legislature making a law under Entry 42 of  List\t 11.\nIf  the\t restrictive  conditions as to\tpublic\tpurpose\t and\npayment of compensation are to be derived from these  words,\ntheir\tabsence\t in  Entry  33\tof  List  I  leads  to\t the\nunreasonable   inference  that\tParliament  can\t  make\t law\nauthorising acquisition of property without a public purpose\nand   without  a  provision  for  compensation.\t  The\ttrue\ninference is that the power to make a law, belonging both to\nParliament and State Legislatures, can be exercised  subject\nto- the two restrictions not by reason of anything contained\nin  the\t legislative  entries but  by  reason  the  positive\nprovisions in Art. 31(2).  But as legislation falling within\nArt.  31A cannot be called in question in a court  for\tnon-\ncompliance   with  those  provisions  in  Art.\t31(2)\tsuch\nlegislation  cannot be struck down as  unconstitutional\t and\nvoid. [13 B-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 188 and  189  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Petitions  under  Art. 32 of the Constitution of  India\t for
\nenforcement of the fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n
V.   Krishnamurti, S. K. Dholakia and J. B. Dadachanji,\t for
\nthe petitioners (in both the petitions).\n<\/p>\n
Niren  De, Attorney-General, S. S. Shukla and S.  P.  Nayar,
\nfor the respondents (in both the petitions).
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRamaswami,  J. In these writ Petitions under Art. 32 of\t the
\nConstitution   a   common,  question  of  law\tarises\t for
\ndetermination,\tviz.,  whether\tthe  Mysore  (Personal\t and
\nMiscellaneous)\tInams Abolition Act, 1954 (Mysore Act  1  of
\n1955)is constitutionally valid.\n<\/p>\n
The villages of Debur and Kappasoge in Mysore District\twere
\nInam  grants made to Bakshi Bhima Rao, the ancestor  of\t the
\npetitioners.  The inam grants were made by the Ruler of
\n\t\t\t     3<\/span>
\nMysore\tState  in recognition of the  military\tservices  of
\nBakshi\tBhima  Rao.  The inam included not only\t the  income
\nfrom  the  lands but from every kind  of  revenue  including
\nexcise\tand the right to treat all lands newly brought\tinto
\ncultivation as the  personal property of the Inamdars.\t The
\nMysore\t(Personal  and Miscellaneous) Inams  Abolition\tAct,
\n1954 (Mysore Act 1 of 1955) (hereinafter called the impugned
\nAct) was passed by the-, Mysore Legislature and received the
\nassent\tof  the\t President  on\tthe  18th  March,  1955\t and
\npublished  in the Mysore Gazette on 19th March,\t 1955.\t The
\nAct  was subsequently amended by Mysore Act 7 of 1956  which
\nreceived the assent of the President: on 28th June, 1956 and
\nwhich was published in the Mysore Gazette on 5th July, 1956.
\nBy  virtue of a notification dated 2nd October,\t 1956  under
\nsection\t 1  clause (iv) of the impugned Act,, the  two\tinam
\nvillages  vested in the State of Mysore under section, 3  of
\nthe  impugned Act.  Compensation of the various\t items\twas.
\nthe  subject matter of dispute between the  petitioners\t and
\nthe Special Deputy Commissioner who was appointed to assess.
\ncompensation  under  the machinery of the  Act.\t  Awards  of
\ncompensation  were  made  under sections 17 and\t 20  of\t the
\nimpugned Act by the Special Deputy Commissioner.  The  peti-
\ntioners\t preferred Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 89 and 130  in
\nthe  High Court of Mysore under section 31 of  the  impugned
\nAct.   These  appeals were heard and decided by\t the  Mysore
\nHigh  Court  by a consolidated order of\t the  27th  October,
\n1960.\tAgainst\t that decision two appeals were\t brought  to
\nthis  Court  in Civil Appeals, 196 and 197 of  1965.   These
\nappeals\t were  heard  on 25th October, 1967.   It  was\tthen
\npointed\t out by the Court that the. constitutional  validity
\nof  the\t provisions of the Act cannot be challenged  in\t the
\nstatutory  appeals in view of the decision of this Court  in
\nK.  S.\tVenkataraman  &\t Co.  v.  State\t of  Madras.<\/a>(1)\t The
\npetitioners   thereafter   filed   these   writ\t   petitions
\nchallenging the constitutional validity of the Act.
\nThe  main contention raised by the petitioners is that\tthe,
\nimpugned Act does not provide for adequate compensation\t for
\nthe  property acquired, that the compensation  provided\t for
\nwas  not  a “just equivalent”, in  other  words,.the  market
\nvalue  of the property at the time of acquisition and  there
\nwas  hence a violation of the guarantee under Art. 31(2)  of
\nthe Constitution.  The impugned Act is entitled as an Act to
\nprovide\t for the “abolition, of personal inams\tand  certain
\nmiscellaneous  inams in the State of Mysore  except  Bellary
\nDistrict”.  The preamble states that it is expedient in\t the
\npublic\tinterest to provide for the abolition  of’  personal
\ninams and certain miscellaneous inams in the State of Mysore
\nexcept\tBellary\t District and for  other  matters  connected
\ntherewith., Section 1(4) enacts that this section and
\n(1)  [1966] 2 S.C.R. 229.\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
sections  2, 27, 38 and 40 shall come into force in  respect
\nof  any\t inam  village,\t or minor  inam\t in  an\t unalienated
\nvillage, on such date as the Government may by\tnotification
\nappoint.   Section 3 provides for the consequences  of’\t the
\nvesting of an inam in the State and states as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)  When the notification under\t sub-section
\n\t      (4)  of section 1 in respect of any  inam\t has
\n\t      been  published  in the Mysore  Gazette,\tthen
\n\t      notwithstanding  anything\t contained  in\t any
\n\t      contract, grant or other instrument or in\t any
\n\t      other  law for the time being in\tforce,\twith
\n\t      effect  on and from the date of  vesting,\t and
\n\t      save  as otherwise expressly provided in\tthis
\n\t      Act, the following -consequences shall  ensue,
\n\t      namely :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   the provisions of the Land Revenue\tCode
\n\t      relating\tto alienated holdings shall,  except
\n\t      as  respects minor inams to which this Act  is
\n\t      not   applicable,\t be  deemed  to\t have\tbeen
\n\t      repealed in their application to the inam; and
\n\t      the  provisions of the Land Revenue  Code\t and
\n\t      all other enactments applicable to unalienated\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      -villages shall apply to the said inam;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   all rights, title and interest,  vesting
\n\t      in the inamdar including those in all communal
\n\t      lands,  cultivated lands\tuncultivated  lands,
\n\t      whether assessed or not, waste lands,  pasture
\n\t      lands, forests, mines and minerals, ,quarries,
\n\t      rivers  and  streams,  tanks  and\t  irrigation
\n\t      works,  fisheries and ferries, shall case\t and
\n\t      be  vested absolutely in the State of  Mysore,
\n\t      free from all encumbrances;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\t      Section\t9  enacts\n\t      \"Lands  and     buildings\t to    vest  in\t the\n\t      inamdar\n<\/pre>\n
\t      (1)   Every inamdar shall, with effect on\t and
\n\t      from  the -date of vesting, be entitled to  be
\n\t      registered as an occupant of   all lands other
\n\t      than-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   communal  lands,  waste  lands,,   gomal
\n\t      lands,   forest\tlands,tank   beds,    mines,
\n\t      quarries,\t   rivers,   streams,\ttanks\t and
\n\t      irrigation works;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  lands in respect of which any person  is
\n\t      entitled\tto ‘be registered under sections  4,
\n\t      5, 6, 7 or 8; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) lands  upon\t which\thave  been   erected
\n\t      buildings\t owned by any person other than\t the
\n\t      inamdar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Every   building  situated\twithin\t the
\n\t      limits of the inam which was owned immediately
\n\t      before the
\n\t      2<\/span>
\n\t       date  of vesting by the inamdar\tshall,\twith
\n\t      effect  on  and from such date,  vest  in\t the
\n\t      inamdar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation  : In this section inamdar’  means
\n\t      an inamdar other than a holder of a minor inam
\n\t      referred to in section 7″.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Section 17 provides as follows
\n\t      “Amount of compensation payable : (1) Save  as
\n\t      otherwise\t provided in section 26,  the  total
\n\t      compensation  payable in respect of  any\tinam
\n\t      shall  be the aggregate of the sums  specified
\n\t      below\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   a  sum equal to twenty times the  amount
\n\t      of  land\trevenue payable in respect  of\tland
\n\t      held  by kadim tenants and  permanent  tenants
\n\t      entitled to be registered under section 4\t and
\n\t      section 5, respectively.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation  : where the land revenue is\tpaid
\n\t      in  kind,\t the  amount  of  land\trevenue\t for
\n\t      purposes\tof this. clause shall be  determined
\n\t      on the basis of the market value prevailing on
\n\t      the  1st day of January, 1954, of the crop  or
\n\t      crops paid as land revenue;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  a  sum equal to seventy five per  centum
\n\t      of  the amount payable by the  quasi-permanent
\n\t      tenants of the inamdar under subsection (2) of
\n\t      section  6 in respect of lands of\t which\tthey
\n\t      are  entitled  to be registered  as  occupants
\n\t      under sub-section (1) of the said section 6;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) a sum calculated at the rates  specified
\n\t      below  in\t respect  of lands  referred  to  in
\n\t      clause (iii) of subsection (1) of section 7 or
\n\t      section 9;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   seventy five rupees per acre within\t the
\n\t      municipal\t limits of the Cities of  Bangalore,
\n\t      Mysore and Davangere and within an area of one
\n\t      mile from such, limits; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   forty   rupees  per\t acre\twithin\t the
\n\t      municipal\t limits\t of  the  towns\t of   Kolar,
\n\t      Tumkur,\tChitaldrug,   Shimoga,\t Bhadravati,
\n\t      Chickmagalur, Hassan and Mandya and the limits
\n\t      of the Kolar Gold Fields Sanitary Board  Area,
\n\t      and  within  an  area of one  mile  from\tsuch
\n\t      limits; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   twenty  rupees  per acre  in  all  other
\n\t      areas;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)  a  sum equal to twenty times  the  jodi,
\n\t      quitrent\tor  other amount, if  any,  of\tlike
\n\t      nature, derived by the inamdar concerned\tfrom
\n\t      persons\tholding\t minor\tinams\tunder\tsuch
\n\t      inamdar; and
\n\t\t\t\t    6<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (v)   a sum equal to ten times the average net
\n\t      annual income derived by the inamdar during  a
\n\t      period of five years immediately preceding the
\n\t      date  of vesting, from lands other than  lands
\n\t      referred\tto  in\tclause (iii)  and  lands  in
\n\t      respect of which any person is entitled to  be
\n\t      registered under sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9;
\n\t      Provided that\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   the income from sandalwood or any  other
\n\t      forest  produce shall not be included  in\t the
\n\t      annual  -income from forests unless the  right
\n\t      thereto was expressly conferred on the inamdar
\n\t      by a competent authority;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   the\t income from royalty on minerals  or
\n\t      from  -mining lease shall not be\tincluded  in
\n\t      the  annual in-come unless the right  to\tsuch
\n\t      minerals\tor mines was expressly conferred  on
\n\t      the inamdar by a competent authority and\tsuch
\n\t      right was recognised under section 38 of the
\n\t      Land Revenue Code;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   the\t income\t from ferries shall  not  be
\n\t      included unless the right to such ferries\t was
\n\t      expressly\t  granted  to  the  inamdar  ‘by   a
\n\t      competent authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  behalf of the petitioners learned counsel  stressed\t the
\nargument  that\tthe  inamdar of the  estate  was  completely
\ndeprived  of  any  sort of compensation\t in  regard  to\t the
\ncategory of lands mentioned in section 9 ( 1 ) (1).  It\t was
\nsaid   that  in\t regard\t to  the  permanent   tenants,\t the
\ncompensation was fixed at 20 times of the land revenue,\t but
\nin  the case of quasi-permanent tenants the compensation  is
\n75  per\t cent of the value payable  by\tthe  quasi-permanent
\ntenants under section 6(2).  That is to say, the  Government
\nrecovers  a premium under section 6(2) at 40 times the\tland
\nrevenue\t -and hands over 75 per cent as compensation to\t the
\nholder\tof the inam estate.  It was contended  that  compen-
\nsation was not fixed on the basis of the market value on the
\ndate  of  acquisition  and that the  guarantee\tembodied  in
\nArticle 31 (2) of the Constitution has been violated.
\nIn  support  of\t this argument reference  was  made  to\t the
\ndecision  of this Court in The State of West Bengal v.\tMrs.
\nBela Banerjee & Ors.,<\/a> (1) in which this Court observed\tthat
\nwhile  under  Entry 42 List III the  Legislature  was  given
\ndiscretionary
\n(1)  [1954] S.C.R.558.\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
power  to  lay\tdown  the  principles  which  should  govern
\ndetermination of the amount to be given to the owner of\t the
\nproperty  appropriated,\t Article 31(2) of  the\tConstitution
\nrequired that such principles must ensure what is determined
\nas payable must be ‘compensation’, i.e. a just equivalent of
\nwhat  the owner has been deprived.  Whether such  principles
\ntake  into account all the elements which make up  the\ttrue
\nvalue of the property appropriated and exclude matters which
\nare to be neglected is a justiciable issue to be adjudicated
\nby the Court.  The Court, therefore, held in that case\tthat
\nthe  West  Bengal Land Development and\tPlanning  Act,\t1948
\nwhich was enacted primarily for the settlement of immigrants
\nwho   had  migrated  into  West\t Bengal\t due   to   communal
\ndisturbances in East Bengal and which by section 8  provided
\nthat   the  compensation  to  be  awarded   for\t  compulsory
\nacquisition  to the owner of the land was not to exceed\t the
\nmarket\tvalue of the land on 31st December, 1946  was  ultra
\nvires  of the Constitution and void under Article  31(2)  of
\nthe  Constitution.   At\t page 564 of the  report  the  Court
\nobserved as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t Turning now to the provisions\trelating  to
\n\t      compensation  under the impugned Act, it\twill
\n\t      be seen that the latter part of the proviso to
\n\t      section 8 limits the amount of compensation so
\n\t      as not to exceed the market value of the\tland
\n\t      on December 31, 1946, no matter when the\tland
\n\t      is  acquired.  Considering that  the  impugned
\n\t      Act is a permanent enactment and lands may  be
\n\t      acquired\tunder  it many years after  it\tcame
\n\t      into force, the fixing of the market value  on
\n\t      December\t31, 1946 as the ceiling on the\tland
\n\t      at  the time of the acquisition  is  arbitrary
\n\t      and  cannot be regarded as due  compliance  in
\n\t      letter  and spirit with the requirement  of  .
\n\t      Article 31(2)”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  our opinion, this principle cannot apply in testing\t the
\nvalidity  of the impugned Act in the present case.   Article
\n31(2)\tbefore\tits  amendment\tby  the\t Constitution\t(4th
\nAmendment) Act reads as follows : –\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(2)   No\t property,  movable  or\t  immovable,
\n\t      including any interest in, or in any  company,
\n\t      owning,\t any   commercial   or\t  industrial
\n\t      undertaking,  shall be taken possession of  or
\n\t      acquired\tfor  public purposes under  any\t law
\n\t      authorising  the taking of such possession  or
\n\t      such acquisition, ‘unless the law provides for
\n\t      compensation for the property taken possession
\n\t      of or acquired and either fixes the amount  of
\n\t      the compensation, or specifies the  principles
\n\t      on  which,  and  the  manner  in\twhich,\t the
\n\t      compensation is to be determined and given”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
But  Article 31A was added in the Constitution with  retros-
\npective\t effect\t by  section  4\t of  the  Constitution\t(1st
\nAmendment) Act, 1951 which provides as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “4. After Article 31 of the Constitution,\t the
\n\t      following\t article  shall\t be  inserted,\t-and
\n\t      shall be deemed always to have been  inserted,
\n\t      namely :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      31A.  Saving of laws providing for acquisition
\n\t      of estates. etc.-(1) Notwithstanding  anything
\n\t      in  the foregoing provisions of this Part,  no
\n\t      law  ,  providing for the acquisition  by\t the
\n\t      State  of any estate or of any rights  therein
\n\t      or  for the extinguishment or modification  of
\n\t      any such rights shall be deemed to be void  on
\n\t      the  ground  that it is inconsistent  with  or
\n\t      takes  away  or  abridges any  of\t the  rights
\n\t      conferred by, any provisions of this Part
\n\t      Provided that where such law is a law made  by
\n\t      the Legislature of a State, the provisions  of
\n\t      this  article shall not apply  thereto  unless
\n\t      such   law,  having  been\t reserved  for\t the
\n\t      consideration  of the President, has  received
\n\t      his assent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   In this article-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   the\t  expression  ‘estate’\t shall,\t  in
\n\t      relation\tto  any local area,  have  the\tsame
\n\t      meaning  as  that\t expression  or\t its   local
\n\t      equivalent has in the existing law relating to
\n\t      land tenures in force in that area, and  shall
\n\t      also include any jagir, inam or maufi or other
\n\t      similar grant;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   the\t expression ‘rights’ in relation  to
\n\t      an estate, shall include any rights vesting in
\n\t      a\t   proprietor,\t  sub-proprietor,     under-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      proprietor,     tenure-holder\tor     other
\n\t      intermediary and -any rights or privileges  in
\n\t      respect ofland revenue”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Article 31A was amended again by section 3  of
\n\t      the  Constitution\t (4th Amendment)  Act,\t1955
\n\t      with  retrospective effect.  Section 3 of\t the
\n\t      Constitution  (4th  Amendment) Act  reads,  as
\n\t      follows
\n\t      “(a)  for\t clause (1),  the  following  clause
\n\t      shall  be, and shall be deemed always to\thave
\n\t      been substituted, namely : –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in
\n\t      article 13, no  law providing for-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   the\t acquisition  by the  State  of\t any
\n\t      estate  or  of  any  rights  therein  or\t the
\n\t      extinguishment  or modification of  -any\tsuch
\n\t      rights, or
\n\t      9<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   the taking over of the management of any
\n\t      “property\t by the State for a  limited  period
\n\t      either  in the public interest or in order  to
\n\t      secure the proper management of the  property;
\n\t      or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   the amalgamation of two or more corpora-
\n\t      tions  either  in the public  interest  or  in
\n\t      order  to secure the proper management of\t any
\n\t      of the corporations, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   the\t extinguishment or  modification  of
\n\t      any rights of managing agents, secretaries and
\n\t      treasurers, managing, directors, directors  or
\n\t      managers\tor  corporations, or of\t any  voting
\n\t      rights of shareholders thereof, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e)   the\t extinguishment or  modification  of
\n\t      any   rights   accruing  by  virtue   of\t any
\n\t      agreement, lease or licence for the purpose of
\n\t      searching\t for,  or winning,  any\t mineral  or
\n\t      mineral  oil, or the premature termination  or
\n\t      cancellation  of any such agreement, lease  or
\n\t      licence,
\n\t      shall be deemed to be void on the ground\tthat
\n\t      it  is  inconsistent with, or  takes  away  or
\n\t      abridges\tany  of\t the  rights  conferred\t  by
\n\t      article 14, article 19 or article 3 1;
\n\t      Provided\tat where such law is a law  made  by
\n\t      the Legislature of a State, the provisions  of
\n\t      this  article shall not apply  thereto  unless
\n\t      such   law,  having  been\t reserved  for\t the
\n\t      consideration  of the President, has  received
\n\t      his assent; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   in clause (2),-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   in\t sub-clause  (a),  after  the\tword
\n\t      ‘grant’ the     words  ‘and in the  States  of
\n\t      Madras   and  Travancore-Cochin,\tany   janmam
\n\t      right’ shall be, and shall be deemed always to
\n\t      have been inserted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  in\t sub-clause  (b),  after  the\tword
\n\t      ‘tenure-holder’  the  words  ‘raiyat,   under-
\n\t      raiyat’  shall be, and shall be deemed  always
\n\t      to have been, inserted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the present case, it is plain that under Article 31A  as
\nintroduced  by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution  or  as
\naltered by the 4th Amendment, the impugned Act is  protected
\nfrom -attack in any Court on the ground that it\t contravenes
\nthe  provisions of Article 31(2) of the\t Constitution.\t The
\nreason\tis that the impugned Act is a law providing for\t the
\nacquisition  by\t the State of any estate or  of\t any  rights
\ntherein\t or for the extinguishment or modification  of\tsuch
\nrights\tas contemplated by Article 31A of the  Constitution.
\nThe impugned Act provides
\nL7 Sup.\t C.1.169-2
\n10<\/span>
\nfor acquisition of the rights of inamdars in inam estates in
\nMysore State and it is intended to abolish all\tintermediate
\nholders who were termed as Superior holders and to establish
\ndirect relationship between the Government and occupants  of
\nland in the Inam Villages in respect of which  notifications
\nhad  been issued.  The legislation was undertaken as a\tpart
\nof  agrarian  reform  which  the  Mysore  State\t Legislature
\nproposed  to bring about in the former State of Mysore.\t The
\nimpugned  statute, therefore, falls under the protection  of
\nArticle 31A of the Constitution and cannot be challenged  on
\nthe  ground  that  Article 31 has  been\t violated,  that  no
\nprinciple  of  compensation has been provided  or  that\t the
\ncompensation provided for is illusory or inadequate.
\nOn behalf of the petitioners Mr. Krishnamurthi in support of
\nhis argument referred to the decision of this Court in State
\nof  Madras v. D. Namasivaya Mudaliar and Ors.<\/a> (1)  in  which
\nMadras\tLignite (Acquisition of Land) Act (Madras Act XI  of
\n1953) was held invalid on the ground that the provisions  of
\nthe  Act relating to compensation violated Article 31(2)  of
\nthe  Constitution as it stood before the  Constitution\t(4th
\nAmendment) Act, 1955 and that the principle laid down in The
\nState  of West Bengal v. Mrs. Bela Banerjee & Or<\/a>  s.(2)\t was\n<\/p>\n
-applicable.  Reference was also made to another decision of
\nthis  Court  in\t P. Vajravelu  Mudaliar\t v.  Special  Deputy
\nCollector,  Madras  &  Anr.,<\/a>(3) in which  the  question\t was
\nraised\twith  regard to the validity  of  Land\tAcquisition,
\nMadras Amendment Act, 1961 (Madras Act 23 of 1961).  In that
\ncase  the petitioners’ lands were notified  for\t acquisition
\nfor  the  purpose of housing schemes and the object  of\t the
\nacquisition  was slum clearance.  In that case also  it\t was
\nheld by this Court that the principle of Bela  Banerjee’s(2)
\ncase  should be applied and by virtue of Article  31(2)\t the
\nLegislature  in making the law of acquisition  must  provide
\nfor a “just equivalent” of what the owner has been  deprived
\nof or specify the principles for the purpose of ascertaining
\nsuch   “just  equivalent”  It  was  pointed  out  that\t the
\ncomparative study of the principal Act and the Amending\t Act
\nshowed that if land was acquired for a housing scheme  under
\nthe Amending Act, the claimant would get a lesser value than
\nwhat he, would get for the same or similar land acquired for
\nsome   public\tpurpose\t under\tthe  Principal\t Act.\t The
\ndiscrimination between persons whose lands were acquired for
\nhousing\t schemes  -and those whose lands were  acquired\t for
\nother  public  purposes\t could\tnot  be\t sustained  on\t the
\nprinciple of reasonable classification and the Amending\t Act
\nclearly\t violated  Article 14 of the  Constitution  and\t was
\nvoid.\tIn our opinion, the ratio of the two  decisions,  in
\nState Of Madras v.\n<\/p>\n
(1)   [1964]  6S.C.R.936.\t\t\t(2)   [1954]
\nS.C.R.558.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 614.,
\n11<\/span>
\nD.Namasivaya  Mudaliar & Ors. (1) and P. Vajravelu  Mudaliar
\nv.  Special  Deputy Collector, Madras and Anr.<\/a>\t(2)  has  no
\napplication to the present case because those cases  related
\nto  legislation\t not dealing with agrarian  reform  and\t the
\nprotection  of\tArticle\t 31A of\t the  Constitution  was\t not
\navailable  to  either of the statutes  challenged  in  those
\ncases.\n<\/p>\n
We pass on to consider the next question raised on behalf of
\nthe  petitioners,  namely,  whether, the  impugned  Act\t was
\nbeyond the legislative competence of the Mysore\t Legislature
\nunder  Entry 36 of List 11 to the 7th Schedule and Entry  42
\nof List III as those Entries stood before the 7th  Amendment
\nof  the Constitution.  The argument maybe summarised thus  :
\nEntry  36  of  List  11 read  with  Article  246(3)  of\t the
\nConstitution  was obviously intended to authorise the  State
\nLegislature  to exercise the right of eminent  domain  i.e.,
\nright  of compulsory acquisition of private  property.\t The
\nexercise  of such power has been recognised  in\t Anglo-Saxon
\njurisprudence as conditioned by public necessity and payment
\nof   compensation.    All  legislation\t in   this   country
\nauthorising  such acquisition of property from Regulation  1
\nof  1824  to  Land Acquisition Act 1894\t proceeded  on\tthat
\nfooting.  The existence of public purpose and the obligation
\nto  pay compensation are, therefore, necessary\tconcomitants
\nof  compulsory acquisition of private property, and so,\t the
\nterm  “acquisition”  must  be  construed  as  importing\t  by
\nnecessary  implication the aforesaid two conditions.  It  is
\nalso  a\t recognised rule for the  construction\tof  statutes
\nthat,  unless the words of the statute clearly so demand,  a
\nstatute\t is  not  to be construed so as\t to  take  away\t the
\nproperty  of  a subject without\t compensation  :  ‘Attorney-
\nGeneral\t V.  De Keyser’s Royal Hotel.(3) The power  to\ttake
\ncompulsorily  raises  by implication a right  to  payment  :
\nCentral\t Control  Board\t v. Cannon  Brewery(4).\t  The  words
\n“subject  to  the provisions of entry 42, in  List  111″  in
\nentry  36  reinforce the argument, as these  words  must  be
\ntaken  to mean that the power to make a law with respect  to
\nacquisition  of property should be exercised subject to\t the
\ncondition that such law should also provide for the  matters
\nreferred  to  in  entry\t 42,  in  other\t words,\t a  two-fold
\nrestriction as to public purpose and payment of compensation
\n(both  of which are referred to in entry 42) is\t imposed  on
\nthe exercise of the law making power under entry 36.   Entry
\n36 at the material time read as follows
\n.lm15
\n”  Acquisition\tor requisition of property, except  for\t the
\npurposes of the Union, subject to the provisions of entry 42
\nof List III”.\n<\/p>\n
Entry 42 was to the following effect
\n(1)  [1964] 6 S.C.R. 936.\t\t      (2)  [1965]  1
\nS.C.R. 614.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1920] A.C. 508, 542.\t\t     (4) [1919] A.C.\n<\/p>\n
744.
\n12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Principles on which compensation for property
\n\t      acquired\tor requisitioned for the purpose  of
\n\t      the  Union  or  of a State or  for  any  other
\n\t      public  purpose is to be determined,  and\t the
\n\t      form and the manner in which such compensation
\n\t      is to be given”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956, Entries 36 of
\nList 11, 33 of List I were omitted and Entry 42 of List\t III
\nwas  altered  and  the\taltered entry  reads  as  follows  :
\n“Acquisition and requisitioning of Property”- it was however
\npointed out on behalf of the petitioners that the  amendment
\nwas  not retrospective and the validity of the impugned\t Act
\nmust be tested by the language of entries 36 of List II\t and
\n42 of List III as they stood at the material time.
\nIn  our opinion, there is no substance in the argument.\t  It
\nis  true  that\tunder the common law of\t eminent  domain  as
\nrecognised  in\tAnglo-Saxon jurisprudence the  State  cannot
\ntake  the  property of its subject unless such\tproperty  is
\nrequired  for a public purpose and without compensating\t the
\nowner  for  its\t loss.\t But,  when  these  limitations\t are
\nexpressly  provided for in Article 31(2) and it\t is  further
\nenacted\t that  no  law shall be made  which  takes  away  or
\nabridges these safeguards, ‘and any such law, if made, shall
\nbe void, there can be no room for implication, and the words
\n“acquisition of property” in entry 36 must be understood  in
\ntheir  natural\tsense  of the  act  of\tacquiring  property,
\nwithout\t importing  into  the phrase an\t obligation  to\t pay
\ncompensation or a condition as to the existence of a  public
\npurpose.   In  other words, it is not correct to  treat\t the
\nobligation   to\t  pay  compensation  as\t implicit   in\t the
\nlegislative  entry 33 of List I or legislative entry  36  of
\nList  II for it is separately and expressly provided for  in
\nArticle 31(2).\tThe well-known maxim expressum facit cessare
\ntacitum is indeed a principle of logic and common sense\t and
\nnot  merely a technical rule of construction.\tThe  express
\nprovision  in  Article 31(2) that a law\t of  acquisition  in
\norder  to  be  valid must  provide  for\t compensation  will,
\ntherefore, necessarily exclude all suggestion of an  implied
\nobligation to provide for compensation sought to be imported
\ninto  the meaning of the word “acquisition” in entry  36  of
\nList  II.  In the face of the express provision\t of  Article
\n31(2),\t there\tremains\t no  room  for\treading\t  any\tsuch
\nimplication  in the legislative heads.\tThe entries  in\t the
\nLists  of  the Seventh Schedule are designed to\t define\t and
\ndelimit\t the respective areas of legislative  competence  of
\nthe Union and State Legislatures.  Such a context is  hardly
\nappropriate  for the imposition of implied  restrictions  on
\nthe  exercise  of legislative powers, which  are  ordinarily
\nmatters\t  for  positive\t enactment  in\tthe  body   of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t said that the words “subject to the  provisions  of
\nentry  42 of List 111” must be taken to mean that  the\tlaw-
\nmaking\tpower under entry 36 could be exercised\t subject  to
\nthe two conditions as
\n13<\/span>
\nto public purpose and payment of compensation both of  which
\nare referred to in entry 42.  In our opinion, the contention
\nis unsound.  The two entries are merely heads of legislation
\nand  are  neither interdependent nor complementary  to\teach
\nother.\t These words in entry 36 mean no more than that\t any
\nlaw  made  under  entry 36 by a\t State\tLegislation  can  be
\ndisplaced  or overridden by the Union Legislation  making  a
\nlaw  under entry 42 of List II.\t It is important  to  notice
\nthat similar words do not occur in entry 33 of List I  which
\nconfers on Parliament the power to make laws with respect to
\nacquisition  of property for the purpose of the Union.\t For
\nif  these  restrictive conditions as to public\tpurpose\t and
\npayment\t of compensation are to be derived only\t from  those
\nwords,\tthen  it must follow that in the  absence  of  those
\nwords,\tParliament can make law, authorising acquisition  of
\nproperty  without a public purpose and without\ta  provision
\nfor compensation.  No reason was suggested why Parliamentary
\nLegislation with respect to such acquisition of property  is
\nto  be\tfree from such restrictive  condition,\twhile  State
\nLegislation  should be subject to them.\t The true  inference
\nis  that the power to make law belonging to both  Parliament
\nand the State Legislatures can be exercised only subject  to
\nthe  aforesaid two restrictions not by, reason\tof  anything
\ncontained  in  the  legislative entries\t themselves  but  by
\nreason\tof positive provisions contained in  Article  31(2).
\nBut  as\t legislation falling within Article  31A  cannot  be
\ncalled in question in a Court of law for noncompliance\twith
\nthose  provisions such legislation cannot be struck down  as
\nunconstitutional  and  void.   In our  opinion,\t counsel  on
\nbehalf\tof  the\t petitioners is, unable\t to  make  good\t his
\nargument  that the impugned Act was beyond  the\t legislative
\ncompetence of the Mysore Legislature at the time when it was
\nenacted.\n<\/p>\n
For these reasons we hold that the petitioners have made out
\nno   case  for\tgrant  of  relief  under  Art.\t32  of\t the
\nConstitution.  These writ petitions accordingly fail and are
\ndismissed with costs.  There will be one set of hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t     Petitions dismissed.\n14<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 453, 1969 SCR (3) 1 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Shah, J.C., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: B. SHANKARA RAO BADAMI & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF […]<\/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-32800","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968 - 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\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968\" \/>\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=\"1968-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-06T22:26:48+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-06T22:26:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968\"},\"wordCount\":4460,\"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\\\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968\",\"name\":\"B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-06T22:26:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968\"}]},{\"@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":"B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968 - 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\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-06T22:26:48+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968","datePublished":"1968-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-06T22:26:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968"},"wordCount":4460,"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\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968","name":"B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-06T22:26:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-shankara-rao-badami-ors-vs-state-of-mysore-anr-on-4-december-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 4 December, 1968"}]},{"@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\/32800","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=32800"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32800\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32800"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32800"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32800"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}