{"id":35372,"date":"1972-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972"},"modified":"2017-01-04T16:47:29","modified_gmt":"2017-01-04T11:17:29","slug":"daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972","title":{"rendered":"Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & … on 4 February, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & … on 4 February, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 896, \t\t 1972 SCR (3) 405<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Grover, A.N., Ray, A.N., Palekar, D.G., Beg, M. Hameedullah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDAUD AHMED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/02\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nGROVER, A.N.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR  896\t\t  1972 SCR  (3) 405\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1972 SC2656\t (12,13,14)\n RF\t    1975 SC 596\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\nU.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, ss.\n3, second proviso and 7--Scope of.\nNatural\t  Justice--Duty\t of  inquire   whether\t alternative\naccommodation exists before requisitioning premises.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner owned premises which were in the  occupation\nof a tenant.  The tenant vacated the premises and  delivered\npossession   to\t the  petitioner  who  moved   into   actual\noccupation  and informed the authorities.   Thereafter,\t the\nDistrict Magistrate passed an order of requisition of  these\npremises,  without any enquiry as to whether the  petitioner\nhad any other alternative accommodation, and the  petitioner\nchallenged the order.\nAllowing the petition,\nHELD  : (1) The petitioner was in actual residence  of\tthe\nrequisitioned premises and his occupation was not  unlawful.\nSection 7 of the Act does not, contain any impediment or bar\nto the landlord taking possession of the premises after\t the\ntenant has vacated. [408 EG]\n(2)  The  second  proviso  to s. 3 of  the  Act,  therefore,\napplies, and under that proviso, the District Magistrate had\nto  form an opinion that alternative accommodation  for\t the\nperson\tin  occupation existed.\t  Alternative  accommodation\nwill  have to be alternative to the  accommodation of  which\nthe  person was in actual occupation.  The existence  of  an\nalternative  accommodation  is\ta matter  of  fact  and\t the\nopinion\t is  to be formed on certain facts.   That  is,\t the\nDistrict Magistrate had to hold an inquiry to ascertain the\nfacts  in order to arrive at the opinion that there  existed\nalternative  accommodation.  It will not be correct  to\t say\nthat   with-out\t holding  such\tan  inquiry  or\t giving\t  an\nopportunity  to\t the  person  in  occupation  the   District\nMagistrate  can\t ascertain as to  whether  such\t alternative\naccommodation exists. [409 A-C, G-H; 410 A-D]\nA.  K.\tKraipak\t v. Union of India,<\/a>  [1970]  1\tS.C.R.\t457,\nfollowed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 244 of 1971.
\nUnder\tarticle\t 32  of\t the  Constitution  of\t India\t for
\nenforcement of the Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
V.   M. Tarkunde, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur, for the peti-
\ntioner.\n<\/p>\n
G.   N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana, for respondents Nos. 1\tand\n<\/p>\n
2.
\n406<\/span>
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
\nRay, J. This is a  writ petition challenging the order dated
\n11  July,  1971 made by the District  Magistrate,  Allahabad
\nunder  section\t3  of  the  U.P.  (Temporary)  Accommodation
\nRequisition  Act,  1947\t (hereinafter  referred\t to  as\t the
\nRequisition  Act) whereby the petitioners premises 1-A\tBeli
\nRoad,  Allahabad was requisitioned for the residence of\t Mr.
\nJustice D. S. Mathur for a period of “three years or earlier
\nif the purpose is exhausted”.\n<\/p>\n
The  order further recited “I am further satisfied that\t the
\nsaid  accommodation is not being occupied by any tenant\t and
\nthe  owner  who is said to be in possession of the  same  is
\nliving\tin  his\t own  house  No.  101\/108  Katra  Bakhtiari,
\nAllahabad and so no alternative accommodation shall have  to
\nbe provided to him”\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner owns premises 1-A Beli Road, Allahabad  here-
\ninafter\t called\t the  Beli  Road  premises.   Prior  to\t the
\nimpeached  order  the  Beli Road premises had  been  in\t the
\noccupation  of Mr. Justice Oak of the Allahabad\t High  Court
\nsince  the  year 1955 and prior thereto from the  year\t1950
\nwhen he was the District Judge, Allahabad.
\nThe  petitioner\t was  living  at  101\/108  Katra  Bakhtiari,
\nAllahabad.   That house is alleged to be situated in a\tvery
\ncongested  area and is unhygienic because of  its  situation
\nnear a municipal drain.\t The petitioner further alleged that
\nthe  health  of\t the  members  of  the\tpetitioner’s  family
\nsuffered  because of the condition of the house.   According
\nto  The petitioner, the house also  required  reconstruction
\nwhich would cost approximately Rs. 40,000.
\nMr.  Justice Oak retired as Chief Justice of Allahabad\tHigh
\nCourt  in  the month of May, 1971.  The\t petitioner  in\t the
\nmonth of November, 1970 made an application to the  District
\nMagistrate  under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of  Rent\t and
\nEviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Eviction Act) for
\nrelease\t of the Beli Road premises in his favour  after\t the
\nsame  would be vacated by Mr. Justice Oak.  The\t application
\nwas  under Rule 6 of the Rules under the Eviction  Act.\t  It
\nwas  made  in  view of the fact that the  Chief\t Justice  of
\nAllahabad High Court would retire in the month of May, 1971.
\nThe petitioner also gave an undertaking that he would vacate
\nthe  other house 101\/108 Katra Bakhtiari and the same  could
\nbe allotted to any other person.  By an order dated 3
\n407<\/span>
\nMay,  1971 the District Magistrate rejected the\t application
\nof  the ‘Petitioner.  It may be stated here that  the  Chief
\nJustice\t of  Allahabad\thad  recommended  the\tpetitioner’s
\napplication for release of the accommodation.
\nThe  petitioner\t thereafter  filed  a  representation  under
\nsection 7-F of the Eviction Act against the order of refusal
\nto  release  the accommodation.\t The State Government  on  6
\nMay,  1971 further stayed all proceedings for  allotment  in
\nrespect\t of Beli Road premises.\t After the Chief Justice  of
\nAllahabad vacated the premises in the month of May, 1971  he
\ndelivered  possession to the petitioner who moved  into\t the
\npremises and was then in actual occupation of the Beli\tRoad
\npremises.   The petitioner informed the Rent Controller\t and
\nEviction  Officer,  Allahabad  that  the  Chief\t Justice  of
\nAllahabad  had\tvacated\t the Beli Road\tpremises  and  given
\npossession thereof to the petitioner and the petitioner\t was
\nin occupation of the same.\n<\/p>\n
On  8 July, 1971 the District Magistrate passed an order  of
\nrequisition  of\t the  Beli Road\t premises.   This  order  is
\nchallenged  on these grounds.  First , no notice of  enquiry
\nwas given to the petitioner nor was any enquiry made whether
\nsuitable alternative accommodation existed for the needs  of
\nthe  petitioner.   Secondly,  no  provision  was  made\t for
\nsuitable alternative accommodation of the petitioner because
\nthe petitioner had stated that the accommodation at  101\/108
\nKatra  Bakhtiari was not fit for habitation and that is\t why
\nthe  petitioner’s whole family was residing at\t1-A,  Beli
\nRoad,  Allahabad.  Thirdly, it was said that the  petitioner
\nhad a fundamental right to hold property and he was deprived
\nof  it\twithout\t being\theard and  without  being  given  an
\nopportunity of redressing his grievances before the property
\nwas requisitioned.\n<\/p>\n
The  entire  controversy in this case turns  on\t the  second
\nproviso\t ,to  section 3 of the Requisition Act.\t  The  first
\nproviso\t is  not set out because it is\tnot  material.\t The
\nrelevant provisions in section 3 are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Power  of requisition :-If in the opinion  of
\n\t      the  District  Magistrate it is  necessary  to
\n\t      requisition  any accommodation for any  public
\n\t      purpose\the   may,  by  order   in   writing,
\n\t      requisition such accommodation and may  direct
\n\t      that the possession thereof shall be delivered
\n\t      to him within such period as may be  specified
\n\t      in the order;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      408<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat the period so  specified  shall
\n\t      not be less than 15 days from the date of\t the
\n\t      service of the order;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tfurther that no accommodation  which
\n\t      is  in  the actual occupation  of\t any  person
\n\t      shall  be\t requisitioned unless  the  District
\n\t      Magistrate  is  further of  the  opinion\tthat
\n\t      suitable alternative accommodation exists\t for
\n\t      his needs or has been provided to him”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Counsel\t on behalf of the State contended that\tthe  proviso
\nwas  not applicable inasmuch as the  requisitioned  premises
\nwas  not in the actual occupation of the  petitioner.\tThat
\nsubmission  is unacceptable.  The affidavit evidence of\t the
\npetitioner  is that the petitioner was in occupation of\t the
\nBeli  Road premises after Chief Justice Oak had vacated\t the
\npremises.  The State did not deny ‘he fact of occupation  of
\nthe  Beli Road premises by the petitioner.  The\t imp,–ached
\norder  of requisition also recited that the  petitioner\t was
\nsaid  to  be in possession of the Beli Road  premises.\t The
\nState however contended it to be unlawful occupation.  It is
\nindisputable  that the petitioner was in possession  of\t the
\nBeli Road premises.  Chief Justice Oak vacated the  premises
\nin  the month of May, 1971.  The petitioner was\t the  owner.
\nChief  Justice Oak therefore surrendered possession  to\t the
\nowner  who  accepted it.  The petitioner  went\tinto  actual
\nresidence at the Beli Road premises.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t on behalf of the State relied on section 7  of\t the
\nEviction Act in support of the contention that the  District
\nMagistrate was to control letting of premises and unless  an
\norder  was  made by the District Magistrate  the  petitioner
\ncould  not get into possession.\t That is totally  misreading
\nsection\t 7  of the Eviction Act.  Section 7  indicates\tthat
\nboth  the landlord and the tenant shall give notice  of\t the
\nvacancy\t of the premises after accommodation becomes  vacant
\nby the tenant ceasing to occupy or the tenant vacating it or
\nwhen  there  is\t release from requisition.   Section  7\t (2)
\nstates I hat the District Magistrate may require a  landlord
\nto allot or not to allot to any person any occupation  which
\nis  or\thas fallen vacant.  Section 7 does not\tcontain\t any
\nimpediment and bar to the landlord taking possession of\t the
\npremises  after\t the  tenant has  vacated.   The  petitioner
\ninformed the District Magistrate that the premises had\tbeen
\nvacated\t and  that the petitioner moved\t into  the  premises
\nparticularly  because the other house where  the  petitioner
\nhad  been  staying  with his family  was  unhygenic  and  in
\ndilapidated  condition.\t  It  is also  noticeable  that\t the
\npetitioner made an application under rule 6 of the  Eviction
\nAct to the District Magistrate to pen-nit the petitioner  to
\noccupy the premises for his personal occupation inasmuch  as
\nit  was needed by the petitioner.  Therefore the  petitioner
\ncould not be said to be in unlawful occupation.\n<\/p>\n
409<\/span><\/p>\n
The  petitioner\t was in actual occupation of  the  premises.
\nThe  question  therefore is whether the\t second\t proviso  to
\nsection 3 of the Requisition Act required that any notice of
\nenquiry\t was  to  be given to the  petitioner  or  that\t any
\nenquiry\t was  to be made by the District  Magistrate  as  to
\nwhether\t suitable alternative accommodation existed for\t the
\npetitioner  or whether alternative accommodation  should  be
\nprovided.  On behalf of the State it was submitted that the
\nopinion\t  of  the  District  Magistrate\t  that\t alternative
\naccommodations\t existed  or  had  been\t provided  was\t the
\nsubjective opinion of the District Magistrate.\tThe District
\nMagistrate  could  not\tform  an  opinion  by\timagination.
\nOpinion is to be formed on certain facts.  The existence  of
\nan  alternative\t accommodation\tis a matter  of\t fact.\t The
\nDistrict Magistrate had to form an opinion that\t alternative
\naccommodation  existed.\t  This\tcould not  be  done  without
\nascertainment of facts and investigation into the question.
\nThe  application of the doctrine of audi altarem  partem  to
\nthe exercise of any statutory power depends primarily on the
\npurpose\t and  provisions of the Act.  This Court  in  A.  K.
\nKraipak\t &  Ors.  etc. v. Union of India &  Ors.,  [1970]  1
\nS.C.R.\t457 in dealing with the preparation of\ta  selection
\nlist  for  appointment\tof officers  to\t the  Indian  Forest
\nService said that one of the purposes of the rule of natural
\njustice\t  was  to  prevent  miscarriage\t of  justice.\t The
\nprinciple   of\tnatural\t justice  has  been  applicable\t  to
\nadministrative enquiries or quasi judicial enquiries.  It is
\nthe nature of the power and the circumstances and conditions
\nunder  which  it  is  exercised\t that  will  occasion\t,the
\ninvocation of the principle of natural justice.\t Deprivation
\nof property  affects  rights of a  person,  If\tunder  the
\nRequisition  Act  the petitioner was to be deprived  of\t the
\noccupation  of the premises the District Magistrate  had  to
\nhold an enquiry in order to arrive at an opinion that  there
\nexisted alternative accommodation  for the petitioner or the
\nDistrict    Magistrate\t  was\tto    provide\t alternative
\naccommodation.\tThe petitioner had made specific request’ to
\nremain in occupation of the Beli Road premises on the ground
\nthat  the  other house was inadequate and  insanitary.\t The
\nDistrict Magistrate could decide only after due enquiry\t and
\ninvestigation\ton   materials\t whether   any\t alternative
\naccommodation existed.\n<\/p>\n
Alternative,  accommodation will have to be  alternative  to
\nthe  accommodation  of\twhich the petitioner  is  in  actual
\noccupation.  It, is incomprehensible as to how the  District
\nMagistrate could in the order of requisition state the\tfact
\nthat because the petitioner was living in the other house no
\nalternative accommodation was to be provided.
\nThe existence of alternative accommodation is something\t the
\nhaving of which can be ascertained.  It will not be  correct
\nto  say\t that  without\tholding an  enquiry  and  giving  an
\nopportunity to the-\n<\/p>\n
410<\/span><\/p>\n
Petitioner in that behalf the District Magistrate win be  in
\na   position   to  ascertain  as  to   whether\t alternative
\naccommodation  for the petitioner exists.  The existence  of
\nan  alternative accommodation is a controversy which has  to
\nbe determined by the District Magistrate.  The determination
\nis  necessary for correcting or contradicting  any  relevant
\nstatement  prejudicial to the view expressed either  by\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate  or the petitioner.  That\tis  why\t the
\nprinciple of audi altarem partem is attracted.\tThe  opinion
\nas  to\talternative  accommodation  is\tnot  an\t  impersonal
\nobligation.  It is a determination of a fact.  The  District
\nMagistrate has to arrive at the opinion on the existence  of
\nfacts  by  holding an enquiry and not on  turning  the\tidea
\nwithin himself without giving the petitioner any say in the
\nmatter.\t  The District Magistrate did not hold\tan  ,enquiry
\nand failed to comply with the principles of natural  justice
\nby  finding out the requisite condition to the\texercise  of
\nhis  powers that alternative accommodation existed  for\t +he
\npetitioner.   The  order  of  requisition  is  illegal\t and
\nunwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
For  these reasons, the petitioner is entitled\tto  succeed.
\nThere ,Will be an order quashing the order of requisition of
\nthe  Beli  Road\t premises.  The petitioner  is\tentitled  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t    Petition\nallowed.\n411<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & … on 4 February, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 896, 1972 SCR (3) 405 Author: A Ray Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Grover, A.N., Ray, A.N., Palekar, D.G., Beg, M. Hameedullah PETITIONER: DAUD AHMED Vs. RESPONDENT: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/02\/1972 BENCH: […]<\/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-35372","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDaud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & ... on 4 February, 1972 - 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\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & ... on 4 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-04T11:17:29+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & … on 4 February, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-04T11:17:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972\"},\"wordCount\":1955,\"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\\\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972\",\"name\":\"Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & ... on 4 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-04T11:17:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & … on 4 February, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & ... on 4 February, 1972 - 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\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & ... on 4 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-04T11:17:29+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & … on 4 February, 1972","datePublished":"1972-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-04T11:17:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972"},"wordCount":1955,"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\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972","name":"Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & ... on 4 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-04T11:17:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daud-ahmed-vs-district-magistrate-allahabad-on-4-february-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Daud Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Allahabad & … on 4 February, 1972"}]},{"@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\/35372","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=35372"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35372\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35372"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}