{"id":36366,"date":"1999-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999"},"modified":"2015-10-16T18:28:20","modified_gmt":"2015-10-16T12:58:20","slug":"jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Majmudar, U.C. Banerjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6126-27 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nJNANEDAYA YOGAM AND ANR.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK.K. PANKAJAKSHY AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/10\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. MAJMUDAR &  U.C. BANERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1999 Supp(4) SCR 216<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
By consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have heard these appeals
\nfinally and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
A writ petition was filed in the Kerala High Court by common Respondent no,
\n1 herein. She challenged the notification issued by the State of Kerala
\nunder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
\nas `the Act’). The said notification dated 22nd March, 1988 issued under
\nSection 4 of the Act provided that land admeasuring 0.028 cents situated in
\nKodiyeri village in Tellicherry Taluk of Cannanore District was needed or
\nlikely to be needed for a public purpose for providing passage to
\nPallivetta procession of Sree Jagannath Temple, Tellicherry. The said
\nnotification was issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 read with
\nSection 17(4) of the Act. It is this notification which was successfully
\nchallenged by Respondent no.l before the High Court in her writ petition
\nwherein the present appellants were joined as Respondent nos. 4 and 5 while
\nthe State Authorities were joined as Respondent nos. I, 2, 3 and 6. The
\ncase of Respondent no.l before the High Court in the writ petition was to
\nthe effect that she is the owner and is in possession of the land in
\ndispute being R.S.No. 38\/1. That she had purchased the property by a
\nregistered assignment deed No. 1899 of 1978. At a distance of about 1km
\nfrom Respondent no. 1’s property is situated Sree Jagannath Temple, which
\nwas established by Shri Narayana Guru in 1906. The said temple was managed
\nby the present Appellant no.l- Original Respondent no. 4, while present
\ncommon Appellant no. 2- Original Respondent no. 5 is the President of the
\nsaid Sree Jnanedaya Yogam. As part of the festival in the Jagannath Temple,
\na Pallivetta (Royal Hunt) is performed on the penultimate day of the
\nfestival every year. The said festival is being held in the month
\nof March every year. It is performed at a place situated to the south of
\nfirst respondent-writ petitioner’s property. On that occasion, the deity is
\ntaken out on an elephant in procession to the place where the Pallivetta is
\nperformed. This religious function lasts for an hour. In the said function,
\nthe deity is taken down from the back of the elephant and placed at the
\nappointed site and the devotees and the priests perform religious ceremony
\nfor propitiating the deity and a pumpkin is being cut at the said place to
\nward off evil spirits and for earning religious merit. According to
\nRespondent no, I- writ petitioner, there is no fixed route through which
\nthe elephant carrying the idol and the procession of devotees, passes every
\nyear on the aforesaid occasion. At the instance of the present appellants,
\na part of Respondent no. 1’s land, wherein stands a pucca built shop, was
\nsought to be acquired under the aforesaid impugned notification for having
\na passage for the elephant carrying the idol on the occasion of the
\naforesaid religious function and the said requirement for the passage of
\nthe elephant was for one hour every year in the month of March.\n<\/p>\n
The said notification was challenged on diverse grounds before the learned
\nSingle Judge of the Kerala High Court. The learned Single Judge, after
\nhearing the parties, allowed the original petition and held that when
\nacquisition was not for `public purpose’, but for a `company’ or for a
\nsociety like Appellant no.l, the acquisition was governed by Part VII of
\nthe Act and consequently, Section 17(4) dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry
\ncould not get attracted.\n<\/p>\n
Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, present
\nAppellant no.1 – Original Respondent no, 4, filed Writ Appeal No. 377\/1990
\nbefore the Division Bench of the High Court, while original Respondent nos,
\n.1, 2, 3 and 6 filed Writ Appeal No. 400 of 1990 challenging the very same
\njudgment of the learned Single Judge. Both these appeals were heard
\ntogether by the Division Bench of the High Court and by a common Order
\ndated 27.1.1995, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both the
\nappeals. That is how original Respondent nos. 4 and S in the writ petition
\nhave filed these appeals on leave granted by us.\n<\/p>\n
Learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court was in error when it took the view that
\nthe impugned acquisition proceedings were not governed by Section 40 (1)(b)
\nof the Act. It was submitted, placing reliance on the two decisions of this
\nCourt, in the case of R.L. Arora v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,<\/a>
\n[AIR (1962) SC 764 and in the case of State of West Bengal and Others etc.
\nv. PN. Talukdar and other etc., AIR (1965) SC 646, that even if acquisition
\nwas for a society, represented by the Appellants-Original Respondent nos. 4
\nand 5, who were acting on behalf of the temple for providing a route for
\nthe procession of the deity for approaching the place where the religious
\nceremony was to be performed, it could squarely attract Section 40 (1) (b)
\nof the Act and as the appellants had complied with the provisions of
\nSection 41 of the Act in this connection, the impugned acquisition ought to
\nhave been upheld by the High Court. That the Division Bench had erred in
\ntaking the view that Sections 40 and 41 can apply if acquisition is for the
\npurpose of construction of works like hospital, public reading room,
\nlibrary or any educational institution open to public or such other work as
\nthe public may directly use and, therefore, providing an approach road for
\ngoing to the place of religious festival would not amount to construction
\nof any work directly useful to the public.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for Respondent no. 1, who is the main contesting party, on
\nthe other hand, submitted that the learned Single Judge and the<\/p>\n
Division Bench have rightly set aside the acquisition proceedings by
\nholding that providing for a passage for the religious procession could not
\nbe covered by Section 40(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is necessary to have a
\nlook at the relevant provisions of the Act. It is not in dispute between
\nthe parties that the impugned acquisition is for a society which is
\nmanaging the temple in question. Therefore, acquisition for the purpose of
\nthe said society would not fall within the definition of `public purpose’
\nas per Section 3 (f) of the Act, The said definition as amended by Act 68
\nof 1984, reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“(f) the expression “public purpose” includes-\n<\/p>\n
(i) the provision of village sites, or the extension, planned development
\nor improvement of existing village sites;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   the provision of land for town or rural planning;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) the provision of land for planned development of land from public
\nfunds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent
\ndisposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale
\nwith the object of securing further development as planned;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the
\nState;\n<\/p>\n
(v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless
\nor to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities or to
\npersons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme
\nunder taken by Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or
\ncontrolled by the State;\n<\/p>\n
(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing;
\nhealth or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government or by any authority
\nestablished by Government for carrying out any such scheme, or with the
\nprior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority, or a
\nsociety registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860),
\nor under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, or
\ncooperative society within the meaning of any law relating to cooperative
\nsocieties for the time being in force in any State;\n<\/p>\n
(vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored
\nby Government, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government,
\nby a local authority;\n<\/p>\n
(viii) the provision of any premises or building for locating a public
\noffice, but does not include acquisition of land for companies;\n<\/p>\n
Such acquisition, therefore, will be governed admittedly by Part VII of the
\nAct which deals with acquisition of lands for companies. Section 3 (e) of
\nthe Act defines the expression “Company” to mean, amongst others, a society
\nregistered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or under any
\ncorresponding law for the time being in force in a State, other than a
\nsociety referred to in clause (cc). Appellant society is registered under
\nthe Societies Registration Act, 1860. We have, therefore, to turn to the
\nprocedure regarding acquisition of lands for a company. They are found in
\nPart VII of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Section 39 of Part VII reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“Previous consent of appropriate Government and execution of agreement
\nnecessary.-The provisions of [sections 6 to 36 (both inclusive) and
\nsections 18 to 37 (both inclusive)] shall not be put in force in order to
\nacquire land for any Company, [under this Part] unless with the previous
\nconsent of the appropriate Government nor unless the Company shall have
\nexecuted the agreement hereinafter mentioned,”\n<\/p>\n
It must, therefore, be held that the High Court has rightly considered the
\napplicability of Part VII to the present acquisition proceedings. Once that
\nconclusion is reached, Section 40 of Part VII of the Act would directly get
\nattracted. The said section reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“40. Previous enquiry;- (1) Such consent shall not be given unless the
\n[appropriate government] be satisfied, [either on the report of the
\nCollector under section 5A, sub-section (2), or] by an enquiry held as
\nhereinafter provided,<\/p>\n
(a) that the purpose of the acquisition is to obtain land for the erection
\nof dwelling houses for workmen employed by the Company or for the provision
\nof amenities directly connected therewith, or<\/p>\n
(aa) that such acquisition is needed for the   construction of some
\nbuilding or work for a company which is engaged or is taking steps for
\nengaging itself in any industry or work which is for a public purpose; or<\/p>\n
(b)   that such acquisition is needed for the construction of some work and
\nthat such work is likely to prove useful to the public,<\/p>\n
(2)    Such enquiry shall be held by such officer and at such time and
\nplace as the [appropriate Government] shall appoint.\n<\/p>\n
(3)    Such officer may summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and
\ncompel the production of documents by the same means and, as far as
\npossible, in the same manner as is provided by the [Code of Civil
\nProcedure, 1908] in the case of a Civil Court.”\n<\/p>\n
It, therefore, become obvious that before the appropriate Government i.e.,
\nthe State of Kerala could have given consent for acquisition of land for
\nAppellant no.l, it had to be satisfied that such acquisition was needed for
\nconstruction of some work by Appellant no. 1 and that such work was likely
\nto prove useful to the public. Now, it becomes clear as laid down by
\nSection 40 (1) (b) of the Act that if acquisition is to be made for a
\n`company’ like Appellant no, 1 it has to be shown that the purpose of
\nacquisition is:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  for construction of some work by Appellant no.l; and<\/p>\n
(2)  that such work is likely to prove useful to the public.\n<\/p>\n
In this connection, Section 41 (5) becomes relevant. It reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“where the acquisition is for the construction of any other work, the time
\nwithin which and the conditions on which the work shall be executed and
\nmaintained, and the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the
\nwork.”\n<\/p>\n
When the acquisition is for the company for construction of some work as
\nlaid down by Section 40 (l)(b), the company concerned has to enter into an
\nagreement with the appropriate Government. As required by Section 41 (5),
\nthe company has to satisfy the appropriate Government about the time within
\nwhich and the conditions on which the work shall be executed and
\nmaintained, and the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the
\nwork. A conjoint reading of Sections 40 (I) (b) and 41 (5), leaves no room
\nfor doubt that the construction of such work for the company must be of
\nsuch nature that it should be perennially and directly useful to the public
\nand should not be of a sporadic or of a temporary nature. In other words,
\nit should be permanently useful to the public for all times to come and the
\npublic can directly use that work constructed by the company as and when
\noccasion arises. Such work has to be finished within the time schedule laid
\ndown by Section 41 (5) and conditions on which the work has to be executed
\nand maintained are also to be laid down. Maintenance of such work by the
\ncompany for supporting the acquisition in question necessarily means
\nmaintenance on a permanent basis. Learned counsel for Respondent no. 1
\ncontended that providing for a passage for a decorated elephant carrying
\nthe idol of the deity followed by the procession for devotees only once in
\na year at time of festival and for which purpose the land in question has
\nto be required for not more than an hour every year, cannot amount to any
\nneed for construction of such work, which has to prove permanently useful
\nto the public for all the year round or even for an indefinite period in
\nfuture.\n<\/p>\n
It is difficult to appreciate this extreme contention. On the other hand,
\nlearned senior counsel for the appellants was right when he contended that
\nthe reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
\nimpugned judgment for applicability of Section 40 (1) (b) of the Act, that
\nthe work concerned should be like hospital, public reading room or library,
\nwould result in unduly limiting the wide scope of Section 40 (1) (b). It
\ncannot be doubted that if premises of the temple are landlocked, and a
\npassage is to be carved out from the surrounding land so that devotees
\nrepresenting a class of public can approach the place of religious worship
\nmay be even once every year, acquisition of appropriate surrounding land
\nfor that purpose can squarely be covered by Section 40 (1) (b) as such a
\npermanent carving out of passage by levelling the acquired land can
\nlegitimately be treated to be construction of work directly useful to the
\npublic. With respect, the Division Bench has too narrowly construed the
\nterminology employed by the legislature in Section 40 (1) (b). It must,
\ntherefore, be held that if a approach road to the temple or the place where
\nreligious ceremonies are to be performed is to be laid on a permanent basis
\nfor perennial use of the members of the public, being devotees, even if to
\nbe utilised every year on a single occasion for approaching the place of
\nreligious worship, then acquisition of such land would be for construction
\nof some work which is likely to prove directly useful to the public, as the
\nmembers of the public, being devotees, can walk over the said constructed
\napproach road for all times to come for going to the religious place
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for Respondent no. 1 vehemently contended that acquisition
\nfor having the passage for enabling the elephant and the procession to go
\ntowards the southern side for reaching the destination, cannot be
\nconsidered to be for construction of any work for the company, including
\nthe society, in the present case as laying of passage is not construction
\nof any work. It is not possible to agree with this contention.\n<\/p>\n
Work of carving out a passage would certainly amount to construction of the
\npassage in question. Construction does not necessarily mean construction
\nover the land which must rise above the surface of the land in ail
\ncontingencies. It cannot be held that for this type of need, the
\nacquisition proceedings could not have been resorted to at all,<\/p>\n
In this connection, we may now refer to the two decisions of this Court on
\nwhich strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellants. In
\nthe case of R. L Arora v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others<\/a> (supra), a
\nConstitution Bench of this Court speaking through Wanchoo J. for the
\nmajority, had to consider the question whether acquisition of land required
\nby a company for construction of textile machinery parts could be supported
\nunder the relevant provisions of the Act. While deciding the said question,
\nWanchoo J-, in para 12 of the report observed that the interpretation of
\nthe material terms in Section 40 (1) (b) and the fifth term of the
\nagreement provided in Section 41 read together is and must always be within
\nthe jurisdiction of the Court. Repelling the contention that the words of
\nSection 40 (1) (b) could permit acquisition for some work which could make
\nthe ultimate product of the work useful to the public, it was held in para
\n14 of the report that the work should be directly useful to the public and
\nthe product of the work, even though useful to the public, would not amount
\nto the work being directly useful to the public.\n<\/p>\n
In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. v. P.N. Talukdar and
\nothers etc. (supra), Wanchoo J., speaking for a three Judge Bench of this
\nCourt, had once again to interpret Section 40 (1) (b) of the Act. In the
\nlight of the said provision, it was held that construction of hostel
\nbuilding and playground obviously meant for students of the institution,
\nbeing a section of the public ,was an activity which was directly useful to
\nthat section of the public but acquisition for the construction of staff
\nquarters of the company cannot be said to be directly useful to the public
\nas they were meant for occupation of individual members of the staff.\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid decisions clearly indicate that permissible acquisitions for
\nthe company under Part VII would be those type of acquisitions where the
\nland sought to be acquired on a permanent basis must be required to be
\nutilised for construction of work which are directly useful to the public.
\nAccording to learned counsel for the appellants on the facts of the present
\ncase, it can be said that when devotees pass by the road or passage to be
\ncarved out for permitting the religious procession to move towards the
\nplace of festival, the said construction of road would amount to
\nconstruction of a work directly useful to the public. We find considerable
\nforce in this contention. To this extent, the decision of the Division
\nBench with respect is erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
One aspect of the matter which stares in the face has to be kept in view.
\nThe procession accompanying the elephant carrying the idol of the deity,
\nmay require an appropriate passage for reaching the destination. That need
\nmay not be a continuous need as such. A festival may take place once in a
\nyear. However, for laying down such a passage if any construction
\nintervenes and has to be demolished it cannot be said that such a
\nrequirement is of a sporadic nature or could be met by requisitioning the
\npremises from time to time every year. It is easy to visualise that once
\nthe passage is cleared by demolishing the shop for allowing the procession
\nalong with the elephant to pass over the said land in a given year, next
\nyear when the occasion arises the same shop, if permitted to be re-
\nconstructed in the meantime, will have again to be demolished. That would
\ncreate an impossible situation not beneficial to anyone. For such a
\npurpose, therefore, even though the requirement may be repeated every year
\nand may be even for one hour in the month of March each year, the need for
\nkeeping such a passage open would be a perennial need and obviously will be
\nof a permanent nature. Such requirement cannot be met by merely
\nrequisitioning the premises from time to time every year but the land over
\nwhich the passage has to be carved out has to be kept open throughout the
\nyear and, therefore, must vest in the authorities by following the
\nprocedure of acquisition, if legally permissible. It is not possible to
\nagree with the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent no, 1 that
\nsuch a need is a temporary need which would, if at all, call for
\nrequisitioning the land from time to time instead of resorting to the
\nprocedure of acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
We may now proceed to consider the legality of the impugned acquisition. In
\nour view, on the peculiar facts of this case, basic requirements of Section
\n40 sub-section l(b) of the Act are not met at all. The reason is obvious.
\nThe site plan placed before us by both sides, and on which there is no
\ndispute, shows that, the main road over which the procession has to proceed
\non spot is on the northern side. The respondent no. l’s disputed land is
\nsituated on the southern side of the main road. There is a fence put up by
\nthe respondent over her land and leaving the compound land the respondent
\nhas pat up a residential house in one corner of her land .and there is a
\nrow of shops built up by her facing the main road towards the north just
\ntouching the main road on the Northern side. The last shop touching the
\nmain road is constructed on the disputed land which is sought to be
\nacquired. The destination of the procession is on further southern side of
\nthe respondent land. For reaching that destination where the procession has
\nto end and the idol has to be taken down from the elephant’s back for
\ncarrying out the religious ceremony, the procession has necessarily to go
\nthrough the open land adjoining the respondent’s compound land. The
\nrespondent’s teamed counsel, on instruction, made it clear that the
\nrespondent will have no objection in allowing the procession along with the
\nelephant to go through the open land in her compound for approaching the
\nsouthern side and for reaching the destination. For that purpose, instead
\nof cutting across her last shop in the row, the procession can divert its
\nroute by five to ten feet on further right hand side while going towards
\nSouth and can go through her compound land for reaching the destination.
\nThis little diversion of the road may save her shop without in any way
\nhindering the procession for reaching the destination. In our view, the
\nsaid stand of the respondent is quite fair. In fact, such an alternative
\nroute could have been suggested before the acquiring authorities.
\nHowever, as procedure of Section 5A for the Act was dispensed with, the
\nacquiring authorities got no opportunity to consider the alternative route
\nsuggested by her. It is obvious that such an alternative route would have
\nsatisfied the requirements underlying the acquisition proceedings for
\nensuring a convenient passage for the procession along with the elephant.
\nSuch procession could have easily utilised such alternative route without
\ndisturbing and cutting across the respondent’s existing shop on spot. When
\nwe put this to the learned senior counsel for the appellants, he stated
\nthat on principle there may not have been any objection on this aspect but
\nfor the fact that astrofogers consulted by the appellant temple have
\nadvised that the route of the procession cannot be changed and it is only
\nthe old route which is a sanctified route. Now it is easy to visualise that
\nthis stand of the appellant clearly shows that the so called need for
\nhaving the passage for the movement of the elephant and the procession only
\nthrough the   acquired land after demolishing Respondent no. 1’s shop is
\nnot a genuine need of the temple or for that matter of the members of the
\npublic, who are the devotees and who would join in the procession every
\nyear. It is merely the sentimental approach of the temple authorities,
\nsolely depending upon the astrologers information which was made the sole
\nbasis for supporting the acquisition in question. It is easy to visualise
\nthat different astrologers opinions can be contradictory even on given
\nfacts. That can certainly not be treated to be a genuine need for public
\nwhen the suitable passage for movement of elephant and the procession can
\nbe easily obtained on spot without disturbing or demolishing the shop. A
\nlittle diversion of the route cannot, therefore, be held to be an
\nimpermissible possibility nor can the insistence by the astrologers not to
\ndivert the route can be taken to be a genuine need for construction of the
\nroad only by cutting across the intervening shop of the respondent so as to
\njustify acquisition proceedings under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. On the
\nfacts of the present case, therefore, there is no escape from the
\nconclusion that the so-called need for having a passage only through the
\nland on which the respondent’s structure stands was not a genuine and felt
\nneed for construction of the road for the use of the public.\n<\/p>\n
The State Authorities could not have validly reached such a subjective
\nsatisfaction on the relevant objective facts. It remained in substance
\nsubjective satisfaction of astrologers consulted by the appellant-society.
\nNo valid acquisition under the Act can be based on astrologers’
\nsatisfaction only. Such type of satisfaction is dehors the scheme of
\nSection 40(1)(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Once this conclusion is reached, it becomes obvious that the final decision
\nrendered by the Division Bench of the High Court would remain well
\nsustained, though on entirely a different line of reasoning indicated
\nherein-above, and not on the line of the reasoning which appealed to the
\nHigh Court and which, in our view, with respect, is not the correct
\nexposition of the basic requirement of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the a-ppeals fail and are dismissed. In the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999 Bench: S.B. Majmudar, U.C. Banerjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6126-27 of 1999 PETITIONER: JNANEDAYA YOGAM AND ANR. RESPONDENT: K.K. PANKAJAKSHY AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/10\/1999 BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR & U.C. BANERJEE JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1999 Supp(4) SCR 216 […]<\/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-36366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999 - 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\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-16T12:58:20+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-16T12:58:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":4361,\"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\\\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999\",\"name\":\"Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-16T12:58:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999 - 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\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-16T12:58:20+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-16T12:58:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999"},"wordCount":4361,"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\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999","name":"Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-16T12:58:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jnanedaya-yogam-and-anr-vs-k-k-pankajakshy-and-ors-on-28-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jnanedaya Yogam And Anr vs K.K. Pankajakshy And Ors on 28 October, 1999"}]},{"@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\/36366","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=36366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}