{"id":37040,"date":"1965-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965"},"modified":"2015-08-06T17:01:51","modified_gmt":"2015-08-06T11:31:51","slug":"lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965","title":{"rendered":"Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 893, \t\t 1966 SCR (2) 553<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLALA RAM SWARUP AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHIKAR CHAND AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/11\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSATYANARAYANARAJU, P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR  893\t\t  1966 SCR  (2) 553\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1971 SC 530\t (253,237,387)\n\n\nACT:\nU.P.  (Temporary)  Control of Rent and\tEviction  Act,\t1947\n(U.P.  3  of 1947), ss. 3(3), 3(4)  and\t 16-Jurisdiction  of\nCivil Court--If barred--Revisionary powers of Commissioners-\nScope.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   appellants  sued\tthe-respondents-their  tenants\t for\nejectment from their shop.  They had applied to the District\nMagistrate  for\t the requisite permission to  institute\t the\nsuit  under s. 3(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of\tRent\nand  Eviction  Act.  When the permission  was  refused\tthey\nmoved the Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction  under\ns.   3(2)  of  the  Act\t and  the  Commissioner\t  gave\t the\npermission..   The  Munsif  decreed  the  suit.\t  This\t was\nconfirmed in appeal by the District Judge.  The High  Court,\non  appeals,  upheld  the respondents  contention  that\t the\npermission granted by the Commissioner under s. 3 (3) of the\nAct,  was  invalid  in\tlaw,  and  so  concluded  that\t the\nappellants'  suit  was\tincompetent.   In  this\t Court\t the\nappellants  contended  -  (i) ss. 3(4) and  16\tof  the\t Act\ntotally\t excludes  the\tjurisdiction  of  civil\t courts\t  in\nrelation  to the question as to whether permission has\tbeen\nproperly  or validly granted or refused by  the\t appropriate\nauthority   exercising\ttheir  powers  under  the   relevant\nprovisions  of\tthe Act, and (ii) the decision of  the\tHigh\nCourt  that the permission granted by the  Commissioner\t was\ninvalid\t in  law was inconsistent with the  true  scope\t and\neffect of the provisions prescribed by s. 3(3) of the Act.\nHELD:(i)  Section 3 (4) and 16 of the Act create a  bar\nagainst\t pleas which challenge the correctness or  propriety\nof the orders in question. [558 G]\nThe  two  tests,  which are  often  considered\trelevant  in\ndealing\t with  the  question about the\texclusion  of  civil\ncourts'\t jurisdiction  are (a) whether the  special  statute\nwhich excludes such jurisdiction has used clear and  unambi-\nguous  words  indicating that intention; and (b)  does\tthat\nstatute provide for an adequate and satisfactory alternative\nremedy\tto  a party that may be aggrieved  by  the  relevant\norder  under its material provisions.  Applying these  tests\nthe  inference is inescapable that the jurisdiction  of\t the\ncivil courts is intended to be excluded. [558 D-G]\nThis conclusion, however, does not necessarily mean that the\nplea  against the validity of order passed by. the  District\nMagistrate,  or the Commissioner, or the State can never  be\nraised in a civil court.  The bar excluding the jurisdiction\nof  civil  courts  cannot operate in cases  where  the\tplea\nraised before the civil court goes to the root of the matter\nand  would,  if\t upheld, lead to  the  conclusion  that\t the\nimpugned order is a nullity. [558 G-H]\n(ii)The\t High  Court was not justified,\t in  introducing  a\nlimitation  pertaining\t to  questions\tof  jurisdiction  in\ndetermining the scopeof\t the  width  of\t the  revisional\npower  conferred on the Commissionerby\ts. 3 (3).  There\nare three categories of cases in which the commissioner'can\ninterfere      with   the  order  passed  by  the   District\nMagistrate :(a)\t if  the District  Magistrate  has  acted\nillegally;  (b) if he has acted with  material\tirregularity\nand(c)\t  if  he  has  wrongly refused to  act.\t  This\tlast\nground is wide enough\n5 54\nto  empower the Commissioner to correct the error  committed\nby District Magistrate in making an order brought before it;\nclearly\t  if  the  District  Magistrate\t refused  to   grant\npermission and the Commissioner thinks that in doing so,  he\nhas  committed\tan  error, that would be a  case  where\t the\nDistrict  Magistrate \"has wrongly refused to act\"  and\tthat\nwould  give  the Commissioner jurisdiction to  exercise\t his\nrevisional powers. [562 C-E, H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 116. of 1964.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1960,
\nof  the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.  212,  of
\n1956.\n<\/p>\n
J.   P. Goyal and B. P. Jha, for the appellants.
\nA.   V. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the res-
\npondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGajendragadkar,\t C.J Appellant No. 1, Lala Ram Swaruup,\t and
\nfive  other members of his family sued the two\trespondents,
\nShikar\tChand  and  his son, for  ejectment  from  the\tshop
\nsituated in Qasba Chandausi, Bazar Waram, on the  allegation
\nthat  the said premises had been let out to the\t respondents
\nto conduct their shop on a monthly rent with effect from the
\n11th April, 1952, for a year.  At the time when the  present
\nsuit  was brought, the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent\t and
\nEviction  Act,\t1947  (U.P. Act III  of\t 1947)\t(hereinafter
\ncalled\t‘the  Act’)  was in force.  Section  3\tof  the\t Act
\nimposes\t certain  restrictions on the  landlord’s  right  to
\neject his tenant from the premises to which the Act applies.
\nBroadly stated, the effect of the provisions contained in S.
\n3(1) is that a landlord can evict his tenant if he satisfies
\ntwo conditions.\t The first condition is that he must  obtain
\nthe  permission\t of the District Magistrate to file  such  a
\nsuit; and the second condition is that he must provethe
\nexistence  of  one  or\tthe  other  of\tthe  seven  grounds;
\nenumeratedin  clauses (a) to (g) of S. 3(1).  We  shall
\npresently  refer to therelevant\t   provisions\tof    this
\nsection.\n<\/p>\n
In their plaint, the appellants pleaded that they needed the
\npremises in suit to carry on their own business in the shop,
\nand they alleged that they had applied for permission-to the
\nDistrict Magistrate, Moradabad, under S. 3 (1 ) of the\tAct;
\nthat the said permission had been refused by him,  whereupon
\nthey   had   moved  the\t Commissioner\tin   his   revisions
\njurisdiction  under  S.\t 3(2)  of  the\tAct;  and  that\t the
\nCommissioner  had  given them permission to file  the  suit.
\nThat  is how the appellants claimed to have  satisfied\tboth
\nthe,  conditions  prescribed by S. 3  (1).   The  appellants
\nfurther claim-\n<\/p>\n
 555<\/span><\/p>\n
ed  ejectment of the respondents and asked for a decree\t for
\ndamages.  for use and occupation of the suit  premises\tfrom
\n11th  April,  1953 to 11th July, 1954  Rs. 35\/-\t per  month.
\nThe  suit  (No. 349, of 1954) was filed on  the\t 14th  July,
\n1954.\n<\/p>\n
The respondents resisted the claim made by the appelants on.
\nseveral grounds.  They urged that the suit was bad for\tnon-
\njoinder\t of  necessary parties; that the permission  to\t sue
\ngranted to the appellants by the Commissioner was not  valid
\nin  law;  that\tthe  rent note\texecuted  by  them  was\t not
\nadmissible  in\tevidence; and that the notice given  by\t the
\nappellants under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
\nwas also invalid in law.\n<\/p>\n
On  these pleadings, the learned Munsif,  Chandausi,  framed
\nappropriate issues.  Evidence wag led by both the parties in
\nsupport of their respective contentions.  The learned  trial
\nJudge  recorded findings in favour of the appellants on\t all
\nthe  issues  and decreed their suit with costs on  the\t25th
\nMarch, 1955.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondents then preferred an appeal (Civil Appeal\t No.
\n213 of 1955) in the Court of the District Judge,  Moradabad,
\nand urged that the findings recorded by the trial Judge were
\nerroneous and asked for the reversal of the decree passed by
\nhim.   The learned District Judge rejected the\trespondents’
\ncontentions and confirmed the decree under appeal on the 2nd
\nJune, 1955.\n<\/p>\n
That took the respondents to the High Court at Allahabad  in
\nsecond appeal (No. 1106 of 1955).  The learned single  Judge
\nof  the\t said High Court who heard this appeal,\t upheld\t the
\nrespondents’  contention that the permission granted by\t the
\nCommissioner  under s. 3(3) of the Act was invalid  in\tlaw;
\nand so, he came to the conclusion that the appellants’\tsuit
\nwas  incompetent.  This judgment was delivered on  the\t26th
\nJuly,  1956.   The  learned  Judge,  however,  allowed\t the
\nappellants leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal.
\nThe  Letters Patent Appeal was placed before a larger  Bench
\nof  three learned Judges of the High Court, because  it\t was
\nthought\t that the question raised by the appellants  was  of
\nsome  importance.   On\tthe  question  as  to  whether\t the
\npermission granted by the Commissioner was valid or not, the
\nlearned\t Judges who heard the appeal differed.\tTwo  of\t the
\nlearned\t Judges held that the said permission  was  invalid,
\nwhilst\tthe third learned Judge held that it was valid.\t  In
\naccordance  with  the majority opinion\tthe  Letters  Patent
\nappeal.preferred by the appellants was dismissed on the 13th
\nSeptember, 1960.  The appellants then applied for
\n556<\/span>
\nand  obtained  a certificate from the High Court and  it  is
\nwith the said certificate that this appeal has come to\tthis
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
At  the\t hearing of this appeal, the first point  which\t Mr.
\nGoyal for the appellants has raised for our decision is that
\nthe  courts  below  had\t no  jurisdiction  to  consider\t the
\nquestion about the validity of the permission granted by the
\nCommissioner.\tHe contends that s. 3 of the Act provides  a
\nself-contained\tcode  for the grant of permission,  and\t all
\nquestions  in relation to the grant or refusal of  the\tsaid
\npermission have to be decided by the appropriate authorities
\nconstituted  under  the Act.  Once the\tquestion  about\t the
\ngrant of permission asked for by a landlord is determined by
\nthe  appropriate  authorities, their decision is  final\t and
\ncannot\tbe questioned in a civil court.\t In support of\tthis
\nargument,  Mr.\tGoyal has based himself\t on  the  provisions
\ncontained in S. 3 (4) and s. 16 ,of the Act.  Section 3\t (4)
\nprovides  that\tthe  order of the  Commissioner\t under\tsub-
\nsection\t (3) shall subject to any order passed by the  State
\nGovernment  under  s.  7-F,  be\t final.\t  Similarly,  S.  16
\nprovides  that\tno order made under this Act  by  the  State
\nGovernment  or\tthe District Magistrate shall be  called  in
\nquestion  in  any Court.  The combined effect of  these\t two
\nprovisions,  according\tto  Mr. Goyal,\tis  to\texclude\t the
\njurisdiction  of the civil courts to entertain the  question
\nabout  the correctness, propriety or legality of  the  order
\npassed\tby the Commissioner in the present case\t whereby  he
\ngranted\t permission to the appellants to bring\tthe  present
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
In order to appreciate the validity of this argument, it  is
\nnecessary to consider the scheme of the, relevant provisions
\nof the Act.  Section 3(1) reads thus.:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Subject to any order passed under sub-section
\n\t      (3)  no suit shall, without the permission  of
\n\t      the District Magistrate, be filed in any Civil
\n\t      Court  against a tenant for his eviction\tfrom
\n\t      any  accommodation, except on one or  more  of
\n\t      the following grounds”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is unnecessary to cite the said grounds, because  it  is
\nnot disputed that the ground of personal need set out by the
\nappellants  justifies  their  claim  for  the\trespondents’
\nejectment.  Section 3(2) and (3)   as  they  stood  at\t the
\nrelevant time read thus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(2)  The\t party\taggrieved by  the  order  of
\n\t      District\tMagistrate granting or\trefusing  to
\n\t      grant  the  permission  referred\tto  in\tsub-
\n\t      section  (1) may, within 30days from the\tdate
\n\t      of  the  order  or the date  on  which  it  is
\n\t      communi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5 57
\n\t      cated to him, whichever is later, apply to the
\n\t      Commissioner to revise the order.
\n\t      (3)   The\t Commissioner shall, as far  as\t may
\n\t      be, hear the application within six weeks from
\n\t      the  date\t of  its  making,  and,\t if  he\t  is
\n\t      satisfied\t -that the District  Magistrate\t has
\n\t      acted illegally or with material\tirregularity
\n\t      or has wrongly refused to act, he may  confirm
\n\t      or  set  aside.  the  order  of  the
\n\t      District Magistrate”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We have already referred to s. 3(4).\n<\/p>\n
It  would thus be seen that the scheme of s. 3 is that if  a
\nlandlord  wants to bring a suit to eject his tenant, he\t has
\nto apply to the District Magistrate for permission to do so.
\nThe  District Magistrate may grant or refuse to\t grant\tsuch
\npermission.  After the District Magistrate makes an order on
\nthe landlord’s application, the party aggrieved by the order
\ncan  apply in revision to the Commissioner within  30  days;
\nand   the  Commissioner,  in  exercise\tof  his\t  revisional
\njurisdiction,  has  to deal with  the  revision\t application
\nunder  s.  3(3).   If  he is  satisfied\t that  the  District
\nMagistrate   has   acted   illegally   or   with    material
\nirregularity, or has wrongly refused to act, he can make  an
\nappropriate  order; and the order thus made by him is  final
\nunder  sub-s.  (4),  subject to any  order  that  the  State
\nGovernment may pass under s. 7-F of the Act.
\nSection 7-E provides for the revisional powers of the  State
\nGovernment in very wide terms.\tIt reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The State Government may call for the  record
\n\t      of  any  case granting or\t refusing  to  grant
\n\t      permission  for  the  filing  of\ta  suit\t for
\n\t      eviction referred to in section 3 or requiring
\n\t      any  accommodation to be let or not to be\t let
\n\t      to  any  person under section 7 and  may\tmake
\n\t      such order as appears to it necessary for\t the
\n\t      ends of justice”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is clear that the power conferred on the State Government
\nby s.\t  7-F\tto   revise  the  orders   passed   by\t the
\nCommissioner under s.\t 3 (3 ) is very wide.  In the  first
\nplace, the State Government need not necessarily be moved by
\nany  party in that behalf.  It may call for the\t record\t suo
\nmoto  and  it can exercise its powers in  the  interests  of
\njustice.   In  other words, whenever it is  brought  to\t the
\nnotice\tof the State Government either by a party  aggrieved
\nby the order passed by the Commissioner, or otherwise,\tthat
\nthe  order passed by the Commissioner is unfair\t or  unjust,
\nthe  State  Government may in the ends of  justice  pass  an
\nappropriate   order   revising\t-the  order  made   by\t the
\nCommissioner.  That, in brief, is the
\n558<\/span>
\nscheme\tof. the relevant provisions of the Act\trelating  to
\nthe grant of permission to the landlord to sue his tenant in
\nejectment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Goyal contends that the words of s. 3 (4) read with  s.
\n16  are\t clear and unambiguous, and they indicate  that\t the
\njurisdiction  of the civil courts is completely excluded  in
\nrelation  to the question as to whether permission has\tbeen
\nproperly  or validly granted or refused by  the\t appropriate
\nauthorities  exercising\t their\tpowers\tunder  the  relevant
\nprovisions of the Act.\tIt cannot be seriously disputed that
\nthe  jurisdiction  of the civil courts to  deal\t with  civil
\ncauses\tcan be excluded by the Legislature by  special\tActs
\nwhich  deal with special subject-matters; but the  exclusion
\nof  the jurisdiction of the civil courts must be made  by  a
\nstatutory  provision  which expressly provides\tfor  it,  or
\nwhich  necessarily and inevitably leads -to that  inference.
\nIn other words, the jurisdiction of the civil courts can  be
\nexcluded by a statutory provision which is either express in
\nthat behalf or which irresistibly leads to that inference.
\nOne  of\t the points which is often treated  as\trelevant  in
\ndealing\t with  the  question about the\texclusion  of  civil
\ncourts’ jurisdiction, is whether the special statute  which,
\nit is urged, excludes such jurisdiction, has used clear\t and
\nunambiguous  words indicating that intention.  Another\ttest
\nwhich  is applied is : does the said statute provide for  an
\nadequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party that
\nmay  be aggrieved by the relevant order under  its  material
\nprovisions  ? Applying these two tests, it does appear\tthat
\nthe words used in s. 3 (4) and s. 16 are clear.\t Section  16
\nin  terms  provides that the order made under  this  Act  to
\nwhich  the  said  section applies shall\t not  be  called  in
\nquestion  in  any  court.  this\t is  an\t express   provision
\nexcluding  the\tcivil courts’ jurisdiction.  Section  3\t (4)
\ndoes  not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of\t ‘the  civil
\ncourts,\t but, in the context, the inference that  the  civil
\ncourts’ jurisdiction is intended to be excluded, appears  to
\nbe inescapable.\t Therefore, we are satisfied that Mr.  Goyal
\nis  right in contending that the jurisdiction of  the  civil
\ncourts\tis  excluded in relation to matters covered  by\t the
\norders included within the provisions of s.  3\t(4)  and  s.\n<\/p>\n
16.
\nThis conclusion, however, does not necessarily mean that the
\nplea  against  the  validity  of the  order  passed  by\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate,  or  the Commissioner,  or  the  State
\nGovernment,  can never be raised in a civil court.   In\t our
\nopinion,  the bar created by the relevant provisions of\t the
\nAct  excluding the jurisdiction of the civil  courts  cannot
\noperate\t in  cases where the plea raised  before  the  civil
\ncourt goes to the root of the matter and would, if upheld,
\n 559<\/span>
\nlead to the conclusion that the impugned order is a nullity.
\nTake,, for instance, the case of an order purported to\thave
\nbeen  passed by a District Magistrate who is not a  District
\nMagistrate in law.  If it is shown by a party impeaching the
\nvalidity  of the order in a civil court that the  order\t was
\npassed\tby a person who was not a  District  Magistrate,-the
\norder  in law would be a nullity, and such a plea cannot  be
\nruled out on the ground of the exclusion of the jurisdiction
\nof  the\t civil\tcourt.\t Similarly,  if\t an  order  granting
\npermission to a landlord is passed by a District  Magistrate
\nof one District when the property in question is situated in
\nanother district outside his jurisdiction, a party would  be
\nentitled  to urge before a civil court that  the  permission
\npurported to have been granted by the District Magistrate is
\nwholly\tinvalid and a nullity in law.  Let us  take  another
\ncase to illustrate the position.  If S. 3 had provided\tthat
\nbefore\ta  District  Magistrate\t grants\t permission  to\t the
\nlandlord  to  sue his tenant, he shall issue notice  to\t the
\ntenant\tand  give him an opportunity to represent  his\tcase
\nbefore\tthe application of the. landlord is dealt  with\t on.
\nthe  merits; and in the face of such a statutory  provision,
\nthe  District Magistrate grants permission ex parte  without
\nissuing notice to the tenant; in such a case, the failure of
\nthe  District  Magistrate  to  comply  with  the   mandatory
\nprovision% prescribed in that behalf, would render the order
\npassed\tby him completely invalid, and a plea that an  order
\nhas been passed by the District Magistrate without complying
\nwith  the mandatory provision of the Act, would be open\t for
\nexamination before a civil court.  Likewise, in the  absence
\nof  such  a  statutory provision, if it\t is  held  that\t the
\nproceedings before the appropriate. authorities contemplated
\nby  S. 3 are in the nature of quasi-judcial proceedings\t and
\nthey  must  be tried in accordance with\t the  principles  of
\nnatural\t justice, and it is shown that in a given  case,  an
\norder  has been passed without notice to the party  affected
\nby such order, it would be open to the said party to contend
\nthat  an  order\t passed in violation of\t the  principles  of
\nnatural\t justice  is a nullity and it  existence  should  be
\nignored\t by  the civil court.  Such a plea  cannot,  in\t our
\nopinion,  be excluded by reason of the provisions  contained
\nin S. 3 (4) and S. 16 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In  this connection, we may incidentally refer to  a  recent
\ndeciSion of this Court in Lala Shri Bhagwan & A nr. v.\tShri
\nRam Chand and Another(1).  In that case, -this Court  upheld
\nthe decision of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside
\nthe  order  passed by the appropriate  authority  under\t the
\nrelevant  provisions the Act on the ground that\t in  passing
\nthe said order, principles of natural
\n (1) [1965] 3 S.C.R, 218
\n560<\/span>
\njustice had not been followed.\tThe view which was taken  by
\nthis Court in that case was that the proceedings taken by  a
\nlandlord  under\t S. 3 are proceedings  of  a  quasi-judicial
\nnature and the appropriate authorities, in exercising  their
\npowers\tin  relation  to  such\tproceedings,  must  act\t  in
\naccordance with the principles of natural justice.  It must,
\nhowever,  be made clear that in that ,case, the question  as
\nto whether such a plea can be raised in a civil court having
\nregard\tto the bar created by sections 3 (4) and 16  of\t the
\nAct, was not raised and has not been considered.
\nWe ought to point out that the provisions contained in\tsec-
\ntions  3(4)  and 16 undoubtedly raise a\t bar  against  pleas
\nwhich ,challenge the correctness or propriety of the  orders
\nin  question.  The merits of the order are concluded by\t the
\ndecision  of the ,appropriate authorities under the Act\t and
\nthey cannot be agitated in a civil -court.  But where a plea
\nseeks  to prove that the impugned order is a nullity in\t the
\ntrue legal sense, that is a plea -which does not come within
\nthe  mischief of the bar created by sections 3(4) and 16  of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
Similar\t questions  have often been considered\tby  judicial
\n,decisions  to\tsome  of which we will now  refer.   In\t The
\nSecretary  ,of\tState for India in Council v.  Roy  Jatindra
\nNath Chowdhury -and A nr., (1) dealing with the effect of s.
\n6 of the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act (IX of 1847),\t the
\nPrivy  Council\tobserved that -the finality  of\t the  orders
\nspecified in the said section had to be read subject to\t two
\nconditions;  the first was that the said orders -should\t not
\nsuffer\tfrom any fundamental irregularity, that is to  -say,
\n“a  defiance  or noncompliance with the\t essentials  of\t the
\nprocedure”;  and the second condition was that\tthe  alleged
\ndefiance  or  non-compliance,  with the\t essentials  of\t the
\nprocedure must be strictly proved by the party alleging\t it.
\nThis  decision show that if the special\t statute  prescribes
\ncertain mandatory conditions -subject to which the orders in
\nquestion  can be passed, and the said  mandatory  provisions
\nare  violated,\tthe  validity of the  said  orders  ,can  be
\nchallenged in a civil proceeding.  Similarly, if  principles
\n,of natural justice are not complied with, the orders passed
\nin  violation  of  the\tsaid  principles  would\t be   wholly
\ninoperative  in law and their validity can be  impeached  in
\ncivil proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
The same principle has been emphasised by the Privy  Council
\nin Secretary of State v. Mask & Co.(1). In that case, though
\nthe  words used in sections 188 and 191 of the\tSea  Customs
\nAct  (1878)  were held to exclude the  jurisdiction  of\t the
\ncivil courts,
\n(1) A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 175.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 67 1. A. 222
\n 561<\/span>
\nthe  Privy Council observed that even where jurisdiction  is
\nexcluded,  the\tcivil courts have jurisdiction\t“to  examine
\ninto  cases  where the provisions of the Act have  not\tbeen
\ncomplied  -with, or the statutory tribunal has not acted  in
\nconformity  with  the  fundamental  principles\tof  judicial
\nprocedure”.   This  latter clause  presumably  covers  cases
\nwhere  orders are passed in violation of the  principles  of
\nnatural justice.\n<\/p>\n
In  M\/s Kamala Mills Ltd. v. The State of  Bombay<\/a>(1),  while
\ndealing with a similar point, this Court has considered\t the
\neffect\tof  the two decisions of the Privy Council,  one  in\n<\/p>\n
-the  case  of\tMask  & Co.(1), and  the  other\t in  Raleigh
\nInvestment Company Ltd.. v. Governor General in\t Council(3).
\nThe conclusion reached by this Court in M\/s.  Kamala  Mill’s
\ncase(1)\t also supports the view which we are taking  in\t the
\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,  while  upholding the contention  raised  by\t Mr.
\nGoyal that the jurisdiction of the civil- courts is  barred,
\nwe wish to make it clear that this contention will not avail
\nMr. Goyal if the respondents’ plea, if upheld, would  render
\nthe  permission granted by the Commissioner totally  invalid
\nland a nullity.\n<\/p>\n
 The  second point which then calls for our decision in\t the
\npresent\t appeal\t is:  is  the  permission  granted  by\t the
\nCommissioner  without jurisdiction and as such, a nullity  ?
\nThe  majority  decision of the Allahabad High  Court  is  in
\nfavour of the respondents; and Mr. Goyal’s argument is\tthat
\nthe  said decision is inconsistent with the true  scope\t and
\neffect of the provisions prescribed by s. 3 (3) of the\tAct.
\nThe  decision  of  this\t point lies  within  a\tvery  narrow
\ncompass.   The\tmajority decision is that  the\tjurisdiction
\nconferred  on  the  Commissioner under s.  3(3)\t is  exactly
\nsimilar\t to  the jurisdiction conferred on  the\t High  Court
\nunder s.  115  of the Code of Civil Procedure.\tIt  will  be
\nrecalled that. 115   of\t  the\tCode   confers\t  revisional
\njurisdiction  on  the High Court to make such  order  as  it
\nthinks\tfit in a given case, if the subordinate court  whose
\norder is brought before the High Court under s. 115 “appears\n<\/p>\n
(a)  to\t have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in  it  by
\nlaw,  or  (b) to have failed to exercise a  jurisdiction  so
\nvested,\t  or-  (c)  to\thave  acted  in\t exercise   of\t its\n<\/p>\n
-jurisdiction  illegally  or  with  material  irregularity”.
\nThere is no doubt that the requirements of clauses (a),\t (b)
\n&  (c) all centre round the question about the\tjurisdiction
\nof  the\t subordinate  court, and the  view  which  has\tbeen
\naccepted  by the majority decision under appeal is that\t the
\nsame limitation must be imported in construing
\n(1)  (1966) 1 S.C.R. 64.\n<\/p>\n
(3) 74 T. A. 50, at pp. 62-63.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 67 I.A. 222.\n<\/p>\n
56 2
\nthe  scope  of\tthe authority and  power  conferred  on\t the
\nCommissioner by S. 3(3).\n<\/p>\n
Let  us\t examine  whether  this\t conclusion  is\t right.\t  In
\nconstruing  the provision of s. 3 (3), one factor  which  is
\npatent\tis that it ,does not refer to any considerations  of
\njurisdiction at all.. In fact, it is not easy to conceive of
\na  limitation as to jurisdiction being relevant in s.  3(3),
\nbecause\t the  said provision deals with\t .orders  passed  by
\nDistrict Magistrates, and the District Magistrates  normally
\nwould  have jurisdiction to deal with applications  made  by
\nlandlords.  But quite apart from this aspect of the  matter,
\nthe words used in S. 3(3) are unambiguous.  There are ‘three
\n,categories of cases in which the Commissioner can interfere
\nwith  the order passed by the District Magistrate.   If\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate has acted illegally,  the\tCommissioner
\ncan  interfere with his order; so can he interfere with\t the
\norder  if  the District Magistrate has acted  with  material
\nirregularity;  and  lastly, the Commissioner  can  interfere
\nwith  the order of the District Magistrate if  the  District
\nMagistrate has wrongly refused to act.\tThis last -clause is
\nwide enough to empower the Commissioner to correct the error
\ncommitted  by  the District Magistrate in  making  an  order
\nbrought before it; quite clearly if the District  Magistrate
\nrefuses to grant permission and the Commissioner thinks that
\nin doing so, he has committed an error, that would be a case
\nwhere  the District Magistrate has wrongly refused  to\tact,
\nand   that  would  give\t the,Commissioner  jurisdiction\t  to
\nexercise his revisional power.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tsignificant that the revisional application  can  be
\nmade  to the Commissioner only against orders passed by\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate  granting\tor refusing  to\t grant\tsuch
\npermission.   It is, we think, fallacious to assume  that  a
\nparty can move the Commissioner under s. 3(3) in cases where
\nthe District Magistrate just refuse- to make an order on the
\napplication  made by the landlord for permission to bring  a
\nsuit against the tenant.  If a District Magistrate just does
\nnot  deal with the application and passes no, order  on\t it,
\nthe  party  aggrieved may be justified in  applying  for  an
\nappropriate  writ  to  the High Court or  adopt\t some  other
\nsuitable  remedy in law; but a revision in such a case\tdoes
\nnot  appear  to be competent under s. 3 (3).   Besides,\t the
\nillegality or the irregularity to which s. 3 (3) refers need
\nnot  necessarily be correlated with questions  of  jurisdic-
\ntion.\tTherefore, we are satisfied that the High Court\t was
\nnot  justified\tin introducing\ta-limitation  pertaining  to
\nquestions  of jurisdiction in determining the scope  of\t the
\nwidth  of  the revisional-,visional power conferred  on\t the
\nCommissioner by S. 3 (3).  That is why it must be held\tthat
\nthe High Court was in error in coming to the conclu-\n<\/p>\n
 563<\/span><\/p>\n
sion  that  the permission granted by  the  Commissioner  in
\nexercise  of  the powers conferred on him by s. 3  k  3)  is
\ninvalid\t in  law.  As we have already emphasised,  the\tonly
\nplea which can be raised before a civil court in relation to
\norders\tpassed under the relevant provisions of the Act\t can
\nbe a plea which, if sustained, would render the order wholly
\ninvalid\t and  as  such, a nullity.  No\tother  plea  can  be
\nraised, because all other pleas are barred by ss. 3 (4)\t and
\n16 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In this connection, we may incidentally point out that by  a
\nsubsequent amendment of s. 3(3), the Legislature has made it
\nclear  that its intention is to confer wide jurisdiction  on
\nthe  Commissioner.   The  amendment  in\t question  has\tbeen
\nintroduced  by Act 17 of 1954.\tThe amended provision  reads
\nthus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “‘The Commissioner shall hear the\t application
\n\t      made under sub-section (2), as far as may\t be,
\n\t      within  six weeks from the date of making\t it,
\n\t      and  he may, if he is not satisfied as to\t the
\n\t      correctness,  legality  or  propriety  of\t the
\n\t      order passed by the District Magistrate or  as
\n\t      to  the regularity of proceedings held  before
\n\t      him, alter or reverse his order, or make
\n\t      such other order as may be just and proper”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There  is  no doubt that under this amended  provision,\t the
\nCommissioner  can deal not only with the legality, but\talso
\nwith  the correctness and propriety of the order  passed  by
\nthe District Magistrate.  In our opinion, the position about
\nthe  Comissioner’s powers was not different even  under\t the
\nunamended provision.\n<\/p>\n
It  may\t also  be  relevant to\tpoint  out  that  the  power
\nconferred  on the State Government at all material times  by
\ns.  7-F\t was very wide.\t As we have  already  indicated,  in
\nexercise  of its powers under s. 7-F, the  State  Government
\ncan pass such orders as appear to it to be necessary in\t the
\nends  of  justice.  Therefore, there is no  doubt  that\t the
\nrelevant provisions of the Act did not intend, even prior to
\nthe  amendment\tof 1954, to limit the  jurisdiction  of\t the
\nCommissioner only to cases where irregularity or  illegality
\nbad been committed by the District Magistrate in granting or
\nrefusing, to grant permission.\n<\/p>\n
The  result is, the appeal is allowed, the order  passed  by
\nthe  High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal is\t set  aside,
\nand   that  of\tthe  District  Court  restored\twith   costs
\nthroughout.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
564<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 893, 1966 SCR (2) 553 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P. PETITIONER: LALA RAM SWARUP AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: SHIKAR CHAND AND ANOTHER DATE […]<\/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-37040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965 - 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\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-06T11:31:51+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-06T11:31:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965\"},\"wordCount\":4332,\"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\\\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965\",\"name\":\"Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-06T11:31:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965 - 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\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-06T11:31:51+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965","datePublished":"1965-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-06T11:31:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965"},"wordCount":4332,"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\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965","name":"Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-06T11:31:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-swarup-and-others-vs-shikar-chand-and-another-on-10-november-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lala Ram Swarup And Others vs Shikar Chand And Another on 10 November, 1965"}]},{"@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\/37040","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=37040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}