{"id":40883,"date":"2001-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001"},"modified":"2017-02-01T03:02:38","modified_gmt":"2017-01-31T21:32:38","slug":"the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001","title":{"rendered":"The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, U.C. Banerjee<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (crl.) 4528  of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT. SHAIK HASMATH BEEBI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t23\/04\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. Pattanaik &amp; U.C. Banerjee\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>PATTANAIK,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave Granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    This  appeal  by  special leave is\tdirected  against  a<br \/>\nJudgment  of  the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\tBy the impugned judgment, the High Court has quashed<br \/>\nan  order of detention issued under Section 3 of the  Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh\t Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers,<br \/>\nDecoits,  Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders<br \/>\nand  Land Grabbers Act, 1986, inter alia on the ground\tthat<br \/>\nthe representation of the detenu filed for temporary release<br \/>\nunder  Section\t15 of the Act was not disposed of  within  a<br \/>\nreasonable  period  and\t thereby  the  constitutional  right<br \/>\nguaranteed  to the detenu under Article 22(5) was infringed.<br \/>\nThe  question  for consideration, therefore, is whether\t the<br \/>\nrequest\t of  the  detenu  for  being  temporarily  released,<br \/>\ninvoking the power of the Government under Section 15 of the<br \/>\nAct, if not disposed of early, can it be said that there has<br \/>\nbeen an infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution?\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Act in question is undoubtedly an Act providing for<br \/>\npreventive   detention\t of   Bootleggers,   Dacoits,\tDrug<br \/>\nOffenders,  Goondas,  Immoral  Traffic\tOffenders  and\tLand<br \/>\nGrabbers,  for preventing their dangerous activities,  which<br \/>\nare  prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.  It was<br \/>\nenacted\t to  deal  with\t the situation arising\tout  of\t the<br \/>\nactivities  of\ta  category  of\t persons,  which   adversely<br \/>\naffected  public order and it was difficult for the State to<br \/>\ndeal  with  such persons on account of their  resources\t and<br \/>\ninfluence.   Section  3\t of  the   Act\tenables\t the   State<br \/>\nGovernment  to\tissue  an  order   of  detention,  on  being<br \/>\nsatisfied that the activities of the detenu are such that it<br \/>\nis  necessary  to  prevent him from acting  in\tany  manner,<br \/>\nprejudicial  to\t maintenance of public order.  Section\t3(3)<br \/>\nmakes  it obligatory to report the fact of detention to\t the<br \/>\nState  Government  together  with the grounds on  which\t the<br \/>\norder  has been made, when an order of detention is made  by<br \/>\nan   officer   other  than   the  State\t  Government   under<br \/>\nsub-section(2)\tof  Section  3.\t   Section  8  provides\t for<br \/>\ncommunication  of  the\tgrounds of detention to\t the  detenu<br \/>\nwithin\ta  maximum  period  of five days from  the  date  of<br \/>\ndetention.   Section 9 is the provision for constituting  an<br \/>\nAdvisory  Board and Section 10 is the provision under  which<br \/>\nthe  Government\t is duty bound to make the reference to\t the<br \/>\nAdvisory  Board\t within\t three\tweeks\tfrom  the  date\t  of<br \/>\ndetention.   Section  11 is the procedure to be followed  by<br \/>\nthe  Advisory  Board  and  Section 12 is the  power  of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  to\tconfirm an order of detention on receipt  of<br \/>\nthe  opinion of the Advisory Board that sufficient cause for<br \/>\ndetention  exists.   Under  Section 13,\t maximum  period  of<br \/>\ndetention  that can be passed under the Act is twelve months<br \/>\nfrom  the  date\t of detention.\tSection 14 is the  power  of<br \/>\nrevocation of an order of detention by the State Government.<br \/>\nSection\t 15, which is relevant for our purpose, in the\tcase<br \/>\nin  hand  is  the  power of the State  Government  to  grant<br \/>\ntemporary  release  of the person detained.  Therefore,\t the<br \/>\nsaid Section is quoted herein-below in extenso:\n<\/p>\n<p>    Section  15:  Temporary release of persons detained\t :-<br \/>\n(1)  The Government may, at any time direct that any  person<br \/>\ndetained  in pursuance of a detention order may be  released<br \/>\nfor  any specified period, either without conditions or upon<br \/>\nsuch  conditions  specified in the direction as that  person<br \/>\naccepts, and may, at any time cancel his release.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (2)\t In  directing\tthe  release  of  any  person  under<br \/>\nsub-section  (1),  the Government may require him  to  enter<br \/>\ninto  a\t bond,\twith  or   without  sureties,  for  the\t due<br \/>\nobservance of the conditions specified in the direction.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3)\tAny  person  released under  sub-section  (1)  shall<br \/>\nsurrender  himself  at\tthe  time   and\t place\tand  to\t the<br \/>\nauthority,  specified in the order directing his release  or<br \/>\ncancelling his release, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (4)\t If  any  person fails without sufficient  cause  to<br \/>\nsurrender  himself  in the manner specified in sub-  section<br \/>\n(3),  he shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment<br \/>\nfor  a\tterm which may extend to two years or with fine,  or<br \/>\nwith both.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (5)\t If any person released under sub-section (1)  fails<br \/>\nto  fulfil any of the conditions imposed upon him under\t the<br \/>\nsaid  sub-section  or to the bond entered into by  him,\t the<br \/>\nbond  shall be declared to be forfeited and any person bound<br \/>\nthereby shall be liable to pay the penalty thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tthe case in hand, the order of detention was  passed<br \/>\nby  the\t District  Collector,  East  Godavari  District,  in<br \/>\nexercise  of  power  under sub-section(2) of  Section  3  on<br \/>\n3.2.2000 and the order was served on the detenu on 5.2.2000.<br \/>\nThe  grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu on<br \/>\n7.2.2000  and  the  order of detention was approved  by\t the<br \/>\nState Government on 11.2.2000.\tA petition for habeas corpus<br \/>\nwas  filed on 16.2.2000.  The Advisory Board considered\t the<br \/>\nmaterials  and\tby its report dated 10.3.2000,\topined\tthat<br \/>\nthere  is sufficient cause for the detention of the  detenu.<br \/>\nThe  order  of\tdetention, thereafter was confirmed  by\t the<br \/>\nState  Government  on 18.3.2000 in exercise of\tpower  under<br \/>\nSection 12 of the Act.\tThe habeas corpus petition, filed in<br \/>\nthe  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  stood  dismissed  on\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that the detaining authority exercised the power<br \/>\nof  detention  for proper preservation of Forest wealth\t and<br \/>\nfor  protecting\t it  from illegal  activities.\t The  detenu<br \/>\nthereafter  made an application, seeking temporary  release,<br \/>\ninvoking the power of the Government under Section 15 of the<br \/>\nAct on 27.4.2000, which was received by the State Government<br \/>\non  2.5.2000  and  rejected by the State  Government,  after<br \/>\ngetting reports from the District Collector on 19.6.2000.  A<br \/>\nfresh  writ  petition was filed in the High Court,  alleging<br \/>\ninfraction  of the constitutional right under Article  22(5)<br \/>\nfor  delay in disposal of the prayer for temporary  release.<br \/>\nThe High Court by the impugned judgment dated 19.7.2000, was<br \/>\npersuaded  to  accept  the said contention and\tquashed\t the<br \/>\norder of detention and hence the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Mr.\t Guntur Prabhakar, appearing for the State of Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh\t contended  before us that delay in disposal  of  an<br \/>\napplication  for temporary release, invoking the power under<br \/>\nSection\t 15 of the Act would not tantamount to\tinfringement<br \/>\nof  the constitutional right guaranteed under Article  22(5)<br \/>\nand,  therefore,  the High Court committed serious error  in<br \/>\nsetting\t aside\tthe order of detention on that\tground.\t  He<br \/>\nfurther\t urged\tthat in the facts and circumstances  of\t the<br \/>\ncase,  in  fact there has been no delay inasmuch  as  before<br \/>\nconsidering the application for temporary release, the State<br \/>\nwas  duty  bound to call for the report from  the  detaining<br \/>\nauthority,  and, therefore, it cannot be said that there has<br \/>\nbeen an unexplainable delay in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Mr.\t M.N.  Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe detenu did not seriously contest the legal position, but<br \/>\nsubmitted  that the Court may lay down the law and it is not<br \/>\nnecessary  to direct further detention of the detenu as\t the<br \/>\nperiod\tof detention is already over since 5th of  February,<br \/>\n2001, the detention order having been passed on 5.2.2000 and<br \/>\nthe  order confirming the same for a period of one year, the<br \/>\nperiod\tof detention is over by 5th February, 2001.  But  in<br \/>\nview  of the impugned judgment of the High Court, which\t has<br \/>\ntaken\tan  incorrect  view  of\t the  constitutional   right<br \/>\nguaranteed  to\ta detenu under Article 22(5), we are  called<br \/>\nupon  to examine the legality of the said order of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\tClause (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution<br \/>\nlay  down  the\tprocedure to be followed when  a  person  is<br \/>\narrested.   It confers a protection against arrest which are<br \/>\neffected  otherwise than under a warrant issued by a  Court,<br \/>\non the allegation or accusation that the arrested person has<br \/>\nor  is\tsuspected  to have committed an act of\tcriminal  or<br \/>\nquasi\t criminal nature.  But clause (3)(b) of Article\t 22<br \/>\ncarves\tout  an exception when a person is arrested under  a<br \/>\nlaw  of preventive detention and such a detenu has no  right<br \/>\nto  be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours or to be<br \/>\ndefended  by  a\t lawyer.  Preventive Detention\tmeans  the<br \/>\ndetention  of  a person without trial in such  circumstances<br \/>\nthat  the  evidence  in possession of the authority  is\t not<br \/>\nsufficient  to\tmake  a\t legal\t charge\t or  to\t secure\t the<br \/>\nconviction  of\tthe detenu by legal proof, but may still  be<br \/>\nsufficient   to\t justify  his\tdetention.   The  object  of<br \/>\npreventive  detention  is to prevent the detenu\t from  doing<br \/>\nsomething  or  to prevent an individual from  achieving\t the<br \/>\nparticular  object.   The  satisfaction\t  of  the  concerned<br \/>\nauthority  is a subjective satisfaction.  The object of\t the<br \/>\nframers\t of  the  Constitution in  giving  a  constitutional<br \/>\nstatus\tto  preventive detention was to prevent\t anti-social<br \/>\nand  subversive elements from imperilling the welfare of the<br \/>\nrepublic.   Having  recognised\tthe necessity  of  laws\t for<br \/>\npreventive  detention,\tthe constitution also  has  provided<br \/>\nsome  safeguards to mitigate the hardships and clause (5) of<br \/>\nArticle 22 is one such safeguard, available to a detenu, who<br \/>\nhas  been detained under a preventive law.  Article 22(5) of<br \/>\nthe Constitution is extracted herein-below in extenso:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Article  22(5):\tWhen  any person  is  detained\tin<br \/>\npursuance  of  an  order made under any\t law  providing\t for<br \/>\npreventive  detention, the authority making the order shall,<br \/>\nas soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on<br \/>\nwhich  the  order  has been made and shall  afford  him\t the<br \/>\nearliest  opportunity of making a representation against the<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Article  22(5)  gives  the detenu the right\t to  make  a<br \/>\nrepresentation\tagainst an order of detention and such right<br \/>\nmust  be  afforded as expeditiously as possible.   In  other<br \/>\nwords,\tthe detenu must be afforded the earliest opportunity<br \/>\nof  making a representation against the order of  detention.<br \/>\nArticle\t  22(5)\t  in  itself  does   not  say,\tto  whom   a<br \/>\nrepresentation\tcould  be  made\t or who\t will  consider\t the<br \/>\nrepresentation\tbut  a representation filed by a  detenu  is<br \/>\nrequired  to be considered and disposed of by the Government<br \/>\nas  soon  as  it is received.  Because of  the\tlanguage  of<br \/>\nArticle\t 22(5)\tand  because of the fact that  an  order  of<br \/>\ndetention  affects the liberty of a citizen, without  laying<br \/>\ndown  any hard and fast rule as to the measure of time taken<br \/>\nby   the   appropriate\tauthority   for\t considering  of   a<br \/>\nrepresentation,\t it  has  been held by the  Courts  that  it<br \/>\nshould\tbe considered as soon as it is received and it is in<br \/>\nthis   connection,  it\thas  been   further  held  that\t  an<br \/>\nunexplainable  delay  in  disposing of\tthe  representation,<br \/>\ninfringes  the\tright of the detenu under Article 22(5)\t and<br \/>\nmakes  the  detention bad.  In other words, the Courts\thave<br \/>\nheld that the right of the detenu to have his representation<br \/>\nto   be\t considered  at\t the   earliest\t opportunity  is   a<br \/>\nconstitutional right and that constitutional right cannot be<br \/>\ninfringed  by  the  executive  Government  by  delaying\t the<br \/>\nconsideration  of  a representation.  But all that has\tbeen<br \/>\nsaid  is in relation to a representation against an order of<br \/>\ndetention  or  when the detenu approaches the authority\t for<br \/>\nrevoking  an  order of detention.  The Constitutional  right<br \/>\nemanating  from Article 22(5) is in relation to an order  of<br \/>\ndetention  and an opportunity required to be afforded to the<br \/>\ndetenu is to enable him to make a representation against the<br \/>\norder  of  detention.\tBut invocation of the power  of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment under Section 15 of the Act praying for temporary<br \/>\nrelease\t of the person detained cannot be construed to be  a<br \/>\nrepresentation\tagainst\t the order of detention or a  prayer<br \/>\nfor  revocation of the order of detention within the meaning<br \/>\nof  the\t constitutional right guaranteed to a  detenu  under<br \/>\nArticle\t 22(5) of the Constitution.  The power under Section<br \/>\n15  is\tthe power of the Government to release a detenu\t for<br \/>\nany specified period with such conditions to be specified in<br \/>\nthe  order  of\trelease and such a prayer by no\t stretch  of<br \/>\nimagination  can  be held to be representation\tagainst\t the<br \/>\norder  of  detention within the meaning of Article 22(5)  of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution.   That  being the position,\tquestion  of<br \/>\ninfraction  of Article 22(5) does not arise if the prayer of<br \/>\nthe  detenu for being temporarily released, is not  disposed<br \/>\nof  immediately\t and there is some delay in the disposal  of<br \/>\nthe  said  prayer.   Of\t course\t such  a  prayer  for  being<br \/>\ntemporarily  released,\tshould\tbe   disposed  of  within  a<br \/>\nreasonable  time  but delay on the part of the authority  in<br \/>\nconsidering  the prayer for temporary release under  Section<br \/>\n15  of\tthe  Act cannot be held to be an infraction  of\t the<br \/>\nconstitutional\tright  guaranteed to a detenu under  Article<br \/>\n22(5).\tIn this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to<br \/>\ncome to the conclusion that the High Court committed serious<br \/>\nerror  in  setting  aside  the order  of  detention,  merely<br \/>\nbecause there had been delay in disposing of the application<br \/>\nfor  temporary release, filed by the detenu under Section 15<br \/>\nof  the Act.  We, therefore, set aside the impugned Judgment<br \/>\nof  the High Court and allow the appeal accordingly.  It  is<br \/>\nplaced\ton  record that the period of detention\t being\tover<br \/>\nsince 5th February, 2001, the detenu will not be required to<br \/>\nbe detained again under the self-same detention order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001 Author: Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, U.C. Banerjee CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 4528 of 2000 PETITIONER: THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. SHAIK HASMATH BEEBI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/04\/2001 BENCH: G.B. Pattanaik &amp; U.C. [&hellip;]<\/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-40883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-31T21:32:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-31T21:32:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2161,\"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\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001\",\"name\":\"The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-31T21:32:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-31T21:32:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001","datePublished":"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-31T21:32:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001"},"wordCount":2161,"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\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001","name":"The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-31T21:32:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-collector-ors-vs-smt-shaik-hasmath-beebi-on-23-april-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The District Collector &amp; Ors vs Smt. Shaik Hasmath Beebi on 23 April, 2001"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/40883","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=40883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}