{"id":47821,"date":"1988-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-02-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988"},"modified":"2014-10-26T02:34:46","modified_gmt":"2014-10-25T21:04:46","slug":"mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988","title":{"rendered":"Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: ILR 1988 KAR 889, 1988 (1) KarLJ 310<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Bhat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: P C Jain, S Bhat<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>Shivashankar Bhat, J.<\/p>\n<p>1. Petitioner challenges the validity of notification Annexure-E<br \/>\nwhereby the Special Deputy Commissioner declared certain lands to vest<br \/>\nin the State Government under Section 79B of the Karnataka Land<br \/>\nReforms Act. Petitioner firm was incorporated under the Indian<br \/>\nCompanies Act in the year 1963 and has been carrying on the<br \/>\nmanufacture of cattle feed, poultry feed and pig feed in its factory<br \/>\nat Pantharapalya village, Bangalore South Taluk. To expand its<br \/>\nactivities, it purchased about six acres 19 guntas of agricultural<br \/>\nlands which were adjacent to its factory under a sale deed dated<br \/>\n17-1-1973 out of which, about 19.15 1\/4 guntas are stated to have been<br \/>\nacquired from it by the Water Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. In August 1973, petitioner applied under Section 95(2) of the<br \/>\nKarnataka Land Revenue Act, seeking permission to divert the user of<br \/>\nthese lands for non-agricultural purposes. The papers seem to have<br \/>\nbeen returned and a fresh application was filed by the petitioner on<br \/>\n30-6-1975. By an order dated 21-1-1976 the authority concerned issued<br \/>\na conversion certificate permitting the petitioner to utilise these<br \/>\nlands for non-agricultural purposes as per Annexure-B. It is clear<br \/>\nfrom this order that the Special Deputy Commissioner had ordered<br \/>\npermission as per his proceedings dated 18-11-1975.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. On coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)<br \/>\nAct, 1976 (ULCR Act for short), petitioner applied to the State<br \/>\nGovernment seeking exemption under Section 20 of the said Act, which<br \/>\nwas granted on 10-3-1977. Petitioner states that it obtained a loan of<br \/>\nRs. 6.28 lakhs from Karnataka State Financial Corporation by<br \/>\nhypothecating the lands to the said Corporation in the year 1978. By<br \/>\nan additional statement, petitioner has averred that it has obtained<br \/>\nsanction for its proposed construction of factory buildings from the<br \/>\nBangalore Development Authority for industrial purposes. State<br \/>\nGovernment has also issued utilisation certificate under the ULCR Act<br \/>\nbased on the report of the Director of Industries. It is clear that<br \/>\nvast sums of money has been expended by petitioner for these<br \/>\ndevelopmental activities involved in the establishment of its<br \/>\nfactory.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 (L.R. Act for short) was<br \/>\ndrastically amended by Karnataka Act 1 of 1974 to be effective from<br \/>\n1-3-1974. Inter alia, in Chapter-V, Sections 79A to 79C were<br \/>\nintroduced. For the first time, certain disabilities were created to<br \/>\nhold agricultural land. One such disability or ineligibility was<br \/>\nagainst a Company. By virtue of Section 79-B(1)(b)(ii), it was enacted<br \/>\nthat it was not to be lawful for a company to hold any agricultural<br \/>\nland. A company holding,agricultural land as on 1-3-1974 is required,<br \/>\nwithin 90 days from the said date, to furnish to the Tahsildar certain<br \/>\nparticulars who, after an enquiry, has to send a statement to the<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner as per Section 79-B(3)shall by notification declare that such land shad vest in the State<br \/>\nGovernment free from all encumbrances and take possession of the land.<br \/>\nSub-section (4) provides for payment of an amount to the owner, in<br \/>\nlieu of the vesting of land in the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Main scheme of the L.R. Act is to vest all tenanted lands in the<br \/>\nState Government under Section 44, impose a ceiling on the land<br \/>\nholdings and compel the owner himself to cultivate the land. To<br \/>\nachieve these objectives, legislature has thought it fit to introduce<br \/>\nother provisions such as Section 79A to 79C. But such provisions are<br \/>\nbound to result in hardship to those who acted bona fide and purchased<br \/>\nlands during the transitional period, as happened in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. A disabling provision requires strict construction, so that<br \/>\nundue hardship could be avoided. A literal or technical construction<br \/>\nof the provisions of a statute leading to the deprivation of one&#8217;s<br \/>\nproperty and affecting adversely trade, industry, commerce and the<br \/>\nlivelihood of many, has to be avoided, unless such a construction is<br \/>\ninevitable. Here, the action taken by the Deputy Commissioner under<br \/>\nthe impugned order, by recourse to Section 79B of L.R. Act affects an<br \/>\nindustrial activity of the petitioner and deprives it of its lands,<br \/>\nwhich in turn, also would result in unemployment of several<br \/>\nindividuals.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. By the impugned order dated 7-6-1978, purporting to act under<br \/>\nSection 79-B(3) of the L.R. Act, the Special Deputy Commissioner<br \/>\ndeclared that the lands in question &#8220;shall be vest&#8221; in the State<br \/>\nGovernment, since the petitioner, a company, could not hold<br \/>\nagricultural lands with effect from 1-3-1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. A perusal of Section 79B of the L.R. Act shows that it does not<br \/>\ndeem the land to have vested in the State Government with effect from<br \/>\n1 -3-1974. Vesting provided under Section 79-B(3) is the consequence<br \/>\nof an enquiry and declaration made by the Deputy Commissioner under<br \/>\nthe said provision. The fact that the State is required to pay<br \/>\ncompensation to the land owner under Section 79-B(4) shows that, the<br \/>\ntitle of the disabled person like the present petitioner-company<br \/>\ncontinues till the date of the declaration under Section 79-B(3). When<br \/>\nthe statute says that the Deputy Commissioner shall declare that land<br \/>\n&#8220;shall vest&#8221; in the State Government, it can only be prospective, to<br \/>\nbe operative on making the declaration.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. There is no specific finding that as on 1-3-1974 lands in<br \/>\nquestion were agricultural lands, as a fact. Petitioner purchased them<br \/>\non 17-1-1973. Petitioner was already carrying on industrial activities<br \/>\nin the locality nearby these lands. Being a non-agriculturist by<br \/>\nvocation, it can be assumed that the petitioner did not carry on any<br \/>\nagricultural operations on those lands (assuming, that, earlier such<br \/>\noperations were being carried on by the previous owner) and thus these<br \/>\nlands were, in a sense, ceased to be agricultural lands, de facto.<br \/>\nThus viewed, the disability created as on 1-3-1974 by Section 79B of<br \/>\nthe L.R. Act cannot apply to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. The learned Government Advocate contended that the Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner has proceeded on the assumption that the lands in<br \/>\nquestion are agricultural, because, the owner sought permission to<br \/>\ndivert the user of these lands for non-agricultural purposes under<br \/>\nSection 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (Revenue Act for<br \/>\nshort). Relevant part of Section 95(2) reads :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;95 : Use of agricultural land and the procedure for<br \/>\nuse of agricultural land for other purposes &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p> (1)          xx                xx              (omitted)<\/p>\n<p>(2) If any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of<br \/>\nagriculture wishes to divert such land or any part thereof to any<br \/>\nother purpose, he shall apply for permission to the Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner who may, subject to the provisions of this Section and<br \/>\nthe rules made under this Act, refuse permission or grant it on such<br \/>\nconditions he may think fit;\n<\/p>\n<p>         (Proviso omitted as unnecessary)&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>11. Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act governs the case of a land,\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) assessed for the purpose of agriculture or (ii) which is held for<br \/>\npurposes of agriculture. Therefore, the application seeking conversion<br \/>\nunder Section 95(2), at the most, can lend support to the inference<br \/>\nthat the land in question was assessed for purposes of agriculture or<br \/>\nheld for purposes of agriculture. But it is not possible to hold that<br \/>\nthe said land was actually an agricultural land in the sense,<br \/>\nagricultural operations were being carried on normally. Further,<br \/>\nSection 83 of the said Revenue Act also leads to the conclusion that,<br \/>\nthe land revenue is assessed or deemed to have been assessed with<br \/>\nreference to the use of the land for purpose of agriculture. It also<br \/>\nprovides that in case a non-agricultural land is diverted to be used<br \/>\nfor agriculture, the land revenue assessed on it is to be modified<br \/>\nwith reference to its use for purposes of agriculture. However it has<br \/>\nto be noted that there is no provision like Section 95(2) requiring<br \/>\npermission to divert a non-agricultural land into agricultural<br \/>\nland.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. A reading of Sections 83 and 95(2) of the Revenue Act indicates<br \/>\nthat levy of land revenue on a land does not necessarily lead to the<br \/>\ninference that it is agricultural land. A land not used for any<br \/>\npurpose, may still be levied with land revenue and in case such a land<br \/>\nis sought to be used for non-agricultural purposes, Section 95(2)operates, requiring permission.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. A land which is agricultural may cease to be used for<br \/>\nagriculture for various reasons. Theoretically, such a land may be<br \/>\ncapable of being used for agriculture and may fall within the<br \/>\ndefinition of &#8216;land&#8217; defined in Section 2A(18) of the Karnataka Land<br \/>\nReforms Act. But, the definitions are always subject to context and<br \/>\nshould be read in a practical mariner.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. In the absence of any specific finding that these lands were<br \/>\nbeing used as agricultural lands, the Special Deputy Commissioner<br \/>\nerred in assuming them to be agricultural lands by the sole fact that<br \/>\nthe petitioner sought permission for using the lands for<br \/>\nnon-agricultural purposes under Section 95(2) of the Land Revenue<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. There is another aspect of the case to be noted. The State<br \/>\nGovernment acted under Section 20 of ULCR Act by an order dated<br \/>\n10-3-1977 which is 15 months prior to the impugned order of the Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner. Exemption under Section 20 of ULCR Act is to enable<br \/>\nholding of Vacant land as defined under the ULCR Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>16. Definitions of Vacant land&#8217; under Section 2(q) of ULCR Act and<br \/>\nthe definition of &#8216;Urban land&#8217; under Section 2(o) clearly shows that,<br \/>\nit is a land, other than land mainly used for agriculture. Scheme of<br \/>\nULCR Act is to regulate holding of Urban lands. Its aim is not to<br \/>\naffect agricultural lands. When the State Government grants exemption<br \/>\nunder Section 20 of ULCR Act, &#8216;the vacant land&#8217; to which exemption is<br \/>\ngranted can be only in respect of non-agricultural land. Exemption to<br \/>\nhold such a land is given to the person who has title to hold such a<br \/>\nland. In this case, admittedly. State Government granted exemption to<br \/>\nthe petitioner under Section 20 of ULCR Act on 10-3-1977. Inference is<br \/>\nirresistable from this fact that as on 10-3-1977 :- (1) petitioner was<br \/>\nholding the lands and this fact was recognised by the State Government<br \/>\nand (2) the lands held by the petitioner in respect of which the<br \/>\nexemption was granted, were non-agricultural.\n<\/p>\n<p>17. If the State Government, has, thus recognised the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\npossession of these lands and accepted the lands to be<br \/>\nnon-agricultural, is it open to the Special Deputy Commissioner to go<br \/>\nbehind these postulates on which the competence of State Government<br \/>\nrests to make the order? Special Deputy Commissioner is a subordinate<br \/>\nofficer of the State Government, He may have an independent statutory<br \/>\nexecutive function to discharge. But, while discharging his executive<br \/>\nfunctions under any statute, he cannot ignore the facts recognised as<br \/>\nin existence by the State Government. Otherwise, the very basis of the<br \/>\nhierarchical system in which the executives are to discharge their<br \/>\nduties will be in jeopardy, That is why, it is observed in STATE OF<br \/>\nKARNATAKA v. SRI KUMARESHWAR SAHAKARI GRUHA NIRMAN ABHIVRIDDI SANGHA<br \/>\nLTD. &amp; ANOTHER thus :-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;Special Deputy Commissioner is a subordinate officer<br \/>\nof the State Government. He has certain implied disabilities flowing<br \/>\nout of his subordination to the State Government. He cannot nullify<br \/>\nwhat the State Government permitted. It is not open to him to assume a<br \/>\nfact, contrary to the assumptions of the State<br \/>\nGovernment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The basic facts involved in that case are similar to the one<br \/>\ninvolved in this case, and we are told that the State Government has<br \/>\nnot filed any appeal against the said decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>18. There is also no dispute that already another Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner had made an order under Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act<br \/>\npermitting conversion of land-use, in respect of these lands in<br \/>\nNovember 1975 and the petitioner had acted upon it. This is completely<br \/>\nignored by the Deputy Commissioner who made the impugned order in the<br \/>\nyear 1978.\n<\/p>\n<p>19. Hence, we hold that, &#8211; (i) a notification under Section 79-B(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is prospective from the date of its<br \/>\nissuance ; (ii) while issuing an order\/or notification under Section<br \/>\n79-B(3), the Deputy Commissioner has to take note of any order of the<br \/>\nState Government made under Section 20 of the ULCR Act and the basic<br \/>\nfacts assumed for the validity of such an order of the State<br \/>\nGovernment ; and (iii) it cannot be assumed straight-away that when<br \/>\npermission for conversion is sought under Section 95(2) of the Revenue<br \/>\nAct the land in question was factually used as an agricultural<br \/>\nland.\n<\/p>\n<p>20. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, we allow this<br \/>\npetition and the impugned notification issued by the second respondent<br \/>\nin LRC.FR. 1292\/77-78 dated 7-6-78 (Annexure-E) is quashed. Rule is<br \/>\nmade absolute.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Karnataka High Court Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988 Equivalent citations: ILR 1988 KAR 889, 1988 (1) KarLJ 310 Author: S Bhat Bench: P C Jain, S Bhat ORDER Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Petitioner challenges the validity of notification Annexure-E whereby the Special Deputy Commissioner declared certain lands to vest [&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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988 - 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\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-02-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-25T21:04:46+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\\\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-02-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-25T21:04:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2129,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988\",\"name\":\"Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-02-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-25T21:04:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988 - 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\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-02-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-25T21:04:46+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\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988","datePublished":"1988-02-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-25T21:04:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988"},"wordCount":2129,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988","name":"Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-02-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-25T21:04:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-feeds-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-march-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mysore Feeds Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1988"}]},{"@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\/47821","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=47821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47821\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}