{"id":52655,"date":"1991-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991"},"modified":"2016-05-24T01:08:47","modified_gmt":"2016-05-23T19:38:47","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 489, \t\t 1991 SCR (1) 174<\/div>\n
Author: T Thommen<\/div>\n
Bench: Thommen, T.K. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKRISHNARAO SHINDE AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/01\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nTHOMMEN, T.K. (J)\nBENCH:\nTHOMMEN, T.K. (J)\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR  489\t\t  1991 SCR  (1) 174\n 1991 SCC  (2)\t81\t  JT 1991 (1)\t239\n 1991 SCALE  (1)78\n\n\nACT:\n     M.P.  Land\t Revenue Code, 1959-Sections 2(h),  181\t and\n182-Company whether a Government lessee.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The Company-Respondent No. 3 entered into a contract of\nlease with the State Government for a period of one year and\nlater it was extended for a further period of ten years.\n     When  proceedings were initiated on 16.7.1952 to  eject\nthe Company, the Company filed suit for declaration of title\nand perpetual injunction.\n     The trial Court holding that the Company did not become\na `pakka' tenant under Section 54(vii) of Part II of Act No.\n66 of 1950 in respect of the suit land and that the  Company\nwas \"a Government lessee under section 181 of the M.P.\tLand\nRevenue\t Code, 1959, and was not an occupancy  tenant  under\nsection 185 of the Code, dismissed the suit.\n     This judgment,  was affirmed by the High Court in First\nappeal,\t observing that the land held by the  Company  under\nthe lease was neither zamindari nor ryotwari land.\n     Against  that judgment, the Company filed an appeal  in\nthis Court which was withdrawn in 1971.\n     Subsequently, the State entered into an agreement\twith\nthe Company to grant a fresh lease for a period of ten years\nfrom  9.2.1971\tsubject to the payment of enhanced  rent  as\nagreed upon between the parities.\n     Since  the Company failed to pay the agreed  rents\t and\ncontravened  the conditions of the lease,  proceedings\twere\ninitiated under Section 182(2)(i) of the Code, for  eviction\nof the Company from the land in question.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       175\n     Eviction  order  was quashed by the High  Court  holding\nthat the lease in question was not covered by section 181 of\nthe  Code and that the Company could not be evicted  by\t the\nsummary proceeding provided for under that section,  against\nwhich the appeal has been filed.\n     Allowing the appeal, this Court,\n     HELD:  1.\tA `Government lessee' is defined  under\t the\nM.P. land Revenue Code, 1959 as \"a person holding land\tfrom\nthe State Government under section 181\". [178E]\n     2.\t As  per the provisions in section 181 of  the\tM.P.\nLand Revenue Code, 1959 whether or not the company has\tbeen\nholding the land in terms of the original lease or under the\nnewly  stipulated terms of the lease, the Company  has\tbeen\nholding the land from the State Government and it has  never\nbeen an ordinary tenant as defined in the Madhya Bharat\t Act\nNo. 66 of 1950.\t Accordingly, whether considered in term  of\nsub-section  (1)  or  sub-section (2) of  section  181,\t the\nCompany\t has been at all material times a Government  lessee\nin respect of the land in question. [179 G-180 A]\n     3.\t It was in terms of sub-section 2(i) of section\t 182\nthat the Additional Collector made his Order for eviction of\nthe  Company.  The finding of the Additional Collector is  a\nfinding\t of fact based on evidence and is not liable  to  be\nquestioned in these proceedings.  Large amounts are due\t and\npayable\t by the Company as rent.  In the circumstances,\t the\nAdditional  Collector was well justified in having  recourse\nto the proceeding prescribed under section 182 of the  Code.\n[180 F-181 A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 1046 of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tOrder dated 20.9.1980 of the  Madhya  Pradesh
\nHigh Court in M.P. No. 84 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpande and S.K. Agnihotri for
\nthe Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Aman  Vachher,  S.K.  mehta, Mrs.\tAnjali\tVerma,\tD.N.
\nMishra\t(for  JBD  &  Co.)  and\t Ashok\tSrivastava  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     T.K. THOMMEN, J. This appeal by the State of Madhya
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       176<\/span>
\nPradesh\t arises\t from the Order of the Madhya  Pradesh\tHigh
\nCourt  in Misc. Petition No.84 of 1978 quashing Order  dated
\n1.10.1977  of the Additional Collector, Gwalior, whereby  he
\ninitiated  proceedings\tagainst\t the  3rd  respondent,\tthe
\nGwalior\t Dairy\tLimited (hereinafter called  `the  Company’)
\nunder section 182(2)(i) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code,\t1959
\n(`the Code’).  Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 are shareholders of
\nthe third respondent.  The High Court by the impugned  Order
\nheld that the Company was not a Government lessee within the
\nmeaning\t of  section 181 [read with section 2(h)]  and\twas,
\ntherefore,  not liable to be proceeded against in  terms  of
\nsection 182.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Order of the Additional Collector, Gwalior,  which
\nwas  impugned in the High Court, was made consequent on\t the
\nfailure\t of the Company to pay the rent agreed upon  between
\nthe   Government   and\tthe  Company   subsequent   to\t the
\nunconditional withdrawal by the Company of its Civil  Appeal
\nNo.  299  of  1967 which was pending in\t this  Court.\tThat
\nappeal had been brought to this Court by the Company against
\nan  earlier judgement of the High Court dated 30.6.1`964  in
\nFirst  Appeal  No.  1  of  1961\t whereby  the  High  Court,
\nconfirming  the judgement of the trial court and  dismissing
\nthe Company’s appeal, held that the land admeasuring  495.05
\nacres was held by the Company in terms of the lease  granted
\nby  the State and the Company was not a `pakka’\t tenant\t and
\ndid not enjoy the status of a ” Gair Maurusi” tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Company entered into a contract of lease with\t the
\nGwalior\t State Government (Sanitary Engineering\t Department)
\nfor  a\tperiod of one year in Samvat 1999.   The  lease\t was
\nextended for a further period  of ten years in Samvat  2000.
\nWhen  proceedings were initiated on 16.7.1952 to  eject\t the
\nCompany,  the  Company\tfiled  Suit  No.  14  of  1960\t for
\ndeclaration  of title and perpetual injunction.\t  Issue\t No.
\n1(1) in that Suit was in the following words:
\n\t “Whether the plaintiff in accordance with paras 5 &
\n\t 6 of the Plaint was a `gair Maurusi tenant’ and now
\n\t by   virtue  of  the  Revenue\tAdministration\t and
\n\t Ryotwari  Land\t Revenue and Tenancy Act  of  Samwat
\n\t 2007 has become a `Pakka Tenant’.\n<\/p>\n
\t If so, what is its effect on the suit?”\n<\/p>\n
That  issue  was answered in the negative.  The\t Court\theld
\nthat  the Company did not enjoy the status of  Gair  Maurusi
\ntenant\tand  that it had not become a `pakka’  tenant  under
\nsection 54(vii) of Part II of Act
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       177<\/span>
\nNo.  66\t of 1950 in respect of the land\t in  question.\t The
\nCourt  held that the Company was “a Government lessee  under
\nsection\t 181  of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959  with\t the
\nrights\tand liabilities enumerated in section 182”.  It\t was
\nalso held that the Company was not an occupancy tenant under
\nsection\t 185  of the Code as it had not become\tan  ordinary
\ntenant\tearlier in Madhya Bharat under Act No. 66  of  1950.
\nThis judgement, as stated earlier, was affirmed by the\tHigh
\nCourt by its judgement dated 30.6.1964 in First Appeal No. 1
\nof 1961.  The High Court observed  that the land held by the
\nCompany\t under the lease was neither zamindari nor  ryotwari
\nland.  The Zamindari Abolition Act did not apply to the land
\nas it had become vested in the State long prior to the\tAct.
\nThe High Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t “…..the  lands  comprised in the  Gwalior  Sewage
\n\t Farm were never notified to be a Ryotwari  village.
\n\t The  lands which have been acquired by the  Gwalior
\n\t State\tin connection with the Gwalior\tSewage\tFarm
\n\t could\tnot,  after their acquisition for  a  public
\n\t purpose  be  notified\tto be  part  of\t a  Ryotwari
\n\t village….the\t lands were not `Pandat’  lands\t nor
\n\t were  the  lands  included  in\t Ryotwari   village.
\n\t Special  leases  granted by the  erstwhile  Gwalior
\n\t State in respect of such lands as had been acquired
\n\t for  a\t public purpose, namely\t construction  of  a
\n\t sewage system were governed not by any law for\t the
\n\t time  being in force but by the terms of  lease  in
\n\t each case.  I have already explained above that  to
\n\t these\t lands\tthe  provisions\t of  the   Zamindari
\n\t Abolition  Act\t did  not  apply,  since  they\twere
\n\t already  held\tby  the State when  that  came\tinto
\n\t force….  the\t defendant  (the  State)  has\tbeen
\n\t successful  in\t showing  that\tthe  plaintiff\t(the
\n\t Company)  never   acquired  the status\t of  a\tGair
\n\t Maurusi tenant in respect of the land in dispute at
\n\t any time prior to the coming into force of the\t Act
\n\t No. 66 of 1950 and that he could not, by virtue  of
\n\t the  provisions of that Act become a  Pukka  tenant
\n\t thereof”.\n<\/p>\n
     It was from that judgement that the Company had brought
\nto  this Court Civil Appeal No. 299 of 1967 and that  appeal
\nwas,  as  stated earlier, unconditionally withdrawn  by\t the
\nCompany\t in 1971.  Subsequently, the State entered  into  an
\nagreement  with\t the Company to grant a fresh  lease  for  a
\nperiod of ten years from 9.2.1971 subject to the payment  of
\nenhanced rent as agreed upon between the parties.  Since the
\nCompany failed to pay the agreed rents and thus\t contravened
\nthe  conditions of the lease, proceedings were initiated  by
\nthe
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       178<\/span>
\nAdditional  Collector  by  his\tOrder  dated  1.10.1977\t for
\neviction  of  the Company from the land in  question.\tThat
\nOrder was made under section 182(2)(i) of the Code.  It\t was
\nthat  Order  which  was quashed by the\tHigh  Court  by\t its
\nimpugned  Order dated 20.9.1980.  The High Court  held\tthat
\nthe lease in question was not covered by section 181 of\t the
\nCode  and  that\t the Company could not\tbe  evicted  by\t the
\nsummary proceeding provided for under that section.\n<\/p>\n
     As\t stated earlier, the High Court had, in the  earlier
\nproceeding  held that the Company was not a `pakka’  tenant.
\nThat judgement of the High Court became by the unconditional
\nwithdrawal  of\tthe appeal filed in this Court\tagainst\t it.
\nThe Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007
\n(Act  No  66  of 1950), which  was the law  in\tforce  until
\nrepealed by the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, defined “pakka
\ntenant” as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t “S. 54 (vii).\tPakka tenant-means a tenant who\t has
\n\t been  or  whose  predecessor-in-interest  had\tbeen
\n\t lawfully  recorded in respect of his holding  as  a
\n\t `Ryot\tPattedar’, `Mamuli Maurusi’ `Gair  Maurusi’,
\n\t and `Pukhta Maurusi’ when this Act comes into force
\n\t or who may in future be duly recognised as such  by
\n\t a competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t Explanation–The  term\t `Pukhta  Maurusi’  included
\n\t Istmurardar  tenants, Malikana Haq-holder  tenants,
\n\t Hakkiyat  Mutafarrikat Sharah Muayyana and  Sakitul
\n\t Mikiyat tenants”.\n<\/p>\n
     An\t `ordinary tenant’ is defined by Act No. 66 of\t1950
\nas “a tenant other than a Pakka tenant and shall not include
\na  sub-tenant”. The position, therefore, was that, in  terms
\nof Act No. 66 of 1950, the  Company was not a pakka  tenant,
\nas  found by the High Court in the earlier  judgement,\tand,
\ntherefore,  it was, according to the said Act,\tan  ordinary
\ntenant.\n<\/p>\n
     The High Court had found in the earlier proceeding that
\nthe  land  in question was held by the Company\tunder  lease
\nfrom  the  Government  after it had  been  acquired  by\t the
\nGovernment for a public purpose of the State.  The question,
\ntherefore,  is\twhether\t the Company was, as  found  by\t the
\nAdditional Collector, a Government lessee within the meaning
\nof  the\t Code.\tIt is to be noticed that subsequent  to\t the
\nwithdrawal  of the appeal from this Court, fresh terms\twere
\nagreed upon between the Company and the Government to enable
\nthe Com-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       179<\/span><\/p>\n
pany  to remain in possession of the land as a lessee.\t The
\nCompany\t is  thus a person holding the land from  the  State
\nGovernment.  This is so whether or not the Company is deemed
\nto  be\tholding over under the old lease  or  holding,\tupon
\ntermination  of that lease, under and in terms of the  fresh
\nconditions  agreed  upon between the parties to\t enable\t the
\nCompany to remain in possession of the land as a lessee.  In
\neither event, the Company has been holding the land from the
\nState.\tIt is not  and cannot be disputed that the  original
\nlease  was  obtained  from the\tpredecessor  State  and\t the
\nCompany continued to remain in possession of the land  under
\nthe  newly stipulated terms agreed upon between the  Company
\nand the successor State, namely, the Madhya Pradesh State.\n<\/p>\n
     A\t`Government Lessee’ is defined under the  M.P.\tLand
\nRevenue Code, 1959 as “a person holding land from the  State
\nGovernment  under  section  181”, Section 181  of  the\tCode
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
\t “181.\tGovernment  Lessees. (1)  Every\t person\t who
\n\t holds\tland from the State Government or to whom  a
\n\t right\tto  occupy  land is  granted  by  the  State
\n\t Government or the Collector and who is not entitled
\n\t to  hold  land as a Bhumiswami shall  be  called  a
\n\t Government lessee in respect of such land.
\n\t (2)  Every person who at the coming into  force  of
\n\t this Code-\n<\/p>\n
\t (a)  hold any land  in the Madhya Bharat region  as
\n\t an ordinary tenant as defined in the Madhya  Bharat
\n\t Land  Revenue\tand Tenancy Act, Samvat2007  (66  of
\n\t 1950); or\n<\/p>\n
\t (b)………………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
\t (c)………………………………………..
\n\t shall\tbe  deemed  to be  a  Government  lessee  in
\n\t respect of such land”.\n<\/p>\n
     These  provisions show that whether or not the  Company
\nhas been holding the land in terms of the original lease  or
\nunder  the newly stipulated terms of the lease, the  Company
\nhas been holding the land
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       180<\/span>
\nfrom the State Government and it has never been an  ordinary
\nterms  as defined in the Madhya Bharat Act No. 66  of  1950.
\nAccordingly  whether considered in terms of sub-section\t (1)
\nor  sub-section (2) of section 181, the Company has been  at
\nall  material  times a Government lessee in respect  of\t the
\nland  in question.  Accordingly, section 182 of the Code  is
\nattracted.  That section reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t “182.\tRights and liabilities of Government lessee-\n<\/p>\n
\t -(1)  A  Government lessee shall,  subject  to\t any
\n\t express  provision in this Code, hold his  land  in
\n\t accordance  with  the terms and conditions  of\t the
\n\t grant,\t which shall be deemed to be a grant  within
\n\t the  meaning of the Government Grants Act, 1895 (XV
\n\t of 1985).\n<\/p>\n
\t (2)  A\t Government lessee may be ejected  from\t his
\n\t land  by order of a Revenue Officer on one or\tmore
\n\t of the following grounds, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
\t (i) that he has failed to pay the rent for a period
\n\t of  three months from the date on which  it  became
\n\t due; or\n<\/p>\n
\t (ii)  that he has used such land for purpose  other
\n\t than for which it was granted; or\n<\/p>\n
\t (iii) that the term of his lease has expired or\n<\/p>\n
\t (iv)  that he has contravened any of the terms\t and
\n\t conditions of the grant:\n<\/p>\n
\t    Provided  that  no\torder  for  ejectment  of  a
\n\t Government  lessee under this sub-section shall  be
\n\t passed\t without giving him an opportunity of  being
\n\t heard in his defence”.\n<\/p>\n
     It was in terms of sub-section 2(i) of section 182 that
\nthe Additional Collector made his order for eviction of\t the
\nCompany.   The\tfinding\t of the Additional  Collector  is  a
\nfinding\t of fact based on evidence and is not liable  to  be
\nquestioned  in\tthese proceedings.  His finding\t shows\tthat
\nlarge amounts are due and payable by the Company as rent and
\nthat  the  rents have remained unpaid for a  period  far  in
\nexcess\tof three months from the dates on which they  became
\ndue.   In  the circumstances, the Additional  Collector\t was
\nwell   justified  in  having  recourse\tto  the\t  proceeding
\nprescribed under section 182 of the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       181<\/span>
\nCode.  The finding of the High Court to the contrary was, in
\nour view, totally unjustified and opposed to law.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the circumstances, the impugned Order of  the\tHigh
\nCourt dated 20.9.1980 in Misc. Petition No 84 of 1978 is set
\naside.\t  The  Order  of  the  Additional  Collector   dated
\n1.10.1977 in Case No. 1-75-76A-39: 182 shall stand restored.
\nThe appeal by the State is allowed with costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.R.\t\t\t\t\tAppeal allowed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       182<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 489, 1991 SCR (1) 174 Author: T Thommen Bench: Thommen, T.K. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: KRISHNARAO SHINDE AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/01\/1991 BENCH: THOMMEN, T.K. (J) […]<\/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-52655","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-23T19:38:47+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-23T19:38:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991\"},\"wordCount\":2011,\"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\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-23T19:38:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-23T19:38:47+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991","datePublished":"1991-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-23T19:38:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991"},"wordCount":2011,"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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-23T19:38:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-vs-krishnarao-shinde-and-ors-on-29-january-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Krishnarao Shinde And Ors on 29 January, 1991"}]},{"@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\/52655","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=52655"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52655\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52655"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52655"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}