{"id":59801,"date":"1973-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973"},"modified":"2016-06-05T00:05:28","modified_gmt":"2016-06-04T18:35:28","slug":"state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2520, \t\t  1974 SCR  (1) 344<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nZAHOOR AHMAD &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/08\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nPALEKAR, D.G.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 2520\t\t  1974 SCR  (1) 344\n 1973 SCC  (2) 547\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1977 SC2328\t (80)\n\n\nACT:\nTransfer  of  Property\tAct, 1882, s.  116,  and  Government\nGrants Act, 1895 Ss. 2 &amp; 3-Lease of reserved forest in\tU.P.\nwhether not governed by S. 116 T.P.Act because of provisions\nof Government Grants Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant State was the proprietor of a reserved forest.\nThe  respondent took on lease from the appellant a  plot  of\nland  for industrial purposes in the said forest  area.\t  As\nfound by the High Court the lease was originally granted for\none  year  in  1947 at an annual rent of Rs.  100.   It\t was\nrenewed\t  in  1948  and\t 1949  for  one\t year.\t After\t the\ntermination  of\t the  lease in\tMarch  1949  the  respondent\ncontinued  to  be in possession of the land  and  agreed  to\nabide by the, terms to be fixed by the appellant.  Under the\nterms fixed by the appellant the respondent was required  to\npay  Rs. 100 as annual rent for the occupation of  the\tland\ntill  July 15, 1950.  The respondent remained in  possession\nof the leased property after the determination of the  lease\nin 1950, for a further period of three years.  The appellant\nwanted\tto enhance the rent to which the respondent did\t not\nagree.\t In the consequent suit filed by the  appellant\t the\ntrial court passed a decree in the suit allowing Rs. 6000 as\nrent  for  the\tyears 1950-51 and 1951-52 and  Rs.  5000  as\ndamages\t for 1952-53.  The High Court reversed\tthe  decree.\nIt  held  that\tno notice as required under s.\t106  of\t the\nTransfer  of  Property Act had been given and since  on\t the\nfacts the respondent must be deemed to have held over within\nthe  meaning of s. 116 of the Transfer of Property Act,\t the\nrent  was payable as under the previous lease, On this\tview\nit  passed a decree in favour of the appellant for  Rs.\t 300\nbeing  rent  at\t Rs. 1000 per year for the  three  years  in\nquestion.   In\tappeal by special leave to  this  Court\t the\nappellant  State  contended that s. 116 of the\tTransfer  of\nProperty Act was not applicable to the case because of s.  2\nof the Government Grants Act.\nDismissing the appeal,\nHELD : The lease in the present case was for the purpose  of\nerecting  a  temporary rice mill and for no  other  purpose.\nThe  mere  fact\t that the State is the lessor  will  not  by\nitself make it a Government grant within the meaning of\t the\nGovernment Grants Act.\tThere was no evidence in the present\ncase  in the character of the land or in the making  of\t the\nlease or in the content of the lease to support the plea  on\nbehalf\tof the State that it was a grant within the  meaning\nof the Government Grants Act. [347E-G]\nIn  the present case the High Court correctly found  on\t the\nfacts  that  the respondent after the determination  of\t the\nlease held over.  Even if the Government Grants Act  applied\nsection 116 of the Transfer of Property Act was not rendered\ninapplicable.\tThe  effect of section 2 of  the  Government\nGrants\tAct  is that in the construction  of  an  instrument\ngoverned  by  the  Government Grants  Act  the\tcourt  shall\nconstrue  such grant irrespective of the provisions  of\t the\nTransfer  of  Property Act.  It does not mean that  all\t the\nprovisions of the Transfer of Property Act are inapplicable.\nTo  illustrate, in the case of a grant under the  Government\nGrants\tAct section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act\twill\nnot apply because section 14 which provides what is known as\nthe rule against perpetuity will not apply by reason of\t the\nprovisions in the Government Grants Act.  The grant shall be\nconstrued to take effect as if the Transfer of Property\t Act\ndoes not apply. [348B-D]\nSection\t 3  of\tthe  Government\t Grants\t Act  declares\t the\nunfettered  discretion\tof  the Government  to\timpose\tsuch\nconditions and limitations as it thinks fit, no matter' what\nthe  general law of the land be.  The meaning of sections  2\nand 3 of the Government Grants is that the scope of that Act\nis not limited to\n345\naffecting  the\tprovisions of the Transfer of  Property\t Act\nonly.,\tThe Government has unfettered discretion  to  impose\nany conditions, limitations, or restrictions in its. grants,\nand  the right, principles and obligations of'\tthe  grantee\nwould  be  regulated according to the terms  of\t the  grant,\nnotwithstanding\t any provisions, of any statutory or  common\nlaw. [348D-F]\nJnanendra  Nath Nanda v' Jadu Nath Banerje, I.L.R. [1938]  1\nCal. 626, and Secretary of State for India in Council v. Lal\nMohan Chaudhuri, I..L.R. 63 Cal. 623, applied.\nLala  Kishun  Chand v.\tSheo Dutta, I.L.R.  1958  All.\t879,\napproved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1718 of 1967<br \/>\nAppeal\tby special.leave from the judgment and\tOrder  dated<br \/>\n23-10-64  of the Allahabad High Court at (Lucknow Bench)  in<br \/>\nFirst Appeal No. 89 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n<p>G.   N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana, for the appellant.<br \/>\nS.   S. Shukla, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nRAY,  C.J.-This\t is  an appeal by  special  leave  from\t the<br \/>\njudgment dated 23 October, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court.<br \/>\nThe  High  Court reversed the decree for Rs. 1\t1,000\/-\t and<br \/>\npassed a decree for a sum of Rs. 3,000\/- with  proportionate<br \/>\ncosts in favour of the appellant State.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appellant is the proprietor of the reserved  forest  in<br \/>\nUttar Pradesh.\tThe respondent took lease from the appellant<br \/>\nof a plot of land at Chandan Chowki, Sonaripur Range in\t the<br \/>\nNorth  Kheri  Forest  Division\tat an  annual  rent  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n1,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court found these facts.  The appellant had granted<br \/>\na  lease to the respondent for one year from 18 March,\t1947<br \/>\nat  an annual rent of Rs. 100\/-.  The lease was renewed\t the<br \/>\nfollowing  year on 10 June, 1948 with effect from 18  March,<br \/>\n1948 for one year.  The lease was renewed again in 1949\t for<br \/>\none  year.  The lease expired on 18 March, 1950.  After\t the<br \/>\ntermination  of\t the  lease in March,  1949  the  respondent<br \/>\ncontinued  to  be in possession of the land  and  agreed  to<br \/>\nabide by the terms to be fixed by the appellant.  Under\t the<br \/>\nterms fixed by the appellant the respondent was required  to<br \/>\npay  Rs. 1,000\/- as annual rent, for the occupation  of\t the<br \/>\nland till 15 July, 1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent remained in possession of the leased property<br \/>\nafter the determination of the lease on 15 July, 1950.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  allowed  the respondent to be in  occupation\t for<br \/>\nthree  years beyond 15 July, 1950.  The respondent  did\t not<br \/>\nagree to give any undertaking after 15 July, 1950 as in\t the<br \/>\nyear  1949  to\tagree  to  abide  by  the  decision  of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment.   The appellant was on the one hand\t anxious  to<br \/>\ncharge\tas: high rent as possible and the respondent on\t the<br \/>\nother  was  willing to pay reasonable rent.  On\t 27  August,<br \/>\n1951  the  Forest  Officer of the- appellant  wrote  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  for discussion regarding the rent for  the\tyear<br \/>\n1950-51.   There is no evidence as to whether there was\t any<br \/>\nsuch discussion.  This is however a letter of the  appellant<br \/>\ndated 4 Decem<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">346<\/span><br \/>\nber,  1951 to the respondent where the respondent was  asked<br \/>\nto pay Rs. 3000\/- for the year 1950-51 and if the respondent<br \/>\ndid not agree to pay the amount the rent would be reduced to<br \/>\nRs.  1800\/-  but the miff would not be allowed to  have\t the<br \/>\nlease  in  future in any circumstance.\tThe  respondent\t was<br \/>\nallowed to continue in occupation of the land with- out\t any<br \/>\nagreement  as to the amount of rent payable for\t the\tyear<br \/>\n1950-51.On  29 October, 1952 the Conservator of\t Forests  on<br \/>\npart  of the appellant sent a notice to the respondent\tthat<br \/>\nthe  appellant\toffered to allow the respondent to  run\t the<br \/>\nmiff  beyond  15  July, 1950 for three\tyears  provided\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  paid Rs. 3000\/- per annum and for one year\tonly<br \/>\nin  case the respondent was prepared to pay Rs. 1800\/-\twith<br \/>\nthe  further condition-that the lease would not be  renewed.<br \/>\nThe notice &#8216;further stated that since the respondent had not<br \/>\nexecuted  any lease incorporating the terms  the  respondent<br \/>\nwas a mere licensee.  The respondent was asked to remove the<br \/>\nplant within one month of the date of receipt of the  notice<br \/>\nand to pay Rs. 6000\/- as damages for use and occupation.  If<br \/>\nthe  respondent did not do so the appellant gave  notice  of<br \/>\nfiling\ta  suit for recovery of damages at the rate  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n50001- per annum for future use and occupation.<br \/>\nOn  the\t facts\tfound  by the High  Court,  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nconcluded  that the respondent continued in occupation\twith<br \/>\nthe  consent of the appellant without any agreement  as\t to<br \/>\nthe  amount  of rent or without any undertaking\t that  the<br \/>\nrespondent  would pay the rent fixed by the appellant.\t The<br \/>\nappellant,  therefore, after the determination of the  lease<br \/>\non  15 July, 1950 assented to the respondent  continuing  in<br \/>\npossession.  The lease was for industrial purposes.   Under<br \/>\nthe  terms  of section 106 of the Transfer of  Property\t Act<br \/>\nsuch lease is from year to year.  Therefore, there being  no<br \/>\nagreement to the contrary the continuance by the respondent<br \/>\nin possession of the leased premises amounted to renewal  of<br \/>\nthe  lease from 16 July, 1950 as a lease from year to  year.<br \/>\nIt  would  be a\t lease terminable  by  six  months  notice<br \/>\nexpiring with the end of the year of the tenancy.  There was<br \/>\nno such notice expiring with the end of a year of tenancy in<br \/>\n1952.  The renewed tenancy therefore continued and was\tnot<br \/>\nterminated.\n<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the amount of rent payable the provisions  of<br \/>\nsection\t 116 of the Transfer of Property Act  indicate\tthat<br \/>\nthe  renewal  of the &#8216;lease would mean that  the  terms\t and<br \/>\nconditions would be the same as of the previous lease.\t The<br \/>\nHigh  Court, therefore, correctly found that in the  absence<br \/>\nof any agreement to pay Rs. 3000\/- as annual rent or in\t the<br \/>\nabsence of any agreement and undertaking that the respondent<br \/>\nwould accept the amount fixed by the appellant as the  rent.<br \/>\nThe  appellant\twas not entitled to anything more  than\t Rs.<br \/>\n1000\/-\ta  year which was the amount of rent for  the  year<br \/>\n1949 to 1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the claim of the State for Rs. 5000\/- for the<br \/>\nyear  1952-53  as damages for use and  occupation  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  found  that  the respondent was\tholding\t over,\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore,  the\t renewal of the lease would be on  the\tsame<br \/>\nterms and conditions.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  High Court, therefore, allowed the State Rs. 3000\/-  at<br \/>\nthe  rate of Rs. 1000\/- for each year for three years  1950-<br \/>\n51, 1951-52 and &#8216;1952-53.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">347<\/span><\/p>\n<p>On  behalf  of\tthe appellant it  was  contended  that\tthe,<br \/>\nprovisions cc the Transfer of Property Act did not apply and<br \/>\ntherefore  the\trespondent could not hold  over\t within\t the<br \/>\nmeaning\t of  section 116 of the\t transfer of  Property\tAct.<br \/>\nThe  State relied on the Government Grants Act.Section 2  of<br \/>\nthe  Government\t Grants\t Act enacts that  nothing  in  their<br \/>\nTransfer  of Property Act shall apply to any grant or  other<br \/>\ntransfer of land or of any interest therein in favour of any<br \/>\nperson,\t but  every  such,.  grant  and\t transfer  shall  be<br \/>\nconstrued  and take effect as if the said Act had  not\tbeen<br \/>\npassed.\n<\/p>\n<p>An example of a Government grant within the meaning of\tthan<br \/>\nGovernment  Grants Act occurs in the decision  in  Jnanendra<br \/>\nNathNanda v. JaduNath Banerji I.L.R. (1938) 1 Cal. 626.\t Two<br \/>\nleases\t of   two  lots\t were  granted\tby   the   Sunderban<br \/>\nCommissioner on behalf of the Secretary of State.  The lands<br \/>\ncomprised  in the lows were waste lands of  the\t Government.<br \/>\nThe waste lands of the Sunderbans were not the, property  of<br \/>\nany subject.  The Sundebans were a vast impenetrable forest.<br \/>\nIt was the property of the East India Company.\tIt later  on<br \/>\nvested\tin the Crown in those days by virtue of an  Imperial<br \/>\nstatue.\t  The history of the legislation showed that  grants<br \/>\nof Sunderbans lands which, were vested in the Crown at\tthat<br \/>\ntime  were  Crown Grants within the. meaning  of  the  Crown<br \/>\nGrants Act as it then stood.\n<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, there is an illustration of What is not a<br \/>\nGovernment grant within the meaning of the Government Grants<br \/>\nAct.   The  decision  in Secretary of  State  for  India  in<br \/>\nCouncil v. Lal Mohan Chaudhuri I.L.R. 63 Cal. 523  furnishes<br \/>\nthat  illustration.   The Government in\t that  case  granted<br \/>\nlease  in  respect of Khas Mahal lands.\t The lease  of\tKhas<br \/>\nMahal was held not to fall within the category of grants  as<br \/>\ncontemplated in the then Crown Grants Act.<br \/>\nThe  lease  in\tthe  present case was  for  the\t purpose  of<br \/>\nerecting  a  temporary rice mill and for no  other  purpose.<br \/>\nThe  mere  fact\t that the State is the lessor  will  not  by<br \/>\nitself make it a Government grant within the meaning of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment Grants Act.\tThere is no evidence in the  present<br \/>\ncase  in the character of the land or in the making  of\t the<br \/>\nlease of in  the content of the lease to support the plea on<br \/>\nbehalf of the State that, it was a grant within the  meaning<br \/>\nof the Government Grants Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  High  Court  in  the present case\trelied\ton  a  Bench<br \/>\ndecision  of  that Court.  That is the case of\tLala  Kishun<br \/>\nChand v. Sheo Dutta I.L.R. 1958 All. 879.  The land in\tthat<br \/>\ncase  belonged\tto  the\t Government  and  was  nazul.\t The<br \/>\nmanagement thereof vested in the notified area of the  Bindi<br \/>\nBoard.\tThe land, was taken on lease by the defendant for  a<br \/>\nperiod\tof 1-1\/2 years in the first instance and  thereafter<br \/>\nfor  4-1\/2  years.   After  the\t expiry\t of  the  lease\t the<br \/>\ndefendant  was\tpermitted  by  the  Board  to  continue\t  in<br \/>\noccupation  as tenant and the rent used to be realised\tfrom<br \/>\nhim.   In the mean time, the plaintiff obtained a  lease  in<br \/>\nregard\tto  the land from the Commissioner.   The  plaintiff<br \/>\ncould not get possession.  The plaintiff filed a suit in the<br \/>\ncity   civil  court.  The learned single Judge of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  affirmed\t the decision of the courts below  that\t the<br \/>\ndefendant  was a trespasser and the defendant&#8217;s right  as  a<br \/>\nlessee\tcame to an end at the expiry of the lease  in  1909.<br \/>\nThe High Court on<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">348<\/span><br \/>\nappeal held that the lessee remained in possession after the<br \/>\ntermination  of\t the lease and therefore there\twas  holding<br \/>\nover  within the meaning of section 116 of the\tTransfer  of<br \/>\nProperty  Act.\t The  contention  which\t was  advanced\tthat<br \/>\nsection\t 2  of\tthe  Government\t Grants\t Act  rendered\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Transfer of Property Act inapplicable\t was<br \/>\nnot  accepted.\tThe High Court correctly held that when\t the<br \/>\ncourt is called upon to construe an instrument granting land<br \/>\nby  the\t Government it shall construe  irrespective  of\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Transfer of Property Act.  The  provisions<br \/>\nof  section  116  of  the Transfer  of\t&#8216;Property  Act\twere<br \/>\ncorrectly  held\t by the High Court to be operative  in\tthat<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the present case the High Court correctly found  on\t the<br \/>\nfacts  that  the respondent after the determination  of\t the<br \/>\nlease held over.  Even if the Government Grants Act  applied<br \/>\nsection 116 of the Transfer of Property Act was not rendered<br \/>\ninapplicable.\tThe effect of section 2 of  the\t ,Government<br \/>\nGrants\tAct  is that in the construction  of  an  instrument<br \/>\n&#8216;governed  by  the  Government Grants Act  the\tcourt  shall<br \/>\nconstrue  such ,grant irrespective of the provisions of\t the<br \/>\nTransfer  of  Property Act.  It does not mean that  all\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Transfer of Property Act are inapplicable.<br \/>\nTo  illustrate, in the case of a grant under the  Government<br \/>\nGrants\tAct section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act\tWill<br \/>\nnot  ,apply because section 14 which provides what is  known<br \/>\nas  the rule against perpetuity will not apply by reason  of<br \/>\nthe  provisions\t in the Government Grants  Act.\t  The  grant<br \/>\nshall  be  construed to take effect as if  the\tTransfer  of<br \/>\nProperty Act does not apply.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section\t 3  of\tthe  Government\t Grants\t Act  declares\t the<br \/>\nunfettered  discretion\tof  the Government  to\timpose\tsuch<br \/>\nconditions and limitations as it thinks fit, no matter\twhat<br \/>\nthe  general law of the land be.  The meaning of sections  2<br \/>\nand 3 of the Government Grants is that the scope of that Act<br \/>\nis  not limited to affecting the provisions of the  Transfer<br \/>\nof  Property  Act  only.   The\tGovernment  has\t  unfettered<br \/>\ndiscretion   to\t impose\t any  conditions,  limitations,\t  or<br \/>\nrestrictions  in its grants, and the right,  privileges\t and<br \/>\nobligations  of the grantee would be regulated according  to<br \/>\nthe  terms of the grant, notwithstanding any  provisions  of<br \/>\nany statutory or common law.\n<\/p>\n<p>For  these  reasons the decree of the High  Court  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  held over within the meaning of section  116  of<br \/>\nthe  Transfer  of  Property Act is upheld.   The  appeal  is<br \/>\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>G.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">349<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2520, 1974 SCR (1) 344 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj) PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. Vs. RESPONDENT: ZAHOOR AHMAD &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/08\/1973 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) PALEKAR, D.G. [&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-59801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973 - 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\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-04T18:35:28+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=\"14 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-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-04T18:35:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973\"},\"wordCount\":2018,\"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-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-04T18:35:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973\"}]},{\"@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 U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973 - 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\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-04T18:35:28+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973","datePublished":"1973-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-04T18:35:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973"},"wordCount":2018,"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-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973","name":"State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-04T18:35:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-zahoor-ahmad-anr-on-8-august-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad &amp; Anr on 8 August, 1973"}]},{"@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\/59801","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=59801"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59801\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}