{"id":63548,"date":"1994-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994"},"modified":"2017-09-11T17:26:17","modified_gmt":"2017-09-11T11:56:17","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 234, \t\t 1995 SCC (1) 295<\/div>\n
Author: P Sawant<\/div>\n
Bench: Sawant, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHANKARA TEXTILES MILLS LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/10\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR  234\t\t  1995 SCC  (1) 295\n JT 1994 (6)   567\t  1994 SCALE  (4)559\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSAWANT,\t J.- The respondent is a public limited company\t and
\nowned  a  total\t land  of  49  acres  and  38.25  guntas  in
\nDavanagere  Village.   At  the relevant\t time,\tit  had\t its
\nfactory\t in an area of 13 acres and 32.25 guntas  which\t was
\nconverted into non-agricultural land under Section 95(2)  of
\nthe  Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to  as
\nthe ‘Revenue Act’).  The remaining land, viz., 36 acres\t and
\n6.5  guntas  was not converted\tinto  non-agricultural\tland
\n(hereinafter  referred to as the ‘disputed land’)  with\t the
\nresult\tthat  for  the\tpurposes  of  the  Revenue  Act,  it
\ncontinued to be considered as agricultural land.\n<\/p>\n
2.Improvement  Board, Davanagere, sought to acquire  land
\nto  the extent of 28 acres and 14 guntas from  the  disputed
\nland   for  the\t purpose  of  ‘Devraj  Urs   Layout’.\t The
\nacquisition proceedings were started under the provisions
\n297<\/span>
\nof Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976.  In pursuance  of
\nthe  final  notification  issued  in  the  year\t 1977,\t the
\npossession of the land was taken by the Improvement Board on
\n9-8-1978.   Since the Land Acquisition Officer did not\tmake
\nthe  award in respect of the acquired land, the\t respondent-
\nCompany\t approached  the  High Court for relief\t by  a\twrit
\npetition in which an order was passed on 4-2-1983  directing
\nthe Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award.\t The  appeal
\nfiled  by the Improvement Board against the said  order\t was
\ndismissed  on 13-11-1983.  Thereafter, the Land\t Acquisition
\nOfficer made his award.\t Since, however, the amount  payable
\nunder the Award exceeded Rs one lakh, the award was referred
\nto  the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore for\tapproval  as
\nprovided  under\t the rules on the subject.   The  Divisional
\nCommissioner  did  not\tapprove of  the\t award.\t  Hence\t the
\nCompany\t filed another writ petition seeking a direction  to
\nthe  Divisional\t Commissioner  to deal\twith  the  award  in
\naccordance  with  law.\tThat writ petition  was\t allowed  on
\n19-7-1984  and the Divisional Commissioner was\tdirected  to
\ndispose of the proceedings arising out of the award within a
\nperiod\tof two months from the date of receipt of the  order
\nof  the Court.\tIn spite of this direction,  the  Divisional
\nCommissioner did not pass any order in the said proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
3.During the pendency of these proceedings, the\t respondent-
\nCompany filed a declaration under Section 79-B(2)(a) of\t the
\nKarnataka  Land\t Reforms  Act, 1961 (for  short\t ‘the  Act’)
\nstating\t therein  that it held the entire disputed  land  as
\nagricultural land.  It further appears that the\t respondent-
\nCompany\t claimed exemption from the provisions of  the\tsaid
\nSection\t 79-B, under Section 81(1)(b)(ii) of the Act on\t the
\nground\tthat the disputed land was mortgaged to\t the  Mysore
\nState Financial Corporation on 3-6-1982.  The Special Deputy
\nCommissioner  passed  an order exempting the  disputed\tland
\nfrom  the  provisions  of Section 79-B.\t  Against  the\tsaid
\norder,\tthe State preferred an appeal before  the  Appellate
\nTribunal which was allowed with the direction to take action
\nunder Section 79-B of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.Against  the\tsaid order of the  Appellate  Tribunal,\t the
\nrespondent  Company  approached the High Court by way  of  a
\nwrit  petition.\t  The High Court by  the  impugned  decision
\nallowed\t the writ petition by holding that  the\t Improvement
\nBoard as an agency of the Government having taken possession
\nof the land under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, in
\nthe  acquisition  proceedings, the land had  vested  in\t the
\nGovernment  free from all encumbrances.\t Hence the  question
\nof  the\t Government exercising its power  to  withdraw\tfrom
\nacquisition  of the land did not arise.\t The  Court  further
\nheld  that  there was no automatic vesting of  the  disputed
\nland  in the State under Section 79-B of the Act, since\t the
\nvesting under the said provision could take place only\tupon
\na  declaration by notification under Section 79-B(3) of\t the
\nAct.   For this purpose, the Court relied upon\tits  earlier
\ndecision  in Mysore Feeds Ltd. v. State of Karnataka1.\t The
\nCourt  held, relying upon the said decision, that  the\tland
\nwhich is agricultural may cease to be agricultural by
\n1 (1988) 1 Kar LJ 310 (Kant)
\n298<\/span>
\nits  usage for a non-agricultural purpose although there  is
\nno order under the Revenue Act permitting the conversion  of
\nthe agricultural land into nonagricultural land.  The Court,
\ntherefore, held that looking to the usage of the entire land
\nwhich was in the possession of the respondent-Company,\teven
\nthe disputed land had no longer remained agricultural within
\nthe  meaning  of  Section 2(18) of the\tAct  and  hence\t the
\ndirection  given  by the Appellate Tribunal to\tthe  Special
\nDeputy Commissioner to take action under Section 79-B of the
\nAct,  could not be sustained.  It is aggrieved by  the\tsaid
\ndecision that the State has preferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5.Two questions arise in this appeal.  The first is  whether
\nthe  land  can\tbe  deemed to  have  been  permitted  to  be
\nconverted  for\tnon-agricultural use merely because  it\t was
\nused for non-agricultural purposes although, admittedly,  no
\npermission under Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act was taken,
\nto do so.  The second question is whether under Section 79-B
\nof  the\t Act,  the  land  vests\t in  the  State\t  Government
\nprospectively\tfrom  the  date\t of  the   notification\t  or
\nretrospectively\t from the date of the coming into  operation
\nof  the\t Act.  The first question has been answered  by\t the
\nHigh Court in the affirmative while on the second  question,
\nthe High Court has taken the view that the land vests in the
\nGovernment from the date of the notification.  According  to
\nus, both the answers are wrong in law.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Section  95(2) of the Revenue Act at the relevant\ttime
\nread as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “95.   Uses  of  agricultural  land  and\t the
\n\t      procedure for use of
\n\t      agricultural land for other purposes.-(1)
\n\t      (2)If any occupant of land assessed or held
\n\t      for  the\tpurpose\t of  agriculture  wishes  to
\n\t      divert  such land or any part thereof  to\t any
\n\t      other  purpose, he shall apply for  permission
\n\t      to the Deputy Commissioner who may, subject to
\n\t      the  provisions of this section and the  rules
\n\t      made  under  this Act,  refuse  permission  or
\n\t      grant  it on such conditions as he  may  think
\n\t      fit:”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   The  obvious  purpose  of this section  is\t to  prevent
\nindiscriminate\tconversion  of agricultural  land  for\tnon-
\nagricultural use and to regulate and control the  conversion
\nof agricultural land into non-agricultural land.  Section 83
\nof  that Act provides for different rates of assessment\t for
\nagricultural  and  non-agricultural  land.   That  provision
\nstrengthens the presumption that agricultural land is not to
\nbe used, as per the holder’s sweet will, for nonagricultural
\npurposes.   This  is  also clear from  the  absence  of\t any
\nprovision  under  that Act requiring permission\t to  convert
\nnon-agricultural land into agricultural land.  In a  country
\nlike  ours, where the source of livelihood of more  than  70
\nper cent of the population, is agriculture, the\t restriction
\nplaced\tby  the Revenue Act is quite  understandable.\tSuch
\nprovisions and restrictions are found in the Revenue Acts of
\nall   the  States  in  the  country.   The  provision\thas,
\ntherefore, to be construed as mandatory and given effect  to
\nas such.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  High\tCourt has obviously  ignored  the  mandatory
\nnature\tof  the\t said  provision.   On\tthis  point,   after
\nreferring to an earlier decision of the same Court in Mysore
\nFeeds Ltd. case1 the Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
299<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “As  held\t in the above case,  land  which  is
\n\t      agricultural may cease to be agricultural\t for
\n\t      various reasons.\tTheoretically such land\t may
\n\t      fall  within  the\t definition  of\t ‘Land’\t  in
\n\t      Section  2(18)  of the Act.  However,  in\t the
\n\t      absence of any specific finding regarding\t the
\n\t      nature  or usage of the land as  agricultural,
\n\t      the  Special Deputy Commissioner cannot  treat
\n\t      it  to  be  an  agricultural  land  merely  on
\n\t      account  of  the\tfact  that  permission\t for
\n\t      conversion of the land under Section 95(2)  of
\n\t      the  Karnataka  Land Revenue Act\twas  sought.
\n\t      Even   otherwise,\t admittedly,  the  land\t  in
\n\t      question\t does\tnot  satisfy  any   of\t the
\n\t      characteristics  as required  under  aforesaid
\n\t      definition  investing  Respondent 2  with\t the
\n\t      jurisdiction to take proceedings under Section
\n\t      79-B  of the Act.\t Furthermore, since  vesting
\n\t      could  take place only on a declaration  being
\n\t      made  as\tprovided under\tsub-section  (3)  of
\n\t      Section 79-B of the Act, a declaration by\t the
\n\t      holder  at  some\tearlier\t point\tof  time  in
\n\t      respect of the land cannot vest the  authority
\n\t      with  the\t jurisdiction to pass  an  order  of
\n\t      vesting notwithstanding the fact that the land
\n\t      by then had ceased to be an agricultural\tland
\n\t      and treated as such since long.  This view  is
\n\t      also in conformity with the scheme of the Act,
\n\t      inter alia, regarding disposal of surplus land
\n\t      vesting in the State as provided under Section
\n\t      77 of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.Thus\tthe  High Court has proceeded on the  basis  that
\nthere is no specific finding regarding the nature and  usage
\nof  the land as agricultural and hence, the  Special  Deputy
\nCommissioner  could not treat it to be an agricultural\tland
\nmerely on account of the fact that permission for conversion
\nof  the\t land  under Section 95(2) of the  Revenue  Act\t was
\nsought\t(but  admittedly  not  given).\t Secondly,  it\t has
\nproceeded on the footing that the land in question does\t not
\nsatisfy\t any  of the characteristics as required  under\t the
\ndefinition  of\t‘land’ in Section 2(18) of  the\t Act,  i.e.,
\nKarnataka  Land Reforms Act investing the  authorities\twith
\nthe  jurisdiction to take proceedings under Section 79-B  of
\nthe Act.  We are afraid that the High Court has misread\t the
\nfacts  on  record.   The  consistent  stand  taken  by\t the
\nauthorities  is that the land was never converted  for\tnon-
\nagricultural  use as required by the provisions\t of  Section
\n95(2)  of  the\tRevenue\t Act.  The mere\t fact  that  at\t the
\nrelevant  time,\t the  land was\tnot  used  for\tagricultural
\npurpose\t or  purposes subservient thereto  as  mentioned  in
\nSection\t 2(18)\tof  the Act or that it\twas  used  for\tnon-
\nagricultural  purpose,\tassuming  it to\t be  so,  would\t not
\nconvert\t the agricultural land into a non-agricultural\tland
\nfor  the purposes either of the Revenue Act or of  the\tAct,
\nviz.,  Karnataka Land Reforms Act.  To hold otherwise  would
\ndefeat the object of both the Acts and would, in particular,
\nrender\tthe provisions of Section 95(2) of the Revenue\tAct,
\nnugatory.  Such an interpretation is not permissible by\t any
\nrule  of the interpretation of statutes.  What\tis  further,
\nthe respondent-Company had itself filed a declaration  under
\nSection\t 79-B(2)(a)  of\t the Act stating  therein  that\t the
\nentire\tdisputed land was agricultural land and had  claimed
\nexemption from the provisions of the said Section 79-B under
\nSection\t 109  of  the Act on the ground that  the  land\t was
\nmortgaged  to  the Mysore State Financial  Corporation.\t  We
\nare,  therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by\t the
\nHigh Court on the point.\n<\/p>\n
300<\/span><\/p>\n
10.It  is  for these reasons that we do not approve  of\t the
\ndecision  in Mysore Feeds Ltd. case1 which stands  expressly
\noverruled.\n<\/p>\n
11.Coming  now to the second question, here again, the\tHigh
\nCourt  has missed the wood for the tree.  The object of\t the
\nAct,  viz., the Karnataka Land Reforms Act which  came\tinto
\nforce  on  2-10-1965  is,  among  other\t things,  to  confer
\nownership on tenants, to place ceiling on land holdings\t and
\nto  distribute\tthe surplus land among the  members  of\t the
\nScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, dispossessed  tenants
\nunregistered as occupants, displaced tenants having no land,
\nlandless  agricultural\tlabourers,  landless  persons  whose
\ngross annual income does not exceed Rs 4800 and\t ex-military
\npersonnel  whose  gross\t annual income does  not  exceed  Rs
\n12,000,\t and among the released bonded labourers  and  other
\npersons residing in villages, whose gross annual income does
\nnot exceed Rs 2000.\n<\/p>\n
12.Chapter  V  relating\t to “Restrictions  on  (Holding\t or)
\nTransfer  of Agricultural Lands” was inserted in the Act  by
\nAct  1\tof  1974 and came into\teffect\tfrom  1-3-1974.\t  It
\ncontains  Sections  79-A,  79-B\t and  79-C,  among   others.
\nSection\t 79-A, inter alia, prohibits acquisition of land  by
\ncertain\t  persons.    It  states  that\ton  and\t  from\t the
\ncommencement  of the Amendment Act, i.e. Act 1 of  1974,  no
\nperson\twho  or\t a family or a joint family  which  have  an
\nassured annual income of not less than Rs 50,000 (earlier Rs
\n12,000) from sources other than agricultural lands shall  be
\nentitled to acquire any land whether as landowner, landlord,
\ntenant\tor mortgagee with possession or otherwise or  partly
\nin one capacity and partly in another.\n<\/p>\n
13.Sub-section\t(3)  of\t Section  79-A\tstates\tthat   every
\nacquisition of land otherwise than by way of inheritance  or
\nbequest\t in contravention of the section shall be  null\t and
\nvoid.\n<\/p>\n
14.Section 79-B which falls for consideration in the present
\ncase reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “79-B.   Prohibition of  holding\tagricultural
\n\t      land  by certain persons.- (1) With effect  on
\n\t      and  from\t the  date of  commencement  of\t the
\n\t      Amendment Act, except as otherwise provided in
\n\t      this Act,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   no\t person\t  other\t  than\t a    person
\n\t      cultivating land personally shall be  entitled
\n\t      to hold land; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   it shall not be lawful for,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)an educational, religious or  charitable
\n\t      institution or society or trust, other than an
\n\t      institution or society or trust referred to in
\n\t      sub-section  (7)\tof Section  63,\t capable  of
\n\t      holding property;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)a company;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)an\tassociation   or  other\t  body\t of
\n\t      individuals not being a joint family,  whether
\n\t      incorporated or not; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)a  cooperative  society  other  than\t a
\n\t      cooperative farm, to hold any land.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      301<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (2)Every such institution, society,  trust,
\n\t      company,\tassociation,  body  or\t cooperative
\n\t      society,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   which   holds  lands  on  the  date\t  of
\n\t      commencement of the Amendment Act and which is
\n\t      disentitled  to hold lands  under\t sub-section
\n\t      (1),  shall, within ninety days from the\tsaid
\n\t      date  furnish  to the Tahsildar  within  whose
\n\t      jurisdiction the greater part of such land  is
\n\t      situated\t a   declaration   containing\t the
\n\t      particulars  of  such  land  and\tsuch   other
\n\t      particulars as may be prescribed; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   which acquires such land after the\tsaid
\n\t      date shall also furnish a similar\t declaration
\n\t      within the prescribed period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)The  Tahsildar shall, on receipt of  the
\n\t      declaration  under  subsection (2)  and  after
\n\t      such  enquiry  as may be\tprescribed,  send  a
\n\t      statement\t    containing\t  the\t  prescribed
\n\t      particulars  relating  to\t such  land  to\t the
\n\t      Deputy\tCommissioner\twho    shall,\t  by
\n\t      notification,  declare  that such\t land  shall
\n\t      vest  in\tthe State Government free  from\t all
\n\t      encumbrances  and take possession\t thereof  in
\n\t      the prescribed manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (4)In  respect of the land vesting  in  the
\n\t      State Government under this section an  amount
\n\t      as specified in Section 72 shall be paid.
\n\t      Explanation.- For purposes of this section  it
\n\t      shall  be presumed that a land is held  by  an
\n\t      institution,  trust, company,  association  or
\n\t      body where it is held by an individual on\t its
\n\t      behalf.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.Section  79-C  provides  for\t penalty  for  failure\tto
\nfurnish a declaration under Section 79-A or Section 79-B and
\nfor  furnishing\t a  false  declaration.\t  Section  80\tbars
\ntransfer   of  agricultural  land   to\t non-agriculturists.
\nSection 81 states that the provisions of Sections 79-A, 79-B
\nand 80 shall not apply to (a) the sale, gift, or mortgage of
\nany land or interest therein in favour of the Government (b)
\nthe  mortgage of any land or interest therein in  favour  of\n<\/p>\n
(i)  a cooperative society and (ii) a financial institution,
\namong others.  It is not necessary  to\trefer to  the  other
\nprovisions of the said Chapter.\n<\/p>\n
16.  It\t will thus be clear from these\tprovisions  that  no
\nperson\tis  permitted to acquire or hold  agricultural\tland
\nexcept\tas  provided in the Act with effect  from  1-3-1974.
\nThere is no dispute in the present case that the  respondent
\nCompany\t filed a declaration, as required under Section\t 79-
\nB(2)(a), stating therein that the disputed land which was an
\nagricultural land was in its possession.\n<\/p>\n
17.A  reading  of  the provisions of  sub-section  (3)\tof
\nSection\t 79-B shows that after a declaration is received  by
\nthe  Tahsildar,\t he  has  to make  an  enquiry\tand  send  a
\nstatement containing the prescribed particulars relating  to
\nthe land in question, to the Deputy Commissioner, and it  is
\nthe Deputy Commissioner who thereupon issues a\tnotification
\ndeclaring that the land\t shall vest in the State  Government
\nand  takes possession thereafter of such land.\tThe  enquiry
\nto  be\theld  by the Tahsildar, the act of  sending  of\t the
\nstatement pertaining to the land to the Deputy\tCommissioner
\nand the issuance of notification by the Deputy\tCommissioner
\nthereafter, are all acts
\n302<\/span>
\nconsequent  upon  the  filing  of  the\tdeclaration  by\t the
\nlandholder.   Where no declaration is made by the holder  of
\nthe  land  or  the declaration made by\thim  is\t false,\t the
\nTahsildar has to issue under Section 79-C a notice to him to
\nshow  cause  as to why the penalty specified in\t the  notice
\nshould\tnot  be imposed upon him.  If the  Tahsildar,  after
\nconsidering the reply, if any, comes to the conclusion\tthat
\nthe  failure  to  furnish the declaration  was\twithout\t any
\nreasonable  cause,  or that the false declaration  was\tmade
\nknowingly,  he is empowered to impose a penalty and also  to
\nrequire\t such  person to furnish the  declaration  within  a
\nperiod\tof  one month from the date of his order.   If\ttile
\nperson fails to comply with the said order of the Tahsildar,
\nhis  right,  title  and interest in the\t land  concerned  is
\nliable to be forfeited to the State Government as and by way
\nof  penalty.  A combined reading of Sections 79-B and  79-C,
\ntherefore,  shows  that the crucial date of vesting  of\t the
\nland  in the State Government is the date on which  Sections
\n79-B   and  79-C  came\tinto  operation,   i.e.,   1-3-1974.
\nOtherwise, the date of vesting in the Government would\tvary
\naccording  to  the acts and omissions of the holder  of\t the
\nland  in making the declaration and the consequent acts\t and
\nomissions of the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner.\t  In
\ncases  where  the  holder of the land  files  a\t declaration
\nwithin the initially stipulated time and where the Tahsildar
\nand  the Deputy Commissioner act promptly, the.\t land  would
\nvest in the State Government on a date earlier than in cases
\nwhere either the holder of the land or the Tahsildar or\t the
\nDeputy\tCommissioner  commits defaults or  delays  in  their
\nobligations  and  duties  at the  relevant  stages.   It  is
\nagainst\t the scheme of the Act to hold that the date of\t the
\nvesting\t of  the  land in the  State  Government  should  be
\nvariable   according  to  the  acts  or\t omissions  of\t the
\nindividuals  concerned.\t  That would make  nonsense  of\t the
\nrelevant  provisions of the Act.  It is, therefore, both  in
\nconformity  with the object of the Act as well as  the\ttrue
\nintent\tof  the provisions of Section 79-B(3) to  hold\tthat
\nwhatever   the\t date\tof  notification   of\tthe   Deputy
\nCommissioner,  the date of vesting of the land will  be\t the
\ndate on which the said provision came into operation,  viz.,
\n1-3-1974.   It is necessary in this connection\tto  remember
\nthat  the relevant expression in sub-section (3) of  Section
\n79-B  reads  as “… the Deputy Commissioner …  shall,  by
\nnotification, declare that such land shall vest in the State
\nGovernment…… The section does not leave it to the Deputy
\nCommissioner  to mention the date from which the land  shall
\nvest in the State Government.  That is as it should be.\t  If
\nthe   intention\t  was  otherwise,  nothing   prevented\t the
\nlegislature  from  providing that  the\tDeputy\tCommissioner
\nwould  by notification declare that the land shall  vest  in
\nthe State Government “from such date as may be stated in the
\nnotification”.\tThere is no such provision in the said\tsub-
\nsection (3).\n<\/p>\n
18.Shri\t Javali, the learned counsel for  the  respondent-
\nCompany\t invited our attention to certain provisions in\t the
\nAct  to\t contrast the language of the said  provisions\twith
\nthat of Section 79-B(3).  We find that far from helping\t his
\ncontention,  the  language of the said\tprovisions  militate
\nagainst it.\n<\/p>\n
19.Section  15(6)  of the Act provides for  resumption\tof
\nland by soldier or seaman.  Sub-section (6) thereof states:\n<\/p>\n
303<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “Where  the  Tahsildar on application  by\t the
\n\t      tenant or otherwise and after such enquiry …
\n\t      is  satisfied  … he shall,  by\tnotification
\n\t      declare that with effect from such date as may
\n\t      be  specified  in the notification,  the\tland
\n\t      leased shall stand transferred to and vest  in
\n\t      the State Government (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20.Section 44 provides for vesting of land of the  tenants
\nin the State Government for conferment of ownership on them.
\nSub-section (1) thereof provides that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “All  lands  held by or in the  possession  of
\n\t      tenants  … immediately prior to the date  of
\n\t      commencement  of the Amendment Act,  …\twith
\n\t\t\t    effect  on\tand  from  the\tsaid  date,  stand
\n\t      transferred   to\t and  vest  in\t the   State
\n\t      Government.”\t     (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
21.Section  67 provides for surrender of lands in  certain
\ncases.\tSubsection (3) thereof states that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “If the person concerned files declaration …
\n\t      the  Tribunal may … pass an order  approving
\n\t      the   surrender  and  the\t said  land   shall,
\n\t      thereupon\t be deemed to have been\t surrendered
\n\t      by such person.” (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
22.Section  68 provides for vesting of land  surrendered  by
\nlimited owner. It reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where  the land surrendered under Section  67
\n\t      is  by an owner (other than a limited  owner),
\n\t      the  State Government may take over such\tland
\n\t      on  the service of the order under Section  67
\n\t      and  such\t land shall thereupon  vest  in\t the
\n\t      State   Government…..”\t\t   (emphasis
\n\t      supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
23.Section  71 provides for vesting of land  surrendered  by
\ntenant.\t Sub-section(3) thereof reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In   cases  where  possession  of  the\tland
\n\t      surrendered by a tenant does not revert to the
\n\t      owner  … the State Government may take\tover
\n\t      the   land   on\tthe   publication   of\t the
\n\t      notification  under  Section 73 and  the\tland
\n\t      shall  thereupon vest in the State  Government
\n\t      (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
24.Section   79-A,   as\t stated\t earlier,   provides   for
\nprohibition of acquisition of landby certain persons.  Sub-
\nsection (5) thereof reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Tahsildar  shall …  send\ta  statement
\n\t      containing … to the Deputy Commissioner\t who
\n\t      shall,  by  notification,\t declare  that\twith
\n\t      effect  from such date as may be specified  in
\n\t      the   notification,  such\t land  shall   stand
\n\t      transferred   to\t and  vest  in\t the   State
\n\t      Government.  …\tFrom the date  specified  in
\n\t      such notification the Deputy Commissioner\t may
\n\t      take possession of such land in such manner as
\n\t      may be prescribed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
25.It will thus be noticed that the Legislature had  taken
\npains to mention in the other provisions the specific  dates
\nfrom which the consequences in question will follow.   There
\nis  a reason for doing so.  Unless the land to be vested  in
\nthe  State  Government\tis first  ascertained,\tno  date  of
\nvesting of such land could be fore-determined.\tThat is\t not
\nthe  case  under  Section 79-B, since it  provides  for\t the
\nvesting in the Government of all agricultural lands held by
\n304<\/span>
\ncertain persons like the respondent-Company.  This is  apart
\nfrom  the  fact that the provisions of\tthe  other  sections
\ncannot\thelp  the  interpretation  of  Section\t79-B(3)\t the
\nlanguage of which is self-evident and is in conformity\twith
\nthe intent of Section 79-B and the Act.\n<\/p>\n
26.It is for this reason that we are unable to agree  with
\nthe decision of the High Court in Mysore Feeds Ltd. case1 on
\nwhich the impugned decision of the High Court has also\tkept
\nreliance  and  the said decision stands\t overruled  on\tthis
\npoint as well.\n<\/p>\n
27.In  the result, we set aside the impugned  decision\tof
\nthe  High Court, restore that of the Appellate Tribunal\t and
\nallow  the appeal.  In the circumstances, there will  be  no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
 305<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 234, 1995 SCC (1) 295 Author: P Sawant Bench: Sawant, P.B. PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHANKARA TEXTILES MILLS LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/10\/1994 BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) CITATION: 1995 […]<\/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-63548","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994 - 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-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-11T11:56:17+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=\"19 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-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-11T11:56:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3831,\"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-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-11T11:56:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994\"}]},{\"@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 Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994 - 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-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-11T11:56:17+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994","datePublished":"1994-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-11T11:56:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994"},"wordCount":3831,"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-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-11T11:56:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-shankara-textiles-mills-ltd-on-18-october-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd on 18 October, 1994"}]},{"@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\/63548","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=63548"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63548\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}