{"id":63844,"date":"1960-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960"},"modified":"2016-07-12T10:14:44","modified_gmt":"2016-07-12T04:44:44","slug":"the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Uttar Pradeshand … vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Uttar Pradeshand … vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 14, \t\t 1961 SCR (1) 363<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K., Kapur, J.L., Subbarao, K., Hidayatullah, M., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHAND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nH.   H. MAHARAJA BRIJENDRA SINGH.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/08\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nDAS, S.K.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR   14\t\t  1961 SCR  (1) 363\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1972 SC 425\t (20)\n R\t    1984 SC1178\t (13,15,16)\n\n\nACT:\nLand Acquisition-Statute contravening Provisions of  Govern-\nment of India Act-Subsequent inclusion in Ninth Schedule  of\nConstitution-Constitutionality\tof--U.\tP. Land\t Acquisition\n(Rehabilitation\t of  Refugees)\tAct, 1948 (U.\tP.  XXVI  of\n1948),\ts.  11-Constitution  India,  Art.  31-B\t and   Ninth\nSchedule-Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, s. 5.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe property of the respondent was acquired under the U.  P.\nLand  Acquisition  (Rehabilitation of Refugees)\t Act,  1948.\nThe  respondent challenged the constitutionality of the\t Act\nby  way\t of  a\twrit petition  and  though  the\t High  Court\ndismissed the petition it held that the two provisos to s.11\nof  the Act were invalid as they offended S. 299(2)  of\t the\nGovernment  of\tIndia Act.   Subsequently  the\tConstitution\n(Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, included the U. P. Act in\t the\nNinth Schedule as item NO. 15.\tThe appellant contended that\nthe inclusion of the Act in the Ninth Schedule protected  it\nunder Art. 31-B of the Constitution from any challenge under\ns. 299(2) of the Government of India Act.\nHeld, that the U. P. Act could not be assailed on the ground\nof unconstitutionality based on a contravention of S. 299 of\nthe  Government\t of India Act.\tThe provisions\tof  the\t Act\nhaving\tbeen specifically saved by Art. 31-B read  with\t the\nNinth Schedule, the Act could not be deemed to be void or to\never   have  become  void  on  the  ground  of\tits   having\ncontravened the provisions of the Government of India Act.\nDhirubha  Devisingh Gohil v. The State of Bombay,<\/a>  [1955]  1\nS.C.R. 691, relied on.\nSaghir Ahmad v. The State of U. P.,<\/a> [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707, not\napplicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 131 of 1956.
\nAppeal from the judgment and decree dated February 4,  1954,
\nof the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.  Writ No. 7976 of
\n1951.\n<\/p>\n
H.   N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India and C.
\nP. Lal, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    363<\/span><\/p>\n
V.   M.\t Limaye, Mrs. E. Udayaratnam and S. S.\tShukla,\t for
\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1960.\tAugust 26.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nKAPUR J.-This is an appeal against the judgment and order of
\nthe  High Court of Allahabad on a certificate granted  under
\nArts.\t132  and  133(1)(c)  of,  the\tConstitution.\t The
\nrespondent  herein was the petitioner in the High  Court  in
\none of the petitions which were filed in that Court covering
\nthe   question\twhich  has  been  raised  before  us.\t The
\nappellants before us were the respondents in the High Court.
\nThe respondent was the Ruler of the State of Bharatpur,\t now
\na  part\t of Rajasthan, and is the owner of the\tproperty  in
\ndispute known as ‘Kothi Kandhari Jadid’ in Agra.  On January
\n28, 1950, the Agra Improvement Trust-hereinafter called\t the
\nTrust passed a resolution under s. 5 of the U.P. Land Acqui-
\nsition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948, (U.P. XXVI of
\n1948)-hereinafter called the Act-for the acquisition of\t the
\nproperty in dispute and expressed its willingness to act  as
\n” builder ” within the meaning of the provisions of the Act.
\nThe Government declared the Trust as the ” builder ” on\t May
\n6,  1950, and an agreement was entered into on\tNovember  6,
\n1950, in terms of the Act, which was published on January 6,
\n1951.\tThe Trust deposited a sum of Its. 57,800  being\t the
\nestimated cost of the acquisition on February 27, 1951,\t and
\na  notification under s. 7 of the Act was published  in\t the
\nU.P. Gazette on July 21, 1951.\tBy sub-s. (2) of s. 7,\tupon
\nthe  publication of the notification, the land acquired\t was
\nto  vest absolutely in the State.  After the respondent\t was
\nserved\twith a notice calling upon him to appear before\t the
\nCompensation  Officer at Agra, he filed\t certain  objections
\nchallenging  the propriety of the acquisition and the  vires
\nof the Act.  It was also alleged that the Collector, without
\ndeciding  the  matter, proceeded to  take  possession.\t The
\nrespondent,  thereupon, filed a petition under Art.  226  of
\nthe Constitution in the
\n47<\/span>
\n364<\/span>
\nAllahabad  High Court for a writ prohibiting the  appellants
\nfrom  acquiring\t his land or interfering  with\this  rights.
\nThis petition was dismissed by the High Court on February 2,
\n1954.\tBut  certain  findings\twere  given  to\t which\t the
\nappellants  have taken objection.  In its judgment the\tHigh
\nCourt observed :-\n<\/p>\n
”  In  these petitions the prayer is that the Court  may  be
\npleased\t to grant a writ, direction or other suitable  order
\nprohibiting   the  State  Government  from   acquiring\t the
\npetitioners’  land or interfering with their rights  in\t any
\nother manner, and to grant such other suitable relief as the
\nCourt  may  deem  fit.\tAt  the\t hearing,  however,  learned
\ncounsel\t for the petitioners stated more  Specifically\tthat
\nthe  relief which the petitioners sought was a writ  in\t the
\nnature\tof  certiorari\tto  quash  the\tState\tGovernment’s
\nNotification  under section 7 of the Act made on 11th  July,
\n1951,  or,  in\tthe  alternative, the issue  of\t a  writ  of
\nmandamus  directing the Compensation Officer in\t calculating
\nthe compensation payable to them under the Act to  disregard
\nthe two provisos of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act
\nThe  respondent\t submitted in the High Court  that  the\t Act
\ncontravened  the provisions of Art. 31(2) and was not  saved
\nby the provisions of Art. 31(5) of the Constitution and that
\nthe  Act infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution\tand  several
\nother contentions were also raised.  The relevant  provision
\nof the Act which requires consideration is s. 11 which\truns
\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
 11. (1) Whenever any land is  acquired under section 7 or 9
\nthere  shall be paid compensation the amount of which  shall
\nbe  determined\tby the Compensation Officer,  in  accordance
\nwith  the  principles set out in clauses first,\t second\t and
\nthird  of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section  23
\nof the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:\n<\/p>\n
Provided  that the market value referred to in clause  first
\nof  the\t said sub-section shall be deemed to be\t the  market
\nvalue of such land on the date of publication of the  notice
\nunder  section 7 or 9, as the case may be, or on  the  first
\nday of September, 1939, whichever is less:\n<\/p>\n
365<\/span><\/p>\n
Provided  further that where such land has been held by\t the
\nowner thereof under a purchase made before the first day  of
\nApril, 1948, but after the first day of September, 1939,  by
\na  registered document, or a decree for pre-emption  between
\nthe  aforesaid\tdates, the compensation shall be  the  price
\nactually  paid by the purchaser or the amount on payment  of
\nwhich  he may have acquired the land in the decree for\tpre-
\nemption, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
The High Court held that these two provisos were invalid and
\nthat devoid of these offending provisos, s. 11(1) of the Act
\nwas not invalid and consequently the order of the appellants
\nwas  a\tvalid  order and thus the writ\tfor  certiorari\t was
\nrefused.\n<\/p>\n
In  regard  to the prayer for a writ of mandamus,  the\tHigh
\nCourt observed:-\n<\/p>\n
” Nor do we think that we should order the issue of mandamus
\ndirecting  the\tCompensation  Officer  in  determining\t the
\ncompensation  payable  to  the\tpetitioners  to\t ignore\t the
\nprovisos  to section 11(1).  We have held those provisos  to
\nbe  invalid.  The Compensation Officer, for some  reason  of
\nwhich we are not aware, has not yet embarked on the task  of
\ndetermining the compensation, but when he does so we  assume
\nthat he will be guided by the opinion we have expressed;  we
\ncannot assume that he will act otherwise “.
\nThe petition was therefore dismissed but the appellants were
\nordered to pay costs.  It is against this judgment that\t the
\nappellants have appealed to this Court on a certificate.
\nNo  objection was taken by the respondent to the  competency
\nof  the\t appeal\t on the ground that the\t petition  had\tbeen
\ndismissed  and the legality of the certificate has not\tbeen
\nchallenged before us.\n<\/p>\n
The  only question for decision is whether the two  provisos
\nto  s. 11(1) of the Act are unconstitutional because of\t the
\nprovisions  of\ts. 299(2) of the Government  of\t India\tAct,
\n1935.\tThe  Constitution was amended  by  the\tConstitution
\n(First\tAmendment) Act, 1951, and Art. 31-B was inserted  in
\nthe Constitution which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
366<\/span><\/p>\n
”  Without  prejudice to the generality\t of  the  provisions
\ncontained  in article 31A, none of the Acts and\t Regulations
\nspecified  in the Ninth Schedule nor any of  the  provisions
\nthereof\t shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have  become
\nvoid,  on the ground that such Act, Regulation or  provision
\nis  inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of\t the
\nrights\tconferred  by,\tany provisions\tof  this  Part,\t and
\nnotwithstanding\t any judgment, decree or order of any  court
\nor  tribunal  to  the contrary, each of the  said  Acts\t and
\nRegulations  shall,  subject to the power of  any  competent
\nLegislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force “.
\nBy s. 5 of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act of  1955,
\nwhich was published on April 27, 1955, the Act was  included
\nin the Schedule and is item 15.\t It was argued on behalf  of
\nthe appellants that by the inclusion of the Act in the Ninth
\nSchedule,  the\tground\tof unconstitutionality\tof  the\t Act
\nbecause\t of s. 299(2) of the Government of India Act  is  no
\nlonger\tavailable  to  the  respondent\tand  that  what\t was
\nprovided  as  safeguard in s. 299(2) of\t the  Government  of
\nIndia  Act  has been incorporated in  the  Constitution\t and
\ntherefore  any\tunconstitutionality arising as a  result  of
\ncontravention of s. 299(2) of the Government of India Act is
\ncared  by Art. 31-B of the Constitution.  This question\t was
\nraised and decided in Dhirubha Devisingh Gohil v. The  State
\nof Bombay<\/a>(1).  It was held that s. 299(2) of the  Government
\nof India Act was in substance a fundamental right which\t was
\nlifted\tbodily as it were from the Government of  India\t Act
\ninto Part III of the Constitution.  Therefore the protection
\nunder  Art.  31-B against the violation of  the\t fundamental
\nrights mentioned therein must extend to the rights under  s.
\n299  of\t the Government of India Act  also.   The  following
\npassage\t from  that judgment at page 695  is  important\t and
\napplicable to the facts of the present case :
\n”   What article 31-B protects is not a\t mere ‘contravention
\nof  the provisions ‘ of Part III of the Constitution but  an
\nattack\t on  the  grounds  that\t the  impugned\tAct   is   ‘
\ninconsistent with or takes away or
\n(1)  [1955] 1 S.C.R. 691, 695.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    367<\/span><\/p>\n
abridges  any of the rights conferred by any  provisions  of
\nthis Part: One of the rights secured to a person by Part III
\nof  the Constitution is a right that his property  shall  be
\nacquired   only\t for  public  purposes\tand  under   a\t law
\nauthorising such acquisition and providing for\tcompensation
\nwhich  is  either fixed by the law itself  or  regulated  by
\nprinciples specified by the law That is also the very  right
\nwhich was previously secured to the person under section 299
\nof the Government of India Act “.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the judgment of this Court in Dhirubha  Devisingh
\nGohil’s case (1) the ground of unconstitutionality based  on
\nthe  contravention of s. 299 of the Government of India\t Act
\nwould not be available to the respondent.  But it was argued
\non  behalf  of\tthe respondent that  the  amendment  of\t the
\nConstitution which came after the decision of the  Allahabad
\nHigh Court cannot validate the earlier legislation which, at
\nthe time it was passed was unconstitutional and reliance was
\nplaced\tupon the judgment of this Court in Saghir  Ahmad  v.
\nThe  State  of\tU.  P.<\/a> (2).  But in  the  present  case\t the
\nprovisions of the Act have been’ specifically saved from any
\nattack\ton their constitutionality as a consequence of\tArt.
\n31-B  read with the Ninth Schedule, the effect of  which  is
\nthat  the  Act cannot be deemed to be void or ever  to\thave
\nbecome void on the ground of its being hit by the  operation
\nof the Government of India Act.\n<\/p>\n
In  the result, this appeal is allowed and that\t portion  of
\nthe  judgment  of  the High Court  which  declared  the\t two
\nprovisos  of  s.11(1) of the Act to be void, is\t set  aside.
\nThe  High Court awarded costs against the  appellant.\tThat
\norder  is also set aside.  But in view of the fact that\t the
\nappeal\thas succeeded because of a subsequent  event,  i.e.,
\nthe incorporation of the Act in the Ninth Schedule, we order
\nthat the parties do bear their own costs in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   _____________________
\n(1)  [1955] 1 S.C.R. 691, 695,
\n(2)  [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707 at PP. 727-728,
\n368<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Uttar Pradeshand … vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 14, 1961 SCR (1) 363 Author: K L. Bench: Das, S.K., Kapur, J.L., Subbarao, K., Hidayatullah, M., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala PETITIONER: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHAND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: H. H. […]<\/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-63844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Uttar Pradeshand ... vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960 - 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\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Uttar Pradeshand ... vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-12T04:44:44+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Uttar Pradeshand … vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-12T04:44:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960\"},\"wordCount\":1794,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960\",\"name\":\"The State Of Uttar Pradeshand ... vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-12T04:44:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Uttar Pradeshand … vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Uttar Pradeshand ... vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960 - 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\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Uttar Pradeshand ... vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-12T04:44:44+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Uttar Pradeshand … vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960","datePublished":"1960-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-12T04:44:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960"},"wordCount":1794,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960","name":"The State Of Uttar Pradeshand ... vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-12T04:44:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-vs-h-h-maharaja-brijendra-singh-on-26-august-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Uttar Pradeshand … vs H. H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh on 26 August, 1960"}]},{"@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\/63844","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=63844"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63844\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}