{"id":70083,"date":"1966-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966"},"modified":"2015-06-05T09:31:25","modified_gmt":"2015-06-05T04:01:25","slug":"smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1678, \t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 466<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSMT.  SHYAM KISHORI DEVI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/02\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1678\t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 466\n\n\nACT:\nBihar  and  Orissa  Municipal Act, 1922 (B. &amp; O.  Act  7  of\n1922),\t ss.  107(1)(c),  117(1)  and  386-supersession\t  of\nMunicipality-  Notifications  appointing officer to  act  as\nCommissioners  and  as\tcommittee-Enhancement  of  municipal\ntaxes  by such officer and sitting in review  as  Committee-\nValidity-Incorrect assessment, burden of proof of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nOn  supersession  of  the  Patna  Municipality,\t the   State\nGovernment  by\ta notification directed an  officer  of\t the\nMunicipality  to exercise and perform the powers and  duties\nof  the\t Commissioner under s. 107 of the Bihar\t and  Orissa\nMunicipal  Act,\t 1922.\t Under\ts.  117\t every\t application\npresented  to the Commissioners for review of an  assessment\nor  valuation had to be heard and determined by a  Committee\nconsisting of two Commissioners, two tax-payers and a Deputy\nMagistrate   as\t provided  in  the  section.   By  a   later\nnotification,  the  Government directed each  of  the  three\npersons\t mentioned  therein one of whom\t was  the  aforesaid\nofficer,  to  exercise\tand perform the\t powers\t and  duties\nconferred and imposed on Committee constituted under s.\t 117\nof  the\t Act.\tPursuant to these  notifications,  the\tsaid\nofficer\t enhanced  the\tvaluation  of  the  holding  of\t the\nappellant  and the assessment thereof under s. 107(1)(c)  of\nthe Act and rejected the review petition under s. 117(1)  of\nthe  Act.   The\t appellant  filed  a  suit  challenging\t the\nvalidity of the order of the officer.\nHELD : (i) The order of the officer rejecting the objections\nfiled  by  the\tappellant and enhancing\t the  value  of\t the\nholdings was without jurisdiction.\nBy a later Notification, if it was intended to 'replace\t the\ncommittee  by  one or other of the three  persons  mentioned\ntherein,  it  would be beyond the powers of  the  Government\nconferred under the provisions of s. 386(1) (b)\t  of\t the\nAct.   The effect of this clause is that all the powers\t and\nduties\tof the Commissioners conferred and imposed  on\tthem\nunder  the  various sections of the Act whether\t acting\t in.\ncommittees or individually would be exercised by such person\nor  persons  as the State Government may  direct.   So,\t the\ncommittee under s. 117 could have been constituted with\t one\nor  more  of the three persons nominated by  the  Government\nunder s. 386(1) (b) of the Act, and two tax-payers nominated\nby them and a Deputy Magistrate nominated by the Government.\nTo say that when once the Commissioners vacated their office\non  supersession it was impossible for them to\tnominate  or\nelect  two  other  taxpayers to\t the  committee\t within\t the\nmeaning\t of s. 117(1) would render inoperative all  sections\nwhereunder  powers  were  conferred  or\t duties\t imposed  on\nCommissioners,\tand would make s. 117(1) unworkable  leading\nof  the\t anomaly  that\tthe same  officer  who\trevised\t the\nassessment would sit in judgment over it. [471 0; 472 A-D]\n(ii) Under s. 107(1) (c) of the Act, the burden is upon\t the\nCommissioners,\tbefore\tthey could amend the  valuation\t and\nassessment  already  made, to establish\t that  the  previous\nassessment  was\t incorrectly  made  by\treason,\t of   fraud,\nmisrepresentation or mistake. [472 G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 812 of<br \/>\n1963.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">467<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated<br \/>\nSeptember  21,\t1959  of  the Patna  High  Court  in  Appeal<br \/>\nfrom.Appellate Decree No. 1766 of 1954.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ramanugrah and Mohan Behari Lal, for the appellant.<br \/>\nS. P. Varma, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nSubba\tRao.   J. This appeal by special  leave\t raises\t the<br \/>\nquestion of the true construction of sub-s. (1) of s. 117 of<br \/>\nthe  Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (B. &amp; 0. Act 7  of<br \/>\n1922), hereinafter called the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shrimati Shyam Kishori Devi, the appellant, is the owner  of<br \/>\npremises known as &#8220;Krishna Bhawan&#8221; situate on Fraser Road in<br \/>\nthe Town of Patna.  Originally it bore holding No. 239,\t but<br \/>\nafter the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1952, was  passed<br \/>\nit  was given holding No. 264 in Circle No. 6 of  the  Patna<br \/>\nMunicipal  Corporation.\t  On  August  4,  1944,\t the   Patna<br \/>\nMunicipality was superseded by the Government initially\t for<br \/>\na  period  of three years but the said period  was  extended<br \/>\nfrom time to time till the Patna Municipal Corporation\tAct,<br \/>\n1952,  came into force.\t On March 29, 1946,  the  Government<br \/>\nissued a Notification directing that S. N. Sarkar, Assistant<br \/>\nSpecial\t Officer of the Patna City Municipality, shall\talso<br \/>\nexercise  and perform the powers and duties which  might  be<br \/>\nexercised  and performed by the Commissioners under s.\t107,<br \/>\namong other sections, of the Act.  On November 21, 1949, the<br \/>\nGovernment  of Bihar issued another  Notification  directing<br \/>\nthat  each  of the three officers  mentioned  therein  shall<br \/>\nexercise  and  perform the powers and duties  conferred\t and<br \/>\nimposed on a Committee constituted under s. 117 of the\tAct.<br \/>\nOne of the said officers was the said S. N. Sarkar, who\t was<br \/>\nalso  appointed under the earlier Notification\tdated  March<br \/>\n29,  1946, to perform the duties and exercise the powers  of<br \/>\nthe Commissioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>During the periodical revisional assessment of the year 1950<br \/>\nin  regard to the said premises, the valuation\tthereof\t was<br \/>\nfixed  at Rs. 1,800\/- and its quarterly municipal  taxes  at<br \/>\nRs.  146-4-0;  but as some additions were made to  the\tsaid<br \/>\npremises,  on  May  10,\t 1951, the  valuation  of  the\tsaid<br \/>\npremise$  was  raised  to  Rs.\t2,400\/.\t and  its  quarterly<br \/>\nmunicipal  taxes were fixed at Rs. 195\/-.  On  November\t 17,<br \/>\n1951,  S.  N. Sarkar, the Assistant Special Officer  of\t the<br \/>\nMunicipality,  issued a notice to the owner of the  premises<br \/>\ninforming  her\tthat  the assessment  of  her  premises\t was<br \/>\nproposed  to  be filed as follows : House-tax  Rs.  262-8-0,<br \/>\nLatrine-tax  Rs. 210\/- and water-tax Rs. 210\/-\tper  quarter<br \/>\nunder  s.  107\tof  the Act.   On  December  20,  1952,\t the<br \/>\nappellant filed a petition against the proposed\t enhancement<br \/>\nof taxes before the said Assistant Special<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">468<\/span><br \/>\nOfficer,  but  he rejected the\tpetition.   Thereafter,\t the<br \/>\nassessment  list was amended on January 10, 1952,  enhancing<br \/>\nthe valuation of the holding in question to Rs. 8,400\/-\t and<br \/>\nthe quarterly municipal taxes to Rs. 682-8-0.  Aggrieved  by<br \/>\nthe  said  order, the appellant filed Title Suit No.  60  of<br \/>\n1952  in  the  Court of the Third Munsif,  at  Patna  for  a<br \/>\ndeclaration  that  the\talteration  made  by  the  Assistant<br \/>\nSpecial\t Officer  in  the assessment list  was\tinvalid\t and<br \/>\nwithout\t jurisdiction  and  that the  Municipality  was\t not<br \/>\nentitled to realise the enhanced assessment.  She also asked<br \/>\nfor a permanent injunction restraining the Municipality from<br \/>\nrealising the said enhanced tax from her.  To that suit\t the<br \/>\nPatna  Municipality  was  made the, 1st\t defendant  and\t the<br \/>\nAdministrator  of  Patna, the 2nd  defendant.\tThe  learned<br \/>\nMunsif\theld that the order passed by the Assistant  Special<br \/>\nOfficer\t was  valid and dismissed the suit with\t costs.\t  On<br \/>\nappeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Patna, held that\t the<br \/>\nAssistant  Special  Officer had no jurisdiction\t to  proceed<br \/>\nunder  s.  107(c)  of  the  Act,  as  there  was  no  fraud,<br \/>\nmisrepresentation or mistake when the periodical  assessment<br \/>\nwas  made  and\ton that ground, he allowed  the\t appeal\t and<br \/>\ndecreed\t the suit.  Thereupon, the respondents\tpreferred  a<br \/>\nsecond appeal to the High Court of Patna.  A Division  Bench<br \/>\nof  that  Court\t held that after  the  supersession  of\t the<br \/>\nMunicipality no committee could be constituted under s.\t 117<br \/>\nof the Act and that, therefore, the Special Officer, in\t the<br \/>\nabsence\t of  any  specific machinery to deal  with  such  an<br \/>\napplication,  had  perfect jurisdiction to lay out  his\t own<br \/>\nmachinery  to dispose of the same.  After holding  that\t the<br \/>\nAssistant Special Officer had jurisdiction to dispose of the<br \/>\napplication for review, the High Court held that it had\t not<br \/>\nbeen  established by the assessee that there was no  mistake<br \/>\nin  the earlier assessment.  In the result, the\t appeal\t was<br \/>\nallowed, the judgment and decree of the learned\t Subordinate<br \/>\nJudge  were  set  aside and those of the  trial\t Court\twere<br \/>\nrestored.  The assessee has prefer-red the present appeal by<br \/>\nspecial\t leave against the judgment and decree of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.  Ramanugrah, learned counsel for the  appellant,  argued<br \/>\nthat the High Court on a wrong construction of the  relevant<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tthe Act held that s. 117(i) of the  Act\t had<br \/>\nbecome unworkable and that no committee thereunder could  be<br \/>\nconstituted after the supersession of the Municipality.\t  He<br \/>\nfurther contended that the High Court had thrown the  burden<br \/>\nof  proof wrongly on the appellant but it should  have\theld<br \/>\nthat it was for the Municipality to establish that there was<br \/>\na   mistake,  fraud  or\t misrepresentation  in\tmaking\t the<br \/>\nperiodical  revisional assessment and that, as there was  no<br \/>\nmaterial  placed  by the Municipality before the  Court,  it<br \/>\nshould have held that the condition precedent for  reopening<br \/>\nthe earlier assessment had not been fulfilled.<br \/>\nMr.  S.\t P. Varma, learned counsel for the  respondents,  in<br \/>\naddition  to  the contentions accepted by  the\tHigh  Court,<br \/>\nsought to take<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">469<\/span><br \/>\na preliminary objection that the suit was not  maintainable.<br \/>\nAs this question was not raised in any of the Courts  below,<br \/>\nwe did. not permit him to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  first  contention turns upon the  construction  of\t the<br \/>\nrelevant-.  provisions\tof  the Act  and  the  Notifications<br \/>\nissued by the Government thereunder.  It will be  convenient<br \/>\nat  the\t outset\t to gather the relevant\t provisions  at\t one<br \/>\nplace.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section\t 386.  (1) When an order of  supersession  has\tbeen<br \/>\npassed\tunder  the  last preceding  section,  the  following<br \/>\nconsequences, shall ensue :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   all the Commissioners shall, as from the<br \/>\n\t      date  of the. order, vacate their\t offices  as<br \/>\n\t      such Commissioners;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   all\t the  powers and duties\t which\tmay,<br \/>\n\t      under   the  pro-visions\tof  this   Act,\t  be<br \/>\n\t      exercised\t  and  &#8216;  performed  by\t  the\tCom-<br \/>\n\t      missioners, whether at a meeting or otherwise,<br \/>\n\t      shall,  during the period of supersession,  be<br \/>\n\t      exercised\t and  performed by  such  person  or<br \/>\n\t      persons as the State Government may direct;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t      The  relevant part of the\t Notification  dated<br \/>\n\t      March 29, 1946. reads<br \/>\n\t      in exercise of the powers conferred by  clause\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (b)  of sub-section (1) of section 386 of\t the<br \/>\n\t      said Act, the Governor of Bihar is pleased  to<br \/>\n\t      direct  that  Babu  S.  N.  Sarkar,  Assistant<br \/>\n\t      Special,\t  Officer   of\t the   Patna\tCity<br \/>\n\t      Municipality, shall also exercise and  perform<br \/>\n\t      the  powers and duties which may be  exercised<br \/>\n\t      and  performed by the Commissioners under\t the<br \/>\n\t      provisions  of  sections 102, 105,  107,\t111,<br \/>\n\t      116,   122,  124,\t 125,\t126&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..\t The<br \/>\n\t      relevant\t part  of  the\tNotification   dated<br \/>\n\t      November 21, 1949, reads<br \/>\n\t      Governor\tof Bihar is pleased to\tdirect\tthat<br \/>\n\t      each of the.,<br \/>\n\t      following officers shall exercise and  perform<br \/>\n\t      all  the\tpowers.and  duties,  conferred\t and<br \/>\n\t\t\t    imposed   on  a  Committee\tconstitute<br \/>\nd   under<br \/>\n\t      sections\t117 and 118 of the said Act for\t the<br \/>\n\t      purpose\t of    hearing\t  and\t determining<br \/>\n\t      applications for review relating to assessment<br \/>\n\t      presented by the tax-payers of the Patna\tCity<br \/>\n\t      Municipality, namely :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      1.  Mr. Bhubneshwar Pd., Special Officer,\t I\/C<br \/>\n\t      Patna<br \/>\n\t      City Municipalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      2.    Mr.\t S.  N.\t Sarkar,  Assistant  Special<br \/>\n\t      Officer, I\/C of the Patna City Municipality.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      3.    Mr.\t Parmeshwar  Dayal,  Retired  Deputy<br \/>\n\t      Magistrate&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      470<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Section\t 116.  (1)  Any\t person\t who  is  dissatisfied\twith<br \/>\nthe,  .amount  assessed upon him or with  the  valuation  or<br \/>\nassessment  of&#8217; any holding, or who disputes his  occupation<br \/>\nof any holding or his liability to be assessed; may apply to<br \/>\nthe  Commissioners  to review the amount  of  assessment  or<br \/>\nvaluation, or to exempt him from the assessment or tax.<br \/>\nSection 117. (1) Every application presented under the\tlast<br \/>\npreceding    section\trelating    to\t  assessment\tmade<br \/>\nunder&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; section 107&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; shall be heard and<br \/>\ndetermined  by a Committee consisting of  two  Commissioners<br \/>\nand two tax-payers of the municipality, nominated or elected<br \/>\nin  the prescribed manner by the Commissioners at a  meeting<br \/>\nand  one servant of the Government not below the rank  of  a<br \/>\nDeputy\tMagistrate nominated by the District  Magistrate  in<br \/>\nthis  behalf,  provided that no\t Commissioner  or  tax-payer<br \/>\nshall  be  a  member  of the  Committee\t appointed  to\thear<br \/>\napplications from the ward for which he was elected and that<br \/>\nthree members shall form the quorum.\n<\/p>\n<p>The effect of the relevant provisions in the context of\t the<br \/>\nfacts  of  the\tcase may be stated thus\t :  Where  an  order<br \/>\nsuperseding   a\t  municipality\thas  been  passed   by\t the<br \/>\nGovernment, all the Commissioners of the Municipality  shall<br \/>\nvacate their offices and their powers and duties, whether at<br \/>\na meeting or otherwise, shall be exercised and performed  by<br \/>\nsuch  person or persons as the State Government may  direct.<br \/>\nThe  State Government accordingly issued  two  Notifications<br \/>\nwhereunder  S. N. Sarkar, Assistant Special Officer  of\t the<br \/>\nPatna  City  Municipality,  was appointed  to  exercise\t and<br \/>\nperform\t the  powers  and duties under s. 107  of  the\tAct,<br \/>\namong .,others, and each one of the three persons  mentioned<br \/>\nin the Notification dated November 21, 1949, to exercise the<br \/>\npowers and .perform the functions of the Committee under  s.<br \/>\n117  of the Act.  Pursuant to the said Notifications, S.  N.<br \/>\nSarkar,\t functioning  in  the place  of\t the  Commissioner,%<br \/>\nenhanced  the valuation of the holding of the appellant\t and<br \/>\nthe  assessment\t thereof under s. 107(c) ,of the  Act,\tand<br \/>\nrejected the review petition under s. 117(1) of the Act.<br \/>\nThe  question is whether he could have validly done so.\t  It<br \/>\nis  not disputed that S. N. Sarkar had jurisdiction to\ttake<br \/>\naction ,under s. 107(c) of the Act, but what is contended is<br \/>\nthat  he  had  no -jurisdiction to dispose  of\tthe  review<br \/>\npetition under s. 117(1) of the Act.  If the Committee under<br \/>\ns.  117 of the Act could have been validly constituted\teven<br \/>\nafter the supersession of the Municipality, ,-S.  N.  Sarkar<br \/>\nwould not have jurisdiction to hear the review petition, for<br \/>\nunder  that section it was the function of the Committee  to<br \/>\ndo  so.\t  Mr.  Varma  contends\tthat  after  the  order\t  of<br \/>\nsupersession passed by the Government, all the Commissioners<br \/>\nvacated their ,offices and thereafter it was impossible\t for<br \/>\nthe Commissioners to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">471<\/span><br \/>\nfunction as members of the Committee or to nominate or elect<br \/>\ntwo other tax-payers to that Committee within the meaning of<br \/>\ns.  117(1)  of the Act and that, therefore,  the  Government<br \/>\nvalidly appointed the Assistant Special Officer to  exercise<br \/>\nthe powers and perform the functions of the Committee  under<br \/>\nthe said section.  If this construction be accepted all\t the<br \/>\nsections  whereunder  certain  powers  were  conferred\t and<br \/>\ncertain duties were imposed on the Commissioners would cease<br \/>\nto  be operative after the order of&#8217; supersession.  Only  to<br \/>\navoid  this contingency s. 386(1)(b) of the Act\t in  express<br \/>\nterms  says that all the powers and duties which  may  under<br \/>\nthe provisions of the Act be exercised and performed by\t the<br \/>\nCommissioners,\twhether at a meeting or otherwise, shall  be<br \/>\nexercised  and\tperformed by such person or persons  as\t the<br \/>\nState.\tGovernment may direct.\tThe effect of that clause is<br \/>\nthat  all  the\tpowers\tand  duties  of\t the   Commissioners<br \/>\nconferred and imposed on them under the various sections  of<br \/>\nthe  Act,  whether  to act in a body  or  in  committees  or<br \/>\nindividually,  would be exercised by such person or  persons<br \/>\nas the State Government might direct thereunder.  If that be<br \/>\nthe  interpretation  of\t s. 386(1), the\t person\t or  persons<br \/>\nappointed by the State Government thereunder would take\t the<br \/>\nplace  of the Commissioners in the various sections  of\t the<br \/>\nAct.  So too, in section 117(1) of the Act, which would\t ran<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Every  application presented under  the\tlast<br \/>\n\t      preceding section relating to assessment\tmade<br \/>\n\t      under&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.  s.  117 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.  shall  be<br \/>\n\t      heard and determined by a Committee consisting<br \/>\n\t      of  the  person or persons  appointed  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      Government   and\t two   tax-payers   of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Municipality  nominated by the said person  or<br \/>\n\t      persons and one servant of the Government\t not<br \/>\n\t      below   the  rank\t of  a\t Deputy\t  Magistrate<br \/>\n\t      nominated\t by the District Magistrate in\tthis<br \/>\n\t      behalf,  provided\t that no person\t or  persons<br \/>\n\t      nominated\t or tax-payer shall be a  member  of<br \/>\n\t      the  Committee appointed to hear\tapplications<br \/>\n\t      from  the\t ward for which he was\telected\t and<br \/>\n\t      that three members shall form the quorum.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>If that be the effect of s. 386 on s. 117,the\tCommittee<br \/>\nunder  s. 117 could have been constituted with one or  more<br \/>\nof the three,  persons nominated by the Government under  s.<br \/>\n386(1)(b)  of the, Act and two tax-payers nominated by\tthem<br \/>\nand  a Deputy Magistrate nominated by the Government.\tThis<br \/>\nconstruction  will  give full effect to s. 117 of  the\tAct,<br \/>\nwhereas\t the construction suggested by the  learned  counsel<br \/>\nfor  the  respondents and accepted by the High\tCourt  would<br \/>\nmake it unworkable.  It is a well-known rule of construction<br \/>\nthat  a court must construe a section, unless it  is  impos-<br \/>\nsible  to do so, to make it workable rather than to make  it<br \/>\nunworkable.   In the words of Lord Bramwell, the words of  a<br \/>\nstatute\t never\tshould\tin interpretation  be  added  to  or<br \/>\nsubstracted from, without almost a necessity.<br \/>\nM 10 Sup.Cl\/66-17<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">472<\/span><br \/>\nBy the Notification issued by the Government on November  21<br \/>\n1949, if it was intended to replace the Committee by one  or<br \/>\nother  ,of the three persons mentioned therein, it would  be<br \/>\nbeyond\tits,  powers conferred under the  provisions  of  s.<br \/>\n386(1)(b) of the Act. Under the said clause, the powers\t and<br \/>\nduties\twhich  may  under  the\tprovisions  of\tthe  Act  be<br \/>\nexercised  and\tperformed  by  the  Commissioners  could  be<br \/>\nexercised  and\tperformed by such person or persons  as\t the<br \/>\nState  Government may direct.  But it does not\tempower\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  to\treplace persons or  authorities\t other\tthan<br \/>\nCommissioners  by  persons nominated by it.   But  the\tsaid<br \/>\nNotification may be reasonably confined to the scope of\t the<br \/>\nauthority  of the Government.  If so confined,\tit  replaced<br \/>\nonly  the  two\tCommissioners  by  the\tperson\tor   persons<br \/>\nmentioned therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents,  if<br \/>\naccepted,  would lead to an anomaly.  &#8216;Section 117(1)  would<br \/>\nbecome\tunworkable  and\t the same officer  who\trevised\t the<br \/>\nassessment would :sit in judgment over it.<br \/>\nFor the foregoing reasons we hold that the order made by  S.<br \/>\nN.  Sarkar rejecting the objections filed by  the  appellant<br \/>\nand  enhancing\tthe  valuation of the suit  holding  to\t Rs.<br \/>\n8,400\/- and fixing the quarterly municipal taxes at Rs. 882-<br \/>\n8-0 was without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>There  are  also  merits in the\t second\t contention  of\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t  counsel   for\t the  appellant.    The\t  periodical<br \/>\nrevisional  assessment of the premises was made in the\tyear<br \/>\n1950 after making the necessary enquiry.  It was altered  on<br \/>\nJanuary\t 10,  1951, under s. 107(1)(d) ,of the\tAct  on\t the<br \/>\nground that the value had increased by additions made by the<br \/>\nowner  to  the premises.  The impugned revaluation of  the<br \/>\nbuilding and th assessment were made in the year 1952 ,under<br \/>\ns. 107(1)(c) of the Act, which reads<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;The Commissioner may from time to time  alter<br \/>\n\t      or  amend\t the assessment list in any  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      following ways :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (c)   by\t enhancing  the\t valuation  of,\t  or<br \/>\n\t      assessment  on,  any holding  which  has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      incorrectly  valued or assessed by  reason  of<br \/>\n\t      fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Under this section, the burden is certainly upon the Commis-<br \/>\nsioners\t before\t they  could amend  the\t valuation  and\t the<br \/>\nassessment  already  made  to establish\t that  the  previous<br \/>\nassessment  was\t in-correctly  made  by\t reason\t of   fraud,<br \/>\nmisrepresentation or mistake.  The High Court said that\t not<br \/>\na word had been said in the evidence adduced by the  parties<br \/>\nthat  the  rental taken into consideration  by\tthe  Special<br \/>\nOfficer while making the re-assessment in 1952 did not exist<br \/>\nat  the time of the periodical revisional assessment.\tThis<br \/>\nobservation  was made on the assumption that the burden\t was<br \/>\nupon  the  assessee.   Indeed, when the\t appellant  filed  a<br \/>\npetition in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    473<\/span><br \/>\nthe  suit under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure\t for<br \/>\nthe   discovery\t of  the  relevant  records  of\t the   three<br \/>\nassessments  and  though the learned Munsif  made  an  order<br \/>\ndirecting  the Municipality to do so, it failed\t to  produce<br \/>\nthem.\t In  the  circumstances\t we  must  hold\t  that\t the<br \/>\nMunicipality  had not established the precondition  for\t the<br \/>\nre-assessment,\t namely,   that\t the   original\t  periodical<br \/>\nrevisional    assessment    was\t   vitiated    by     fraud,<br \/>\nmisrepresentation or mistake.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result, the appeal is allowed, the decree of the High<br \/>\n,Court\tis  set\t aside and the suit is\tdecreed\t with  costs<br \/>\nthroughout.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">474<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1678, 1966 SCR (3) 466 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: SMT. SHYAM KISHORI DEVI Vs. RESPONDENT: PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/02\/1966 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. [&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-70083","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>Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966 - 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\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-05T04:01:25+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-05T04:01:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2759,\"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\\\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966\",\"name\":\"Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-05T04:01:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966 - 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\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-05T04:01:25+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966","datePublished":"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-05T04:01:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966"},"wordCount":2759,"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\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966","name":"Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-05T04:01:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shyam-kishori-devi-vs-patna-municipal-corporation-anr-on-4-february-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr on 4 February, 1966"}]},{"@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\/70083","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=70083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}