{"id":81138,"date":"1995-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995"},"modified":"2017-08-19T21:49:15","modified_gmt":"2017-08-19T16:19:15","slug":"kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995","title":{"rendered":"Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, … on 20 April, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, … on 20 April, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 2078, \t\t 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 394<\/div>\n
Author: P Sawant<\/div>\n
Bench: Sawant, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKANWAR LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nIIND ADDITIONAL DISTT. JUDGE, NAINITAL & ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/04\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR 2078\t\t  1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 394\n JT 1995 (4)\t42\t  1995 SCALE  (2)858\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
SAWANT, J.:\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.   These four appeals arc directed against a\t      common
\njudgment dated 19th October,  1987  delivered  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  in  four writ petitions filed before it by  the\tfour
\nappellants.  Since the questions of
\n46<\/span>
\nlaw  which  arise in these appeals arc common, it  would  be
\nsufficient to refer to the 808\tfacts in one of the  appeals
\nviz  civil  appeal arising out of S.L.P. No.  3204  of\t1988
\nsince the High Court has taken the facts from it.\n<\/p>\n
3.   In 1920s, Government of India being anxious to  develop
\nthe undeveloped, lands throughout the country including that
\nin   the  district  of\tNainital  offered  to  extend\tmany
\nconcessions  to those who agreed to develop the )and.\tLala
\nKhushi\tRam Dusaj, predecessor of the appellant was  one  of
\nthe  persons  who accepted the offer and agreed\t to  develop
\nland  in  District Nainital.  Government  of  India  granted
\nlease  of  4805\t acres\tof  land  to  Lala  Khushi  Ram\t for
\ndevelopment  under  the Crown Grants Act [later\t renamed  as
\nGovernment  Grants  Act, 1895 – hereinafter referred  to  as
\n“the Grants Act”] by a registered lease deed dated 25.8.1920
\nwhich  was executed by the Secretary of State for  India  in
\nCouncil\t for a period extending upto 31st March, 2013.\t One
\nof  the\t conditions  of the said lease\twith  which  we\t arc
\nconcerned here, was that the leased land would not be  taken
\naway  except as specified by the clauses of the\t lease\tdeed
\nand  that too for the purpose of land reforms.\tIn case\t the
\nland was taken away, compensation was payable to the  lessee
\nin  accordance with the provisions of the  Land\t Acquisition
\nAct,  1894.  Section 3 of the Grants Act provided  that\t all
\nprovisions,   restrictions,   conditions   and\t limitations
\ncontained  in any such grant or transfer shall be valid\t and
\ntake effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, stat-
\nute  or\t enactment  of\tthe  legislature  to  the   contrary
\nnotwithstanding.   After  taking possession  of\t the  leased
\nland,  the lessee Lala Khush; Ram is alleged to\t have  spent
\nmoneys to clear the jungle and level the uneven terrain\t and
\ndevelop the land for agriculture.\n<\/p>\n
4.   In\t the  year  1959,  the State  of  U.P.\tpassed\tU.P.
\nGovernment    Estates\tThekedari   Abolition\tAct,\t1958
\n[hereinafter referred to as the “Principal Act”] and  issued
\nnotifications under the said Act for taking over the  leased
\nlands granted under the Grants Act and issued  notifications
\nvesting all such lands in the State.  In 1960, the State  of
\nU.P. amended the Grants Act.  While retaining the provisions
\nof  Section 3 of the said Act the Amendment added a  proviso
\nto  the said section which stated that nothing in  the\tsaid
\nsection shall prevent, or be deemed ever to have  prevented,
\nthe  effect of any enactment relating to the acquisition  of
\nproperty,  land\t reforms  or the imposition  of\t ceiling  on
\nagricultural land.\n<\/p>\n
5.   By its decision dated 25th October, 1967\t  the\tHigh
\nCourt declared the provisions of the Principal Act as  ultra
\nvires the Constitution and quashed the notifications  issued
\nunder  the said Act, taking over the lands leased under\t the
\nGrants\tAct.   In 1970, the State of U.P. passed  the  Uttar
\nPradesh Government Estates Thekedari Abolition [Re-enactment
\nand  Validation] Act, 1970 [for short the  Validation  Act’]
\nwith the result that the Principal Act and the notifications
\nwhich  had been issued thereunder were revived by  adding  a
\ndeeming clause.\t Under the amended Principal Act, the  State
\nissued\tnotifications  on 16th October,\t 1970  applying\t the
\nprovisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land  Reforms
\nAct,  1950  [for  short the Z.A. Act]  to  the\tvillages  in
\nquestion.   In\tthe  year 1973, the  appellant\twho  is\t the
\nsuccessor of Lala Khushi Ram, the original lessee,  received
\nnotices\t under the amended Principal Act and  also  received
\ncopies of com-\n<\/p>\n
47<\/span><\/p>\n
sensation roll showing the compensation at less than  Rs.3\/-
\nper  acre.   The appellant, therefore, filed  his  objection
\nbefore\tthe  Collector\twho  referred  the  matter  to\t the
\nrespondent   No.1-Additional   District\t Judge.\t   On\t17th
\nDecember,   1977,  respondent  No.1  partly   accepted\t the
\nreference.   The appellant, therefore, moved the High  Court
\nby  a writ petition.  On 19th October, 1987 the\t High  Court
\ndismissed  all the writ petitions before it by the  impugned
\ncommon judgment.  Hence the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  first contention raised in these appeals  is\tthat
\nthe  State  cannot  amend the Grants Act, which\t is  a\tpre-
\nconstitutional\tcentral statute by its own enactment,  viz.,
\nthe Principal Act so as to annul the provisions of Section 3
\nof  the Central Act.  The answer to this contention lies  in
\nthe  provisions\t of Article 372 of  the\t Constitution.\t The
\nrelevant provisions of Article 372 arc as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “372.   Continuance in force of existing\tlaws
\n\t      and  their adaptation-(1) Notwithstanding\t the
\n\t      repeal by this Constitution of the  enactments
\n\t      referred to in Article 395 but subject to\t the
\n\t      other provisions of this Constitution, all the
\n\t      laws  in\tforce  in  the\tterritory  of  India
\n\t      immediately  before the commencement  of\tthis
\n\t      Constitution  shall continue in force  therein
\n\t      until altered or repealed or amended by a com-
\n\t      petent  Legislature  or  other  competent\t au-
\n\t      thority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   For\t the purpose of bringing the  provi-
\n\t      sions of any law in force in the territory  of
\n\t      India into accord with the provisions of\tthis
\n\t      Constitution, the President may by order\tmake
\n\t      such  adaptations\t and modifications  of\tsuch
\n\t      law,  whether by way of repeal  or  amendment,
\n\t      ‘as may be necessary or expedient, and provide
\n\t      that  the law shall, as from such date as\t may
\n\t      be specified in the order, have effect subject
\n\t      to the adaptations and modifications so  made,
\n\t      and any such adaptation or modification  shall
\n\t      not be questioned in any court of law.
\n\t      (3)   Nothing in clause (2) shall be deemed-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   to\tempower\t the President to  make\t any
\n\t      adaptation  or modification of any  law  after
\n\t      the   expiration\tof  three  years  from\t the
\n\t      commencement of this Constitution; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   to prevent any competent Legislature  or
\n\t      other  competent authority from  repealing  or
\n\t      amending\tany law adapted or modified  by\t the
\n\t\t\t    president under the said clause.
\n\t      Explanation 1.- The expression “law in  force”
\n\t      in this article shall include a law passed  or
\n\t      made  by\ta  Legislature\tor  other  competent
\n\t      authority in the territory of India before the
\n\t      commencement  of\tthis  Constitution  and\t not
\n\t      previously  repealed, notwithstanding that  it
\n\t      or  parts of it may not be then  in  operation
\n\t      either at all or in particular areas.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Entry  18  of  List  II\t of  the  Seventh  Schedule  of\t the
\nConstitution reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” 18.  Land, that is to say, rights in or over
\n\t      land,  land tenures including the relation  of
\n\t      landlord\tand  tenant, and the  collection  of
\n\t      rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural
\n\t      land; land improvement and agricultural loans;
\n\t      colonization.” .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   Article  246 [3] read with Entry 18 of List II  of\t the
\nSeventh\t Schedule  gives power to the State  Legislature  to
\nmake law with regard to rights in or over land, land tenures
\nincluding  the\trelation  of landlord  and  tenant  and\t the
\ncollection of rents, transfer and alienation of agricultural
\nland; land improvement and agricultural loans; colo-\n<\/p>\n
48<\/span><\/p>\n
nization.   Admittedly,\t the lands in  question\t were  under
\npersonal  cultivation of the appellant and, therefore,\tthey
\nare  agricultural  lands.  Hence the State  legislature\t was
\ncompetent  to  enact the Principal Act\twhich  concerns\t the
\nrights\tin  or\tover the land etc. which  are  all  subjects
\ncovered\t by Entry 18 of List II.  In view of the  provisions
\nboth  of  clauses  [1] and [3] (b) of  Article\t372  of\t the
\nConstitution,  therefore,  the State Legislature  being\t the
\ncompetent  legislature\tto enact such law  could  repeal  or
\namend  the  Grants Act or any of  its  provisions  including
\nSection\t 3  thereof  This would be true also  of  the  State
\namendment  of the Grants Act by the Government Grants  [U.P.
\nAmendment]  Act, 1960.\tHence the contention that the  State
\nLegislature  could not amend the provisions of Section 3  of
\nthe Grants Act has to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  next\tcontention of the appellant is that  in\t the
\nabsence\t of  a fresh notification issued under\tthe  amended
\nPrincipal Act, the leasehold rights of the appellant  cannot
\nbe deemed to have been terminated, so as to enable the State
\nto resume the lands.\n<\/p>\n
9.   As the facts in the present case reveal, the  Principal
\nAct was extended to the district of Nainital by notification
\ndated\t17th   June,  1965  w.e.f  26th\t June,\t 1965.\t  By
\nnotification  dated 30th June, 1966, issued under Section  3
\nof that Act, the lease of the appellant was determined.\t The
\nHigh  Court declared as unconstitutional the  provisions  of
\nthat Act and hence the Act was amended and re-enacted  w.e.f
\n20th  June,  1964  by  U.P.  Government\t Estates   Thekedari
\nAbolition [Re-enactment and Validation] Act, 1970.   Section
\n6 of the Validation Act validated anything done of purported
\nto have been done and any action taken or purported to\thave
\nbeen taken under the provisions of the Principal Act,  viz.,
\nU.P.  Government  Estates  Thekedari  Abolition\t Act.\tThat
\nSection reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “6.  Notwithstanding any judgment,  decree  or
\n\t      order   of  any  court  or  Tribunal  to\t the
\n\t      contrary, anything done or purporting to\thave
\n\t      been  done and any action taken or  purporting
\n\t      to have been taken under any provision of\t the
\n\t      principal Act before the commencement of\tthis
\n\t      Act including, in particular, any notification
\n\t      under   subsection  (3)  of  section  1,\t any
\n\t      determination of lease under section 3, or the
\n\t      recovery\tof  any rents or  other\t dues  under
\n\t      section 4 or the taking over of possession  or
\n\t      charge of land or of books, accounts or  other
\n\t      documents\t under section 6 of that Act,  shall
\n\t      be  deemed to be, and always to have  been  as
\n\t      valid as if the provisions of this Act were in
\n\t      force at all material times.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.In  view  of the said express validating  provision,\t the
\nnotifications  which were issued under the Principal Act  in
\nterms  revived\twith the revival of the\t Principal  Act\t and
\nhence  the  action taken under the said\t notifications\talso
\nstood  validated.   It\twas not\t necessary  to\treissue\t the
\nnotifications after the enactment of the Validation Act.  To
\nargue to the contrary would render the provisions of Section
\n6 of the Validation Act otiose.\n<\/p>\n
11.It  is for this reason that we are unable  to  understand
\nthe  reliance  placed  on behalf of  the  appellant  on\t the
\ndecision of this Court in Mahendra Lal Jaini v. 7he State of
\nUttar  Pradesh\tand Others [(1963] Supp.  1 SCR\t 9121.\t The
\nquestion  considered in that case was whether an  Act  which
\nwas  invalid  being  ultra  vires  the\tprovisions  of\t the
\nConstitution would stand re-\n<\/p>\n
49<\/span><\/p>\n
vived  automatically on amendment of the relevant  provision
\nof  the Constitution.  It was held that such a\trevival\t was
\nnot  automatic and that the Act had to be  re-enacted  after
\nthe  constitutional  provision which it\t had  infringed\t was
\namended.  The ratio of that decision is, therefore, not\t ap-
\nplicable  to the facts of the present case.   The  Principal
\nAct has been re-enacted by amending the relevant  provisions
\nto  bring  them\t in conformity with the\t provisions  of\t the
\nConstitution  and  by  the provisions of Section  6  of\t the
\nValidation  Act,  as pointed out above, all  acts  done\t and
\npurported  to  have been done under the principal  Act\thave
\nbeen expressly validated.\n<\/p>\n
12.  The  next\tcontention was that the\t Validation  Act  is
\nviolative  of the second proviso to Article 31A [1]  of\t the
\nConstitution.  Under the lease granted under the Grants Act,
\nthe  rights  of\t the  lessee  were  heritable  as  well\t  as
\ntransferable.  As a result of the determination of the lease
\nby  the Thekedari Abolition Act, the right which  have\tbeen
\nconferred  on the lessee are only heritable.  They  are\t not
\ntransfer able by virtue of the provisions of the U.P Tenancy
\nAct,   1939.   Hence,  the  lessee  is\tentitled   to\tfull
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The  relevant  provisions of Article  31A\t[1]  of\t the
\nConstitution read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “31A.   Saving  of  laws\tproviding  for\t ac-
\n\t      quisition\t of  estates,  etc.-  (1)   Notwith-
\n\t      standing anything contained in Article 13,  no
\n\t      law providing for –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   the\t acquisition  by the  State  of\t any
\n\t      estate  or  of any rights therein or  the\t ex-
\n\t      tinguishment  or\tmodification  of  any\tsuch
\n\t      rights, or
\n\t      x\t       x\tx\t x
\n\t      shall be deemed to be void on the ground\tthat
\n\t      it  is  inconsistent with, or  take-  away  or
\n\t      abridges\tany  of\t the  rights  conferred\t  by
\n\t      Article 14 or Article 19:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided that where such law is a law made  by
\n\t      the Legislature of a State, the provisions  of
\n\t      this  Article shall not apply  thereto  unless
\n\t      such   law,  having  been\t reserved  for\t the
\n\t      consideration  of the President, has  received
\n\t      his assent:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided further that where any law makes\t any
\n\t      provision for the acquisition by the State  of
\n\t      any  estate  and\twhere  any  land   comprised
\n\t      therein is held by a person under his personal
\n\t      cultivation,  it shall not be lawful  for\t the
\n\t      State  to acquire any portion of such land  as
\n\t      is within the ceiling limit applicable to\t him
\n\t      under  any law for the time being in force  or
\n\t      any building or structure standing thereon  or
\n\t      appurtenant  thereto, unless the law  relating
\n\t      to  the acquisition of such land, building  or
\n\t      structure,   provides  for  payment  of\tcom-
\n\t      pensation\t at a rate which shall not  be\tless
\n\t      than the market value thereof”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.What\t  is  prohibited  by  the  aforesaid  provision\t  is
\nacquisition  by the State of any portion of the\t land  under
\npersonal  cultivation  which portion is within\tthe  ceiling
\nlimit, without payment of its market value as  compensation.
\nBy  virtue  of\tthe  Principal\tAct,  as  amended,  what  is
\nconferred  permanently\ton the erstwhile lessees  under\t the
\nGrants Act is the hereditary tenancy.  The Principal Act  as
\namended,  by itself does not restrict the right of  the\t he-
\nreditary  tenant to transfer the land.\tThe  restriction  on
\nthe  transfer by a hereditary tenant has been placed by\t the
\nU.P.  Tenancy Act, 1939.  It is, therefore, not\t correct  to
\nsay  that it is the Principal Act as amended,  which  places
\nthe restriction on
\n50<\/span>
\nthe  right  of the hereditary tenant to transfer  the  land.
\nFurther while under the old lease, which is abolished by the
\nPrincipal  Act, the lessee could hold the land only for\t the
\nperiod\tof  the lease which was in the\tpresent\t case,\tupto
\n2013, by virtue of the conferment of the hereditary  tenancy
\nunder  the Principal Act, the lessee can now hold such\tland
\npermanently.   It cannot be said that the conferment of\t the
\npermanent hereditary tenancy on the erstwhile  tenure-lessee
\nis in any way inferior to the rights of the lessee under the
\nold  grant.   Hence in the first instance, the\tquestion  of
\npayment\t of compensation does not arise.  Secondly,  a\tmere
\nrestriction on the incidence of the lease or owner.-,hip  is
\nnot acquisition within the meaning of Article 31A.\n<\/p>\n
15.Article  31A [1] (a) of the Constitution states  that  no
\nlaw providing for the acquisition by the State of any estate
\nor any rights therein or the extinguishment or\tmodification
\nof any such rights, shall be deemed to be void on the ground
\nthat it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges\t any
\nof  the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article  19.\t The
\nsecond\tproviso\t to Article 31A [1],  however,\tstates\tthat
\nwhere any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the
\nState  of  any estate and where any land comprised  in\tsuch
\nestate\tis held by a person under his personal\tcultivation,
\nit shall not be lawful for the State to acquire the  portion
\nof  such land as is within the ceiling limit  applicable  to
\nhim  under any law for the time being in force,\t unless\t the
\nlaw  relating to the acquisition of such land  provides\t for
\npayment\t of compensation at a rate which shall not  be\tless
\nthan the market value thereof\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThus  there  is\t a  clear  distinction\tbetween\t the
\nprovisions of Article 31A [1] (a) and of the second  proviso
\nto the said Article.  Whereas Article 31A[1] (a) holds valid
\nthe acquisition by the State of any estate or of any  rights
\ntherein\t or the extinguishment or modification of  any\tsuch
\nrights, the second proviso carves out an exception to it  by
\nproviding  that [i] if any, estate is acquired by the  State
\nwhich comprises any land under personal cultivation and [ii]
\nif such land is within the ceiling limit applicable to\tsuch
\nperson, such land as is within the ceiling limit will not be
\nacquired  without payment of compensation.  In other  words,
\nthe  second  proviso provides for compensation only  if\t the
\nland  within  the ceiling limit is wholly  acquired  by\t the
\nState.\t If only some of the rights of the person  concerned
\nin  such land are acquired or extinguished or are  modified,
\nthe second proviso does not come into play.  In the  present
\ncase,  instead\tof  having  the\t full  rights  as  a  lessee
\nincluding the right to transfer the land, the appellant will
\nbe  a  hereditary tenant without the right to  transfer\t the
\nland.\tTo  that  extent the rights  of\t the  appellant\t are
\nmodified or his right to transfer the land is  extinguished.
\nHe  has\t not been deprived of all his rights.\tIt  is\tnot,
\ntherefore,  a case of acquisition of his estate\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of the second proviso to Article 31A  [1].   Hence,
\nthe appellant is not entitled to compensation as provided by
\nthe  said  proviso.  Further, as pointed  out  earlier,\t the
\nappellant  is  conferred with the rights as  the  hereditary
\ntenant\tpermanently  in\t place of his earlier  rights  as  a
\ntenure-lessee  which  were to expire after 2013.   This\t is,
\ntherefore,  a clear case of modification of the rights\tand.
\nnot  of\t acquisition  of  all  the  rights.   It  cannot  be
\ncontended further that this modification is less  beneficial
\nto the appellant On this account also the second proviso  to
\nArticle
\n51<\/span>
\n31A[11 requiring compensation to be paid, does not come into
\nplay in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
17.It  was  then urged that in any case\t the  appellant\t has
\nbecome Government lessee within the meaning of Section\t133A
\nof  the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,\t1950
\n[hereinafter called ‘the Z.A. Act’] and hence the land would
\nstand  excluded\t from the provisions of the  Principal\tAct.
\nThe  provision\tof  Section 133A of the Z.A.  Act  reads  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “133A.   Government lessees.  Every person  to
\n\t      whom  land  has  been let\t out  by  the  State
\n\t      Government shall be called a government lessee
\n\t      in   respect   of\t  such\t land\tand    shall
\n\t      notwithstanding\tanything  to  the   contrary
\n\t      contained in this Act be entitled to hold\t the
\n\t      same   in\t accordance  with  the\t terms\t and
\n\t      conditions of the lease relating thereto.\t ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18.Since it is not disputed that by notification dated\t16th
\nOctober, 1970, the provisions of the Z. A. Act have been mad
\napplicable to the said lands and Section 133A has also\tbeen
\nmade applicable the lands covered by the Principal Act,\t the
\nland in question is excluded from the ambit of the Principal
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
19.If  the scheme of the amended Principal Act is  examined,
\nit  would appear the the Act has been passed to provide\t for
\nabolition of the thekedari system in Government estates\t and
\nthe  “Government estate” has been defined in  the  Principal
\nAct  to\t mean land owned by the State  Government  in  Uttar
\nPradesh\t which\tindicates that the Act is intended  to\tdeal
\nwith  government  lands as well.  Moreover, Section  of\t the
\namended\t Principal Act which provides for  determination  of
\nthe  lease starts with a non obstante clause.  It  reads  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3.Determination\tof leases.   Notwithstanding
\n\t      anything\t in  any  law,\tcontract  or   other
\n\t      document,\t it  shall be lawful for  the  State
\n\t      Government by order published in the  Official
\n\t      Gazette  to determine with effect from a\tdate
\n\t      (hereinafter called the date of determination)
\n\t      to be specified, any lease”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20. In view of this non obstante clause Section 133A of\t the
\nZ.A.  Act  cannot have the effect of denying the  State\t the
\npower  under  the  said Section 3 to  determine\t the  lease.
\nHence this contention must also fall\n<\/p>\n
21.  There  was no other contention  raised.   The  appeals,
\ntherefore, fail for the reasons given above and not for\t the
\nreasons\t given\tby  the High Court and\tare  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
58<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, … on 20 April, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 2078, 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 394 Author: P Sawant Bench: Sawant, P.B. PETITIONER: KANWAR LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: IIND ADDITIONAL DISTT. JUDGE, NAINITAL & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/04\/1995 BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. AGRAWAL, S.C. […]<\/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-81138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, ... on 20 April, 1995 - 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\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, ... on 20 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-19T16:19:15+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, … on 20 April, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-19T16:19:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995\"},\"wordCount\":3295,\"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\\\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995\",\"name\":\"Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, ... on 20 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-19T16:19:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, … on 20 April, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, ... on 20 April, 1995 - 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\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, ... on 20 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-19T16:19:15+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, … on 20 April, 1995","datePublished":"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-19T16:19:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995"},"wordCount":3295,"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\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995","name":"Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, ... on 20 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-19T16:19:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwar-lal-vs-iind-additional-distt-judge-on-20-april-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kanwar Lal vs Iind Additional Distt. Judge, … on 20 April, 1995"}]},{"@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\/81138","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=81138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81138\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}