{"id":87096,"date":"2009-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2"},"modified":"2017-02-01T05:51:22","modified_gmt":"2017-02-01T00:21:22","slug":"ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n<pre>                                                        1\n\n\n\n\n                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                        APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                       \n                                 WRIT PETITION NO.2554 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n    Ispat Industries Ltd.                                                                  Petitioners\n                        vs.\n    The Collector,Dist.Raigad &amp; ors.                                                      Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n    Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.Advocate with\n    Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.K.Srivastav,\n    Advocate i\/b.M\/s.S.K.Srivastav for the petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for the Respondents-State.\n\n                                    igCORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                      DATED : 2nd April, 2009<\/p>\n<p>    P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Heard finally by consent of the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2.                     The      petitioners        have         challenged      the      various          demand<\/p>\n<p>    notices including an order dated 12.02.2009 passed by<\/p>\n<p>    the respective respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3.              This           Court          by     an    Order       dated     23.01.2009          in       Writ<\/p>\n<p>    Petition             No.1673-09-Ispat              Industries            Ltd.                 vs.             The<\/p>\n<p>    Collector, Dist.Raigad &amp; ors.,<br \/>\n                             ors. on earlier occasion,<\/p>\n<p>    where similar challenge was raised, observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                  &#8220;6.                       The        Collector,      Raigad       is       hereby           directed<br \/>\n                  to               decide            the      proceeding      pending       before                him<br \/>\n                  with            expeditious         despatch,         at        any          rate,            within<br \/>\n                  six            weeks          from     today.         If    the     order          of            the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:29:19 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                 Collector                       is            adverse       to       the      petitioner,            the<br \/>\n                 same       shall                not      be      given       effect      to      for        a    period<\/p>\n<p>                 of            two                 weeks      from      date       of      its             communication.<br \/>\n                 All rival contentions            on merits are kept<br \/>\n                 open.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    4.           The            Collector           instead              of           deciding           the           same            on         merits<\/p>\n<p>    directed             the                  parties          to             approach           under           Section            247               of<\/p>\n<p>    the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code) to<\/p>\n<p>    Sub Divisional Officer, Alibag.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n    5.                 The                 Sub          Divisional              Officer,          Alibag          has         passed                 the\n\n    impugned\n\n    50%          of\n                                order\n\n                                the\n                                       ig        dated\n\n                                                 amount\n                                                                    12.02.2009\n\n                                                                    as         per      demand\n                                                                                                 thereby\n\n                                                                                                         notices\n                                                                                                                      directed\n\n                                                                                                                                 and\n                                                                                                                                          to        pay\n\n                                                                                                                                                 further\n                                     \n    observed            that               preliminary                    hearing                        shall               be                    after\n\n    depositing         the         money,               by              the           Tahsildar.                       It          appears          that\n\n    the           Authorities              moved               ahead             on          a       foundation               as          if       there\n      \n\n\n    were              pre-requisite                  orders              passed             by        the                   Collector                 of\n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>    assessment as contemplated under Section 110 of the<\/p>\n<p>    Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>    6.            Section               110              of               the         Code            contemplates                     that          the<\/p>\n<p>    Collector                         should                  determine                     non-agricultural                                  assessment<\/p>\n<p>    for           future,                  based             upon             amended             notification.                    That               is<\/p>\n<p>    also              subject         to          approval               of           the         Commissioner.                         It        means<\/p>\n<p>    that         the              Collector             is       the           only          Authority           to                decide             &amp;<\/p>\n<p>    pass           assessment              orders            and          no           other         Officer.                     There               is<\/p>\n<p>    nothing       pointed               out             that             the            Collector                can             delegate           this<\/p>\n<p>    power of determination of non-agricultural assessment of<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:29:19 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    land in non-urban areas like the present one.\n<\/p>\n<p>    7.                   The            respondents                 have                   filed                affidavit                   dated<\/p>\n<p>    18.03.2009                    and     submitted            that             paragraphs          6          and          7       of         the<\/p>\n<p>    said             affidavit                  support             the         impugned            demand             by                  stating<\/p>\n<p>    that          the              non-agricultural                 assessment                       made                  by                  the<\/p>\n<p>    Tahsildar                is                correct.                    Those           paragraphs           as                  reproduced<\/p>\n<p>    below,              no              way         supports              the       mandate             that         the                 Collector<\/p>\n<p>    should                   determine\/assess               first           and            then            demand               notice         by<\/p>\n<p>    the Tahsildar to follow. An assessment order must<\/p>\n<p>    follow demand notice and not vice versa.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                 &#8220;6.                   I      say      that       the       State       Government           has            made<br \/>\n                 Amendment                      to         the          Section          110(2)           of        Maharashtra<br \/>\n                 Land                     Revenue             Code             whereby            the           Non-agricultural<br \/>\n                 Assessment                       of         land           falling          in         Class-I          villages<br \/>\n                 are             required               to       be       calculated         at     the        rate            of<\/p>\n<p>                 not        more         than        10         paise         per        sq.mtrs.                instead       of<br \/>\n                 original            2            paise            per       sq.mtr.            and            the           land<br \/>\n                 falling          in          Class-II           villages           are          required           to         be<\/p>\n<p>                 calculated         at        the        rate        of        not        more         than         5       paise<br \/>\n                 per              sq.mtrs.               instead        of        not        more        than        1      paise<br \/>\n                 per       sq.mtrs.                I      say        that       the       lands       owned           by      the<br \/>\n                 petitioner                  company            are         in         villages         falling                in<br \/>\n                 Class-I                 and                  therefore,                   the                 Non-Agricultural<\/p>\n<p>                 Assessment                in             respect        of       the       said             lands            has<br \/>\n                 been              calculated              as       10        paise       per      sq.mtrs.                    As<br \/>\n                 per           the             Amendment                to       the      Section             110(2)           of<br \/>\n                 Maharashtra                  Land                 Revenue                  Code            and              also<br \/>\n                 instructions             issued               by                    Revenue               and            Forest<br \/>\n                 Department vide Circular No.NAAA\/1005\/Case<\/p>\n<p>                 No.7\/L-5 dated 23\/10\/2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                 7.                    I       say        that                       the           Non-Agricultural                 Assessment<br \/>\n                 made by the Tahsildar is absolutely correct and<br \/>\n                 made by the following lawful procedure.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    8.                  It        is    very        clear           therefore        that          there       was          no               prior<\/p>\n<p>    assessment               or           such                order         passed          by       the               Collector               as<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                      ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:29:19 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    contemplated               under                   the             Code.                                The               demand                          notices<\/p>\n<p>    therefore                            issued              before                determinating                    the                assessment                  as<\/p>\n<p>    required                   is                      therefore            without                 jurisdiction.                          There                    is<\/p>\n<p>    nothing                   on           record            and\/or            even              averred                in           the                     affidavit<\/p>\n<p>    that           the                    Collector,            at      any          point             of         time,                    though                 the<\/p>\n<p>    petitioners                    representation                      is                  pending                for                      the                 same,<\/p>\n<p>    decided                   or           passed            any            order          of              assessment                as                  required.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Therefore                      such                   demand              notices                and          all              actions                    arising<\/p>\n<p>    out              of            the          same          including             the             insistence               for          50%           of        the<\/p>\n<p>    amount before hearing of the Appeal which is admittedly<\/p>\n<p>    pending, is also without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>    9.                The                   petitioners                 are          definitely              bound             to                pay              the<\/p>\n<p>    amount            if                 assessed               in                  accordance                     with                law.                     Such<\/p>\n<p>    procedure             &amp;              such           demands              are               no           where                  contemplated                under<\/p>\n<p>    the              Code.                        These              demand           notices                and              all          actions            arising<\/p>\n<p>    out of the same, according to me, are without<\/p>\n<p>    jurisdiction and void ab-initio.\n<\/p>\n<p>    10.                            Resultantly,               the           demand                   notices            and               the          subsequent<\/p>\n<p>    actions\/orders                          as            issued             by                the             respective                              respondents<\/p>\n<p>    are            quashed                        and            set                aside.                     The                    Collector                    as<\/p>\n<p>    contemplated                         under            the           Code                   to            decide                        and                   pass<\/p>\n<p>    appropriate assessment order, as early as, possible<\/p>\n<p>    after giving hearing to both the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>    11.              In            view           of         above,           it          is           necessary               for           the         Collector<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:29:19 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    to           determine                     the                non-agricultural                 assessment                      of           the<\/p>\n<p>    lands.                   Therefore,                     the                Collector,           Raigad,                   is             hereby<\/p>\n<p>    again                         directed                  to               decide                the              application\/representation<\/p>\n<p>    of            the         petitioners,             if         any,          pending             before              him         and       even<\/p>\n<p>    otherwise,               as                  referred          above,             at       any          rate,          within               six<\/p>\n<p>    weeks          from                 today.                    If     the          order        of       the               Collector          is<\/p>\n<p>    adverse             to         the           petitioner,           the         same            shall          not         be              given<\/p>\n<p>    effect        to              for      a         period       of         two           weeks         from       date                of      its<\/p>\n<p>    communication. All rival contentions on merits are kept<\/p>\n<p>    open.\n<\/p>\n<p>    12. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed in the<\/p>\n<p>    above terms. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                  [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:29:19 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2554 OF 2009 Ispat Industries Ltd. Petitioners vs. The Collector,Dist.Raigad &amp; ors. Respondents Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.Advocate with Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.K.Srivastav, Advocate i\/b.M\/s.S.K.Srivastav for [&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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009 - 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\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-01T00:21:22+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-01T00:21:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":815,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-01T00:21:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009 - 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\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-01T00:21:22+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-01T00:21:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2"},"wordCount":815,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2","name":"Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-01T00:21:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ispat-industries-ltd-vs-the-collector-on-2-april-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Collector on 2 April, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/87096","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=87096"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87096\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}