{"id":207440,"date":"2018-12-31T14:30:04","date_gmt":"2018-12-31T09:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=207440"},"modified":"2019-01-08T18:15:21","modified_gmt":"2019-01-08T12:45:21","slug":"infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Infraction of right to hear the affected party makes a decision\/ proceeding non est in the eyes of law: Karnataka HC"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Karnataka High Court:<\/b> A Division Bench comprising of Dinesh Maheshwari and S. Sujatha, JJ. dismissed a writ appeal assailing the order of learned Single Judge whereby a change in khata entries of private respondent\u2019s property was quashed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Respondents\u2019 grievance before the Single Judge was that in terms of duly approved plan, regular khata entries were made but the same was changed by appellant and Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) for non-compliance of conditions of approval of layout plan by the developer. Further, the appellant had unilaterally assumed that the properties purchased by them from builder were not approved by the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court noted that the change in khata entries was made without affording a hearing to the respondents. It was observed that unless a reasonable opportunity of hearing is provided to the affected parties, any tinkering of civil rights accrued to them which results in adverse consequences to them could not be approved. Thus, it was held that the PDO had to necessarily adhere to the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The appeal was disposed of confirming the impugned order and the appellant was directed to restore khata entries in favour of the respondents. However, an opportunity was provided to the appellant\/ competent authority to hold an enquiry and take a final decision in the matter after providing an opportunity of hearing to the private respondents.[State of Karnataka v. Bharatamma,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/WA2X08h5\"><b>2018 SCC OnLine Kar 2728<\/b><\/a>, decided on 17-12-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Dinesh Maheshwari and S. Sujatha, JJ. dismissed a writ appeal assailing the order of <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[33023],"class_list":["post-207440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-right-to-hear"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Infraction of right to hear the affected party makes a decision\/ proceeding non est in the eyes of law: Karnataka HC | SCC Times<\/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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Infraction of right to hear the affected party makes a decision\/ proceeding non est in the eyes of law: Karnataka HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Dinesh Maheshwari and S. Sujatha, JJ. dismissed a writ appeal assailing the order of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-12-31T09:00:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-08T12:45:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Infraction of right to hear the affected party makes a decision\/ proceeding non est in the eyes of law: Karnataka HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-12-31T09:00:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-08T12:45:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Infraction of right to hear the affected party makes a decision\/ proceeding non est in the eyes of law: Karnataka HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Infraction of right to hear the affected party makes a decision\/ proceeding non est in the eyes of law: Karnataka HC | SCC Times","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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Infraction of right to hear the affected party makes a decision\/ proceeding non est in the eyes of law: Karnataka HC","og_description":"Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Dinesh Maheshwari and S. Sujatha, JJ. dismissed a writ appeal assailing the order of","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-12-31T09:00:04+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-08T12:45:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/","name":"Infraction of right to hear the affected party makes a decision\/ proceeding non est in the eyes of law: Karnataka HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-12-31T09:00:04+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-08T12:45:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/infraction-of-right-to-hear-the-affected-party-makes-a-decision-proceeding-non-est-in-the-eyes-of-law-karnataka-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Infraction of right to hear the affected party makes a decision\/ proceeding non est in the eyes of law: Karnataka HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":245920,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/22\/possession-of-properties\/","url_meta":{"origin":207440,"position":0},"title":"Kar HC | Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar made a consorted effort to abuse their office to take possession of the properties, demolish them and dispossess the rightful owners","author":"Editor","date":"March 22, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: R. Devdas, J. allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned orders and directed not to act upon the recommendation of the National Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Background The facts of the case are such that one Sri Kaveriga was granted the land in question\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":208583,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/22\/pat-hc-documents-sought-to-be-produced-by-defendant-must-be-filed-with-written-statement-leave-of-court-required-for-subsequent-production-thereof\/","url_meta":{"origin":207440,"position":1},"title":"Pat HC | Documents sought to be produced by defendant must be filed with written statement \u2013 leave of Court required for subsequent production thereof","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 22, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Patna High Court: The Bench of Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. dismissed an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing of trial court\u2019s order vide which petitioner\u2019s (defendant before the trial court) application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":261879,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/17\/sc-collegium-approves-elevation-of-9-advocates-as-judges-in-bombay-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":207440,"position":2},"title":"SC Collegium approves elevation of 9 Advocates as Judges in Bombay High Court","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 17, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Advocates as Judges in the Bombay High Court: 1. Shri Kishore Chandrakant Sant, 2. Shri Valmiki Menezes SA, 3. Shri Kamal Rashmi Khata, 4. Smt. Sharmila Uttamrao Deshmukh, 5. Shri Arun Ramnath Pednekar, 6. Shri Sandeep Vishnupant Marne,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Appointments &amp; Transfers&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Appointments &amp; Transfers","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/appointments\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270333,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/19\/bombay-high-court-gets-9-additional-judges\/","url_meta":{"origin":207440,"position":3},"title":"Bombay High Court gets 9 Additional Judges","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 19, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The President appoints following Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court, in that order of seniority for a period of two years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices. Kishore Chandrakant Sant; ValmikLSA Menezes; Kamal Rashmi Khata; Smt. Sharmila Uttamrao Deshmukh; Arun Ramnath Pedneker; Sandeep\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Appointments &amp; Transfers&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Appointments &amp; Transfers","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/appointments\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301361,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/13\/disputes-oral-documentary-evidence-ordinarily-writ-jurisdiction-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":207440,"position":4},"title":"\u201cDisputes requiring both oral and documentary evidence are not ordinarily taken up for examination in writ jurisdiction\u201d: Karnataka HC reiterates","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is more so when remedy provided under S. 70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 happens to be alternate and more efficacious one\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"karnataka high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/karnataka-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":344929,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/02\/citizens-have-no-right-to-cremate-at-specific-location-bomhc\/","url_meta":{"origin":207440,"position":5},"title":"Citizens do not have the right to cremate or bury at a specific location: Bombay HC allows plea against illegal crematorium","author":"Simranjeet","date":"April 2, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"It is the duty of the Planning Authority to meet the needs of the people and in the present case, CIDCO has already provided a fully functional cremation ground.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207440","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=207440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}