{"id":10269,"date":"1999-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999"},"modified":"2019-03-11T10:21:13","modified_gmt":"2019-03-11T04:51:13","slug":"delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: M J Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: Sujata Manohar, M.Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDELHI ADMINISTRATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGURDIP SINGH UBAN AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t20\/08\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nSujata Manohar, M.Jagannadha Rao\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      M.  JAGANNADHA RAO,J.\n<\/p>\n
      Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
      These  two Civil Appeals have been filed by the  Delhi
\nadministration\tagainst the judgment of the Delhi High Court
\nin  C.W.P.   No.   920\tof   1986  dated  17.12.1996.\t The
\nrespondents  are the owners of an extent of about 2.50 acres
\nin  Chattrapur village.\t The notifications, in fact, covered
\nland  of  an  extent  of about\t50,000\tBighas\tin  thirteen
\nvillages.   The Writ petition was allowed under the impugned
\njudgment and the notifications were quashed.\n<\/p>\n
      The  brief  facts\t of  the   case\t are  follows:\t The
\nNotification  under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
\nwas issued on 25.11.1980 while the declaration under Section
\n6  was\tpublished on 7.6.1985.\tInitially,  the\t declaration
\nunder  Section\t6 was challenged in C.W.P.  No.1639 of\t1985
\nand  76\t other\twrit petitions and were referred to  a\tFull
\nBench of the Delhi High Court on a certain legal issue.\t The
\nFull  Bench  decided  the  point and upheld  the  Section  6
\ndeclaration.   The contention before the Full Bench was that
\nthe declaration under Section 6 was issued more than 3 years
\nafter  the Section 4(1) notification and was, therefore, bad
\nin  law.   The\tsubmission was that even though\t there\twere
\nvarious\t stay  orders in several Writ petitions by the\tHigh
\nCourt  in  relation  to\t the  operation\t of  the  Section  6
\ndeclaration,  they were all individual orders passed in\t the
\ncases  of  various Writ petitioners and hence  these  orders
\ncould  not  be treated as amounting to a suspension  of\t the
\nentire\tSection 6 declaration and hence the said declaration
\nmust  be struck down as time barred in respect of others who
\ndid  not  obtain  stay orders.\tThe Full Bench of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  rejected the above contention holding that the scheme
\nfor  which  the land was acquired was an integrated one\t and
\nthe  stay  orders  even\t if  obtained  in  individual  cases
\nnecessarily  resulted in precluding any further\t proceedings
\nbeing  taken under the Section 6 declaration.  Excluding the
\ntime  covered by the stay orders, the Section 6\t declaration
\nmust,  it  was held, be deemed to have been issued in  time.
\nOn  that reasoning, the notification under Section 4(1)\t and
\nSection\t 6 were declared valid by the Full Bench.  The other
\npoints\traised\tby individual Writ petitioners, namely\tthat
\nthe  inquiry  under Section 5A was vitiated etc.,  were\t not
\ndecided\t by the Full Bench and for that purpose the  matters
\nwere  sent  back to a Division Bench.  The judgment  of\t the
\nFull  Bench dated 25.7.87 is reported in Balak Ram Gupta vs.
\nUnion  of  India  AIR 1987 Delhi 239.\tThereafter,  the  73
\nmatters\t were  listed before a Division Bench which  finally
\ndisposed  of  the  writ\t petitions by  a  separate  judgment
\nreported  as B.R.  Gupta Vs.  Union of India on 18.11.1988 (
\n37 (1989) DLT 150).  The Writ petitions were allowed and the
\nSection\t 6  declaration was quashed on the ground  that\t the
\nSection\t 5A inquiry was vitiated etc.  ( There is dispute as
\nto  whether  the declaration was wholly quashed).  The\tsaid
\njudgment   was\t not   appealed\t  against   by\t the   Delhi
\nAdministration.\t  The  present\tWrit petition was  filed  on
\n23.4.1986   for\t quashing  the\t same\tnotification   dated
\n25.11.1980  and\t 7.6.1985 issued under Sections 4(1) and  6.
\nIt  related to Khasra Nos.  704\/1, 706\/2, 706\/3, 707\/2, 714,
\n715\/2, 909\/2, 10\/2 and 693.\n<\/p>\n
      When  the\t present Writ petition came up\tfor  hearing
\nbefore\ta Division Bench on 17.12.1996, the writ petitioners
\ncontended  that\t by  the  judgment  of\tthe  Division  Bench
\nrendered  in  B.R.  Gupta dated 18.11.88 – i.e.\t  after\t the
\nFull  Bench  judgment dated 25.7.87 – the entire  Section  6
\ndeclaration  stood  quashed and that even though these\twrit
\npetitioners  (\trespondents in these Civil Appeals) had\t not
\nfiled  any objections under Section 5A of the Act, they were
\nentitled to rely upon the earlier Division Bench judgment of
\n18.11.88  and contend that the entire Section 6\t declaration
\nwas  quashed.  This contention was accepted by the  Division
\nBench  under  the impugned judgment dated  17.12.1996.\t The
\nDivision  Bench\t held that the earlier judgment resulted  in
\nthe  entirety of the Section 6 declaration being quashed and
\nwas  a judgment in rem and hence the writ petitioners  could
\nrely  on  that judgment even though they had not  filed\t any
\nobjections  under Section 5A.  The result, according to\t the
\nappellants,  of Section 6 declaration being quashed would be
\nthat  the Section 4(1) notification would also lapse.  It is
\nagainst the above judgment that the Delhi Administration has
\npreferred these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
      In   these  appeals,  the\t  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant  Ms.\t Geeta Luthra contended before us that in  a
\nsimilar\t appeal\t preferred to this Court decided by a  three
\nJudge  Bench  in  Abhey Ram and Ors.  Vs.   Union  of  India
\n(J.T.1997(5)  SC  354),\t in  respect of the  same  group  of
\nnotifications it was held that in the case of owners who had
\nnot  filed objections under Section 5A, they could not\ttake
\nadvantage  of  the  judgment  of   the\tDivision  Bench\t  in
\nB.R.Gupta’s  case  dated 18.11.1988.  It was also held\tthat
\nupon  a proper understanding of the judgment of the Division
\nBench  dated  18.11.1988,  it  could not be  held  that\t the
\nentirety  of the Section 6 notification stood quashed by the
\nsaid  judgment.\t The above contention of the learned counsel
\nfor  the  Delhi Administration was supported by the  learned
\nsenior\tcounsel\t for  the Delhi Development  Authority,\t Sri
\nRavinder Sethi.\n<\/p>\n
      On  the  other  hand,  it was contended  by  Sri\tP.N.
\nLekhi,\tlearned\t senior\t counsel for the  respondents  (Writ
\npetitioners  ) that the Division Bench of the High Court  in
\nits impugned judgment was right in holding that the Division
\nBench  in B.R.Gupta’ case, in its judgment dated 18.11.1988,
\nhad  quashed  the entire Section 6 declaration and this\t was
\nclear  from  the  language employed in that  judgment.\t The
\nappellant  could not be permitted to blow hot and cold\tfor,
\nin  order to say that the Section 6 declaration was not time
\nbarred, the appellant had contended before the Full Bench in
\nB.R.Gupta’s  case  that stay orders obtained by\t some  would
\namount\tto stay of the entire Section 6 declaration and that
\non  the same parity of reasoning, the subsequent judgment of
\nthe  Division Bench in B.R.  Gupta’s case must be deemed  to
\nhave  quashed the entirety of the Section 6 declaration.   A
\npassage\t in  the Full Bench judgment that  the\tnotification
\ncould not remain partially stayed or partially suspended was
\nalso  relied  upon.   Reference\t was also  made\t to  another
\njudgment  of  this Court in Delhi Development Authority\t Vs.
\nSudan Singh ( 1991 D.L.T.  602 (SC) = 1997(50 SCC 430) dated
\n20.9.91 where a two Judge Bench of this Court upheld another
\njudgment of the High Court.  In that case, as in the present
\ncase before us, the High Court had allowed the Writ petition
\nfiled  by  Sudan  Singh who had contended  that\t the  entire
\nSection\t 6 declaration was quashed by the Division Bench  in
\nB.R.   Gupta’s\tcase in the judgment dated 18.11.88.   Sudan
\nSingh  did not also file objection under Section 5A.  It was
\nargued\tthat in Abhey Ram’s case decided by the three  Judge
\nBench on 22.4.97, though Sudan Singh’s case was referred to,
\nthe   appropriate   paragraphs\twere   not   noticed.\t The
\nappropriate  paragraphs\t in the Division Bench\tjudgment  in
\nB.R.  Gupta’s case dated 18.11.88 were also not noticed.  In
\nyet  another case relating to one B.L.\tSharma, another writ
\npetition, C.W.P.  2365\/90 was allowed on 6.12.90 and special
\nleave  petition\t (C)  3604\/92 was dismissed  by\t this  Court
\nfollowing  the\tjudgment in Sudan Singh’s case.\t It is\talso
\ncontended  that\t in the letter of the Joint Secretary  dated
\n31.3.1989,  the legal opinion obtained by the department was
\nthat the judgment of the Division Bench dated 18.11.88 would
\ncover  cases where land was not taken possession of – as  in
\nthe  present  case.  It is accepted that the respondent\t did
\nnot  file  objections under Section 5A but it is  said\tthat
\nthis was because he was an Army Officer who at that time was
\nworking in the forward areas.\n<\/p>\n
      We  may  state that it is true that in  Sudan  Singh’s
\ncase  a\t two  Judge Bench of this  Court  confirmed  another
\njudgment  of the Delhi High Court wherein the High Court had
\nallowed\t the writ petition on the basis that the judgment of
\nthe  Division Bench dated 18.11.1988 had quashed the Section
\n6 declaration wholly.  It is also true that in Sudan Singh’s
\ncase  too  no  objections  were filed by  the  owners  under
\nsection\t 5A.   But, we are governed by the judgment  of\t the
\nthree  Judge Bench in Abhey Ram’s case where the said  Bench
\nnot  only  referred  to\t the effect of\tthe  Division  Bench
\njudgment  of the High Court dated 18.11.88 but also referred
\nto  the\t judgment  of the two Judge Bench of this  Court  in
\nSudan  Singh’s case.  The three Judge Bench in Abhey Ram  is
\nbinding on us in preference to the judgment of two Judges in
\nSudan Singh.\n<\/p>\n
      In  connection  with owners or persons interested\t who
\nhave not filed objections under Section 5A, in principle, it
\nmust  be  accepted that they had no objection to  Section  4
\nnotification operating in respect of their property.  On the
\nother  hand, in respect of those who filed objections,\tthey
\nmight  have locus standi to contend that Section 5A  inquiry
\nwas  not  conducted  properly.\t  We,  therefore,  agree  in
\nprinciple  with\t the view of the three Judge Bench in  Abhey
\nRam’s  case  that whose who have not filed objections  under
\nSection 5A, could not be allowed to contend that the Section
\n5A  inquiry  was  bad  and   that  consequently\t Section   6
\ndeclaration  must be struck down and that then the section 4
\nnotification would lapse.  If, therefore, no objections were
\nfiled\tby   the  respondents,\t logically  the\t Section   6
\ndeclaration must be deemed to be in force so far as they are
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
      But  learned  senior  counsel   for  the\t respondents
\ncontends  that\tthe  judgment of the  Division\tBench  dated
\n18.11.1988  in\tB.R.   Gupta’s case had quashed\t the  entire
\nSection 5A proceedings and that even in case the respondents
\nhad  filed  objections,\t the position would  not  have\tbeen
\ndifferent.  We cannot accept this contention.  We are of the
\nview  that  in\trespect of those who did not object  to\t the
\nSection 4(1) notification by filing objections under Section
\n5A, the said notification must be treated as being in force.
\nThe  writ petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that in
\nsome other cases, the notification was quashed and that such
\nquashing would also enure to their benefit.\n<\/p>\n
      Then  coming  to\tthe effect of the  judgment  of\t the
\nDivision  Bench dated 18.11.88 of the High Court, we are  of
\nthe  view that the three Judge Bench judgment in Abhey Ram’s
\ncase has interpreted or declared the effect of the said High
\nCourt  judgment dated 18.11.88.\t That judgment is binding on
\nus.   We cannot go by the two Judge Bench judgment in  Sudan
\nSingh’s\t case  because we are bound by the judgment  of\t the
\nthree  Judge  Bench  in\t Abhey\tRam’s  case.   Further,\t the
\njudgment  in Abhey Ram’s case takes notice of Sudan  Singh’s
\ncase  and  it cannot be contended that they have not  looked
\nfully  into the judgment in Sudan Singh’s case or fully into
\nthe  judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court  dated
\n18.11.88  in B.R.Gupta’s case.\tNor is the dismissal of\t the
\nspecial\t leave\tpetition  in B.L.Sharma’s case\ta  precedent
\nwhich  can  outweigh  Abhey Ram.  The opinion of  the  legal
\ndepartment  of Government or the Delhi Development Authority
\nwhich  is relied upon – apart from not having binding force,
\ncannot override Abhey Ram’s case.\n<\/p>\n
      Reliance was then placed by the learned senior counsel
\nfor  the respondents on Oxford English School Vs.  Govt.  of
\nTamil  Nadu  ( 1995 (5) SCC 206) but it has no relevance  to
\nthe  question  before  us viz whether a\t notification  under
\nSection 6 can be upheld in respect of only some of the lands
\ncovered by it.\tAlso a three Judge Bench in N.\tNarasimhaiah
\nVs.  State of Karnataka (1996 (3) SCC 88 ) has held that the
\nsaid judgment has been rendered per incuriam.  So far as the
\nother  contention  that the Government cannot blow  hot\t and
\ncold,  we  are of the view that the reasoning given  by\t the
\nFull Bench in its judgment dated 25.7.87 was confined to the
\nquestion whether Section 6 declaration was time barred.\t The
\nCourt held that as the scheme was an integrated one, stay of
\nparts  of it precluded the authorities from going ahead with
\nthe  entire  section 6 declaration.  That  reasoning  cannot
\nhelp  the  respondents to contend that the same thing  would
\napply  to  the quashing of the declaration by  the  Division
\nBench  in  its\tjudgment  dated\t 18.11.1988.   Quashing\t the
\nnotification  in  the  cases of\t individual  writ  petitions
\ncannot\tbe  treated as quashing the whole of it.   That\t was
\nwhat  was held in Abhey Ram’s case.  The main points  raised
\nbefore\tus  are fully covered by the judgment of  the  three
\nJudge Bench in Abhey Ram’s case.\n<\/p>\n
      For  the\taforesaid reasons, these Civil\tAppeals\t are
\nallowed\t and the judgment of the High Court is set aside and
\nthe  Writ petition is dismissed.  There will be no order  as
\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999 Author: M J Rao Bench: Sujata Manohar, M.Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. RESPONDENT: GURDIP SINGH UBAN AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/08\/1999 BENCH: Sujata Manohar, M.Jagannadha Rao JUDGMENT: M. JAGANNADHA RAO,J. Leave granted. These two Civil Appeals have […]<\/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-10269","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999 - 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\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-11T04:51:13+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-11T04:51:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2155,\"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\\\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999\",\"name\":\"Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-11T04:51:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999 - 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\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-11T04:51:13+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999","datePublished":"1999-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-11T04:51:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999"},"wordCount":2155,"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\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999","name":"Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-11T04:51:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-vs-gurdip-singh-uban-and-ors-on-20-august-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors on 20 August, 1999"}]},{"@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\/10269","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=10269"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10269\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10269"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10269"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10269"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}