{"id":104370,"date":"2010-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-18T04:48:33","modified_gmt":"2018-01-17T23:18:33","slug":"shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                              Reserved\n                     Writ Petition No. 612 of 1974\nShiv Dayal and others................................Petitioners\n                                   Vs.\nDeputy Director of Consolidation,\nKanpur and others.....................................Respondents\n\n                     __________\n\n\n\n\nHon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.\n<\/pre>\n
     Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted
\nby Sarvasri Kunal Ravi Singh, Ramesh Singh and R.S. Maurya,
\nlearned counsel for the petitioners.        Learned Standing Counsel
\nappears for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Respondent nos. 4 to 7 are
\nrepresented by Sarvasri O.P. Misra and Pradeep Chandra.\n<\/p>\n
     Through this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the
\norders passed by the three Consolidation authorities, that is, the
\nDeputy    Director    of   Consolidation,   rendered   on   24.12.1973,
\ndisposing of the Revision, order of the Settlement Officer, Kanpur,
\ndated 9.7.1973, dismissing the Appeal of the petitioners and the
\norder passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kanpur, dated 21.4.1973,
\nallowing the Suit preferred by Rajendra etc. sons of Kanhaiya Lal.
\nAll the three Consolidation courts have recorded concurrent findings
\nof fact allowing claim put-froth by the respondent nos. 4 to 7, sons
\nof Kanhaiya Lala.\n<\/p>\n
     In the present case, initially the proceedings were initiated
\nunder Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in
\nrespect of Plot Nos. 1110, 1206, 1209, 1216 and 1217, having an
\n                                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
area of 4 Bigha 11 Biswa in Khata No. 251, situate in Village
\nHiraman, Sibali, Pargana Akbarpur, District Kanpur.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioners claim that as a consequence of consolidation
\nproceedings, the aforementioned land has become as part of their
\nChak, while three Consolidation courts have held that the said land
\nis Sirdari land of Respondent nos. 4 to 7, the sons of original
\ntenure-holder, Kanhaiya Lal.\n<\/p>\n
     Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for
\nthe petitioners, has reiterated the submissions put-forth before the
\nthree Consolidation Courts and taken this Court to the history of the
\ndispute right from 1942 till date and read the judgments rendered
\nby various courts.    Much stress has been laid by him that the
\nconsolidation scheme has been confirmed and possession was
\ndelivered in pursuance thereof to the Chakholders in the Village.
\nAccording to him, right, title and interest of Kanhaiya Lal, who was
\nsaid to be a sub-tenant were extinguished on 27.6.1944, when he
\nwas ejected from the plots in Suit, in pursuance of the decree of the
\nSub Divisional Officer. According to the learned Senior Advocate, no
\nAdhiwasi right could accrue under Section 20(a)(ii) of the U.P.
\nZamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1952, as Kanhaiya Lal was
\nnot a sub-tenant on the date immediately preceding the date of
\nvesting.\n<\/p>\n
     As per learned counsel for the petitioners, admittedly,
\nKanhaiya Lal was not recorded in any Khasra or Khatauni of 1356
\nFasali and could not have been treated to be having Adhiwasi rights.
\nIt was stressed before the Court that he was merely a licensee of
\nthe plots and his license came to an end when he failed in Suit or
\nwhen the possession was obtained by the predecessors-in-interest
\n                                                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
of the petitioners over the land in dispute. The land was given to
\nKanhaiya Lal etc. for their sustenance and to cultivate the same for
\na specified period. They were not having any right, title or interest
\nin the land.    The sons of Kanhaiya Lal could not have been
\npermitted to change their pleas before the Consolidation authorities
\nthat Kanhaiya Lal became Adhiwasi as he was a sub-tenant of the
\nplot in question.   All the three Consolidation courts have erred in
\nholding that he became Adhiwasi and thereafter Sirdar of the land in
\ndispute after advent of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act
\nand issuance of notification of 1954.\n<\/p>\n
     The petition was resisted by the respondents on various
\ngrounds.   Learned counsel for the respondent no.s 4 to 7 have
\nsubmitted that all the three Consolidation courts have recorded
\nconcurrent findings of fact. It was highlighted that in 1346 Fasali
\nand 1347 Fasali revenue entries, the father of respondent nos. 4 to
\n7 was recorded as a sub-tenant for very long and substantial period
\nof about 52-53 years and, therefore, in the year 1948 because of
\n53 years of cotenancy his name was also recorded in Khatauni 1311
\nFasali wherein he was recorded as sub-tenant.       In other revenue
\nentries, name of Kanhaiya Lal had remained recorded throughout
\nbeing a sub-tenant.       He became Adhiwasi and consequently
\nacquired Sirdari rights by operation of law. These relevant revenue
\nentries remained unchallenged and uncontroverted and Kanhaiya
\nLal continued to cultivate the land in dispute for a long period of 58
\nyears which fact regarding cultivation of land by Kanyhaiya Lal for
\nabout 58 years cannot be ignored by the Courts.\n<\/p>\n
     Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
\nmaterials available on record including the judgments of courts
\nbelow.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
     It emerges from the record that Sadhoram and Devi Prasad
\nbeing real brothers were recorded as tenants of an holding having
\nan area of 19 Bighas. Kanhaiya Lal, who was father of Babu Ram,
\nRam Sanehi, Rajendra and Vijai Narain, Respondent nos. 4 to 7,
\nwas in possession of 4 Bigha, 11 Biswa land for a long time. The
\nlitigation between the contesting parties started at the instance of
\nDevi Prasad, father of Sheo Dayal and Mohan Lal, petitioner nos. 1
\nand 2, in the present case, on 13th July, 1942 by filing a formal
\napplication, under Section 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act seeking
\nejectment of Kanhaiya Lal, father of respondent nos. 4 to 7, who
\nwas recorded as a sub-tenant in respect of land in dispute. It was
\nalso alleged in the said application that a private partition had taken
\nplace between Devi Prasad and Sadho Ram, father of petitioner nos.
\n3, 4 and 5, Shanker Lal, Sunder Lal and Sheo Kumar. The land,
\nupon which Kanhaiya Lal was in possession as a sub tenant, had
\nfallen in the share of Devi Prasad.     Sadho Ram was given other
\nplots due to which Sadho Ram had refused to join Devi Prasad in
\nthe litigation and, therefore, he was impleaded as a Defendant.
\nBut, in the present case, as indicated above, Sadho Ram’s sons are
\nindicated as petitioners.   Lateron, Sadho Ram came forward and
\nsupported the case of Devi Prasad.\n<\/p>\n
     Kanhaiya Lal filed objections to the said application and
\npleaded cotenancy with Devi Prasad.        The said application was
\nconverted into a Suit and was dealt with by the Sub Divisional
\nOfficer for adjudication.   On 11th September, 1942, Devi Prasad
\nchanged his stand by filing an application indicating therein that
\nKanhaiya Lal was not sub tenant, but only a ‘licensee’. He withdrew
\nhis Suit, filed under Section 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, but no
\npermission was accorded to him to file another Suit on the same
\ncause of action.    Devi Prasad again initiated litigation by filing
\n                                                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
another suit in the month of September, 1942, under Section 180 of
\nthe U.P. Tenancy Act.    He had taken a plea that license given to
\nKanhaiya Lal had been withdrawn and, therefore, he was a tress
\npasser and as such he could be ejected from the land in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
      Kanhaiya Lal had contested the said Suit urging that his
\nancestors were cotenants with the ancestors of Devi Prasad and
\nSadho Ram . A private partition had taken place between them and
\nthe impunged holding of 4 Bigha 11 Biswa had fallen in his share.
\nHe had been cultivating his own share.       Even if he was a tress
\npasser, he was in adverse possession without any challenge for
\nmore than 12 years at the time of initiation of litigation, that is, in
\nthe year 1942. According to him the Suit was barred by law of
\nlimitation. Kanhaiya Lal claimed that he was a sub-tenant and as
\nsuch he could be ejected. The said Suit was not maintainable as the
\nplaintiff-Devi Prasad had withdrawn previous Suit, filed under
\nSection 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act on 13th July, 1942 without
\nhaving any permission of any competent court to institute a fresh
\nSuit for the same cause of action.\n<\/p>\n
      On 25th March, 1943, the Suit filed by Devi Prasad was
\ndismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer. An appeal was preferred by
\nDevi Prasad before the Additional Commissioner claiming that if
\nKanhiaya Lal was not a tress passer and could not be ejected under
\nSection 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, he could be ejected under
\nSection 175 of the said Act as he was a sub tenant. This appeal was
\nallowed by the Additional Commissioner on 27.10.1943, remanding
\nthe Suit for retrial to the Sub Divisional Officer\/Deputy Collector.
\nThe Additional Commissioner had also directed that the Zamindar of
\nthe Village and the sons of Sadho Ram be also impleaded as
\nplaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
     Sub Divisional Officer\/Deputy Collector had again held that
\nKanhaiya Lal was a sub-tenant and not a tress passer and,
\ntherefore, granted decree for ejectment on 31st May, 1944, under
\nSection 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act.      Kanhaiya Lal preferred an
\nAppeal, which was dismissed.     However, it was held in the order
\ndated 10th January, 1946 that he was a sub-tenant, not a tress
\npasser.   A Second Appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue,
\nwhich was also dismissed on 8.9.1956.         While the Appeal had
\nremained pending before the Board of Revenue, in the meantime,
\nU.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act came into force with
\neffect from 1st July, 1952.\n<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Revenue, dated 8th
\nSeptember, 1956, Kanhaiya Lal filed a writ petition, that is, Writ
\nPetition No. 1335 of 1957, Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Devi Prasad and others
\nrepresented by Legal Heirs and Legal Representatives in this Court.
\nIn the said writ petition, two main questions were raised, which
\nwere also raised before the Board of Revenue, (i) whether the
\nsecond Suit decreed, under Section 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act
\ncould have been decreed as it was clearly hit by the provisions of
\nOrder 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure? and (ii) whether
\nKanhaiya Lal, who had been found to be a sub-tenant by the court
\nbelow had by virtue of the provisions of Section 20(a)(ii) of the U.P.
\nZamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1952 acquired Adhiwasi
\nrights? This Court has also observed on merits of the case that it
\ncould be possible to say that the provision of Order 23, Rule 1 of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure could be interpreted in the manner in which
\nthat provision had been interpreted by the courts below and two
\nopinions were possible to be formed by the courts below. It was
\nalso observed by the Court that the petitioner, Kanhaiya Lal, was
\n                                                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
held to be a sub-tenant on the date of Suit.        His status, while
\npursuing the litigations, throughout was of a sub-tenant. The Board
\nof Revenue was required to record reasons as to why Kanhaiya Lal
\ncould not acquire Adhiwasi rights as per Section 20(a) (ii) of the
\nU.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. This Court vide this
\njudgment dated 17th October, 1962 had allowed the writ petition
\nand directed the Board of Revenue to restore the Appeal and
\nreconsider the matter afresh.      A Special Appeal was preferred
\nagainst this judgment by Sheo Dayal and Devi Prasad etc. In the
\nSpecial Appeal judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge
\ndated 17th October, 1962 was upheld, remanding the matter to the
\nBoard of Revenue for taking a fresh look.\n<\/p>\n
     It is relevant to mention here that, while this litigation was
\ngoing on, consolidation proceedings were initiated in the concerned
\nVillage and the proceedings pending in the Suit including execution
\nproceedings   stood   abated    under   Section   5(2)   of   the   U.P.
\nConsolidation of Holdings Act.    It is borne out of the record that
\nKanhaiya Lal was treated to be a sub-tenant right from 1943 to
\n1947 by the Revenue courts, Board of Revenue and thereafter by
\nthis Court.    Therefore, on commencement of U.P. Zamindari
\nAbolition & Land Reforms Act on 1st July, 1952, at the time vesting,
\nKanhaiya Lal was to be treated as a sub-tenant. Thus, a dispute
\narose before the Consolidation courts as to whether sub-tenancy
\ncould accrue to Kanhaiya Lal or he became Adhiwasi and therafter a
\nSirdar as per the relevant provisions as contained in U.P. Zamindari
\nAbolition & Land Reforms Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In the consolidation proceedings, the sons of Kanhaiya Lal,
\nthat is, Rajendra etc. filed objections under Section 9-A of the U.P.
\nConsolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer,
\n                                                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
Kanpur claiming themselves to be Sirdars of 4 Bigha 11 Biswa of
\nland and sought parity with Devi Prasad etc., who were recorded as
\nSirdars of Khata No. 251.\n<\/p>\n
     After going through the chronology of above events, the sons
\nof Kanhaiya Lal claimed that the original tenureholder, that is, their
\nfather became an Adhiwasi under Section 20(a)(ii)         of the U.P.
\nZamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.         As he was a Shikmi
\nKashtkar, by virtue of notification of 1954, Kanhaiya Lal now his
\nsons became Sirdars of the land (that is 4 Bigha 11 Biswa).
\nDuring pendency of the litigation, the tenureholder Kanhaiya Lal had
\ndied and in his place his sons, Babu Ram, Ram Sanehi, Rajendra
\nand Vijai Narain could claim Sirdari rights over the land in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     The Consolidation Officer had considered the rival claims and
\nrecorded his findings running into 16 pages.       The Consolidation
\nOfficer, after taking note of chronology of events, history of the
\ntitle, settlement of the land right from 1942, during Zamindari
\nregime, during the course of litigation in various courts, that is,
\nDeputy Collector’s court, Additional Commissioner’s court, Board of
\nRevenue and High Court has held that Kanhaiya Lal was not mere a
\nlicensee, rather a Shikmi Kashtkar. He has taken note of Intkhabs
\nof 1347 and 1348 Fasali.      It was recorded by the Consolidation
\nOfficer that Kanhaiya Lal was a Shikmi Kashtkar         for 59 years,
\npaying rent (Lagan) of 21 Rupees.      The Consolidation Officer has
\nrelied upon old, unchallenged and uncontroverted revenue entries of
\n1347 and 1348 Fasali.       Neither Sheo Dayal and Sadho Ram had
\nchallenged these entries.     In fact, they were only interested in
\nejectment of Kanhaiya Lal from the land in dispute.       Even in the
\nFirst and Second Appeals, Kanhaiya Lal was treated as Shikmi
\nKashtkar.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
        The Consolidation authorities on applying the provisions
\ncontained in Section 295 of the U.P. Tenancy Act had held that after
\n1947, Kanhaiya Lal was entitled to continue with the possession of
\nthe land in dispute.      Even after enforcement of U.P. Zamindari
\nAbolition & Land Reforms Act, he became Adhiwasi and as such
\nKanhiaya Lal was entitled for restoration of possession of the land in
\ndispute.     The Consolidation courts had taken note of various
\ndecisions to record a finding that a Shikmi Kashtkar, even if he was
\ndispossessed before 1947 and the First or Second Appeals were
\npending in respect of the land, such cultivator\/tenureholder shall be
\ntreated as Shikmi Kashtkar and his possession shall be restored
\nback.\n<\/p>\n
        In the present case also, the litigation was going on right from
\n1942 to 1971, various litigations were filed in the courts of Deputy
\nCollector, Additional Commissioner, Board of Revenue and in this
\nCourt, but the dispute could not be resolved.          Admittedly, the
\nSecond Appeal was filed by Kanhaiya Lal in the Board of Revenue in
\nthe year 1946, which was dismissed on 8.9.1956. Thus, in view of
\nthis, all the thee Consolidation courts have held that Kanhaiya Lal
\nwas entitled for possession under Section 295 of the U.P. Tenancy
\nAct, as amended in 1947.        He was held entitled to be delivered
\npossession of the land in dispute treating him to be a Shikmi
\nKashtkar.      The Consolidation courts have held that as per the
\nvarious provisions contained in Section 20(a)(ii) of the U.P.
\nZamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, Kanhaiya Lal being a
\nShikmi Kashtkar became Adhiwasi. He was entitled for the benefit
\narising out of notification of 1954, declaring such Shikmi Kashtkars
\n(Cultivators) as Sirdars having substantial legal rights.   Even if the
\npossession was taken from Kanhaiya Lal, his status as Shikmi
\n                                                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
Kashtkar and thereafter as Sirdar would not stand changed. Law is
\nwell settled that till pendency of the litigation, even if a person is
\ndispossessed, it cannot be said that it will adversely affect his rights
\nsince the possession or such rights were subject to final outcome of
\nadjudication.\n<\/p>\n
     As per chronology of events, litigations were pending          and
\nKanhaiya Lal and other contesting parties were awaiting decision of
\nthe competent courts, which would have affected their rights in
\nrespect of the agricultural land in dispute.      The appeal filed by
\nKanhaiya Lal was disposed of on 8.9.1956. Initially, he was a Shikmi
\nKashtkar, while by efflux of law, he became Adhiwasi and thereafter
\nby virtue of notification of 1954 became Sirdar of the land in dispute
\nand after the death of Kanhaiya Lal, his sons, respondent nos. 4 to
\n7, herein, became Sirdars. The Consolidation courts have held that
\nSection 232 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act
\nwould not applicable in the present set of circumstances as it was a
\ncase where a Shikmi Kashtkar became an Adhiwasi and lateron
\nbecame Sirdar of the land by efflux of law, that is, U.P. Tenancy Act
\nas amended in 1947 and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
\nReforms Act and the notification issued in 1954.\n<\/p>\n
     All the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact
\nand law and dealt with the submissions.         All the courts below,
\nincluding the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who while exercising
\npowers under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
\nhas affirmed the findings of the Consolidation Officer and the
\nSettlement Officer, Consolidation. The Revisional court, after taking
\nnote of the chronology of events and appreciating the law on the
\nsubject as well as the materials available on record has held that
\nKanhaiya Lal and thereafter his sons were Sirdars of the land in
\n                                                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
dispute and they were entitled for possession over the land in
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court has taken note of the above chronology of events,
\nrival submissions put forth by the learned counsel of rival parties
\nand is of the view that Kanhaiya Lal and after his death his sons
\nshall be deemed to be in possession as a sub-tenant on the date of
\nvesting. The litigation between the contesting parties had all along
\nremained pending during which Kanhaiya Lal was recorded as a
\nsub-tenant in the revenue entries, as indicated above, and was
\ncultivating the land in dispute for about 52 to 53 years and as such
\nhe could have been deprived of his legal rights.           All the three
\nConsolidation courts had rightly taken note that sub tenancy rights
\nof Kanhaiya Lal could not have come to an end as he became
\nAdhiwasi on the date of vesting and lateron he acquired Sirdari
\nrights by efflux of law.   At the time of vesting, being a Shikmi
\nKashtkar, he became Adhiwasi and thereafter had rightly been held
\nby the Consolidation courts that as a result of application of
\nprovisions contained in the notification of 1954, he became Sirdar of
\nthe land in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     The Consolidation Officer has recorded a detailed finding
\nrunning in about15-16 pages.        The Appellate authority has also
\ndealt with the case in detail and recorded findings and conclusions
\nadjudging all the facts and legal points pleaded by the parties. Oral
\nand documentary evidence and the materials available on record
\nwere carefully considered by all the three Consolidation courts,
\nwhile setting at rest the controversy.    The legal rights accrued to
\nKanhaiya   Lal   and   thereafter   to   his   legal   heirs   and   legal
\nrepresentatives by virtue of U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947
\nand the provisions contained in U.P. Zamindari Abolitin & Land
\n                                                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
Reforms Act as well as the notification of 1954 cannot be taken
\naway.   It was found by all the three Consolidation courts that
\nKanhaiya Lal was in possession over the land in dispute for about
\n52-53 years and as such he had acquired substantial and legal
\nrights. He could not have been ejected from the land in dispute for
\na period of five years. Admittedly, the litigations remained pending
\nbefore various courts right from 1942 to 1971.         The Board of
\nRevenue had concluded the case in the year 1966. By that time,
\nthe aforementioned statutes already came into existence extending
\nbenefits on the cultivators, like Kanhaiya Lal and his legal heirs.
\nThus, Kanhaiya Lal and lateron his sons, that is, respondent nos. 4
\nto 7 became Sirdars of the land in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     My this view finds strength from a judgment of the Hon’ble
\nApex Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 54, Amba Prasad v.
\nMohaboob Ali Shah and others<\/a>, where in Paragraph 16, the
\nHon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “Speaking generally, S. 20 says that certain persons
\n     “recorded as occupants” of lands (other than grove lands or
\n     lands to which Section 16 applies) shall be known as adhivasis
\n     and shall be entitled to retain or to regain possession of them,
\n     after the date of vesting, which was July 1, 1952.        Such
\n     persons do not include an intermediary (Explanation IV). Such
\n     persons must be recorded as occupants in Khasra or Khatauni
\n     for 1356F (1-748 to 30-6-49).            If such a person is in
\n     possession, he continues in possession. If he is evicted after
\n     June 30, 1948, he is to be put back in possession,
\n     notwithstanding anything in any order or decree.      By fiction
\n     such persons are deemed to be entitled to regain possession
\n     (Explanation 1)……….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                      13<\/span><\/p>\n
        My view further finds force from a judgment of a Division
\nBench of this Court reported in 1964 ALJ 273, Jhamman Lal and
\nothers Vs. Deputy Custodian General and others.                 In yet
\nanother judgment as reported in 1955 ALJ 408, Lala Nanak
\nChand v. The Board of Revenue U.P.<\/a> at Allahabad and
\nanother similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
        In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition, being
\ndevoid of merits, fails and is accordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
29.1.2010
\nbgs\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010 Reserved Writ Petition No. 612 of 1974 Shiv Dayal and others…………………………..Petitioners Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and others……………………………….Respondents __________ Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J. Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sarvasri Kunal Ravi Singh, Ramesh Singh and […]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-104370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010 - 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\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-17T23:18:33+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-17T23:18:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3552,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-17T23:18:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010 - 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\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-17T23:18:33+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-17T23:18:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010"},"wordCount":3552,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010","name":"Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-17T23:18:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-dayal-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shiv Dayal & Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 29 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/104370","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=104370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104370\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}