{"id":104419,"date":"2004-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004"},"modified":"2016-01-24T17:21:46","modified_gmt":"2016-01-24T11:51:46","slug":"ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004","title":{"rendered":"Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: A Kumar<\/div>\n
Bench: Brijesh Kumar, Arun Kumar.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6489-6490 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nAjmer Kaur\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Punjab and ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/05\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nBRIJESH KUMAR & ARUN KUMAR.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
ARUN KUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals are directed against the judgment of the
\nPunjab and Haryana High Court dismissing in limine a Writ
\nPetition  filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the
\nrevenue authorities regarding declaration of a portion of land
\nowner by predecessor in interest of the appellant as surplus
\nunder The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972( hereinafter
\nreferred to as the ‘Act’).  Briefly the facts are that Daya
\nSingh, father of the petitioner filed a return regarding his  and
\nhis wife Kartar Kaur’s holding of lands under Section 5 of the
\nAct.  After scrutinizing the return, the Collector found that the
\nholding in their hands came to 10.12 hectares of first quality
\nland.  Out of that they were entitled to 7 hectares of land.
\nThus 3.12 hectares of land was found to be surplus which
\nthe land owners were required to surrender.  Daya Singh
\nfiled an appeal against the  said order before the
\nCommissioner.  One of the objections taken by Daya Singh
\nin his appeal was that the land held by his wife Kartar Kaur
\ncould not be clubbed with the land held by him.  This
\nobjection was turned down by the Commissioner.  It was
\nobserved that according to Section 3(4) of the Act a “family”
\nin relation to a person means a person,  wife or husband, as
\nthe case may be, of such person and his or her minor
\nchildren.  The appeal was  dismissed by the Commissioner.
\nKartar Kaur wife of Daya Singh died on 9th October, 1980.
\nIn 1982, the surplus land was mutated in favour of the State
\nGovernment and in 1983 it was allotted to third parties.
\nOn 21st June, 1985 Daya Singh filed an application
\nunder Section 11(5) of the Act for re-determination of the
\nland holding in view of death of Kartar Kaur. The Collector
\nvide his order dated 23rd July, 1985 disposed of the said
\napplication holding that there was no surplus area of land
\nwith Daya Singh.  The land declared surplus vide earlier
\norder dated 30th September, 1976 was ordered to be
\nrestored to Daya Singh and the mutation in favour of the
\nState Government was cancelled.  On 19th May, 1986, the
\nCollector sought permission from the Commissioner to
\nreview the order dated 23rd July, 1985.  The Commissioner
\ngranted the requisite permission  on 14th August, 1986.  In
\nview of the permission granted to him, the Collector heard
\nthe matter all over again and vide his order dated 22nd
\nDecember, 1986 held that Daya Singh was in possession of
\nsurplus land.  The order dated 30th September, 1976 passed
\nby the Collector earlier declaring 3.12 hectares of first quality
\nland as surplus was maintained and the Mutation No. 2760
\nvide which ownership and possession of surplus land was
\nsanctioned in favour of the State Government was restored.
\nAppeal filed by Daya Singh against the said order was
\ndismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 11th
\nNovember, 1987.  On 22nd December, 1987, Daya Singh
\ndied.  Revision filed by Ajmer Kaur (appellant herein)before
\nthe Financial Commissioner against the order of
\nCommissioner was dismissed on 27th January, 1994.  This
\norder of the Financial Commissioner was challenged in the
\nPunjab and Haryana High Court by way of a Writ Petition.
\nThe Writ Petition was however dismissed on 3rd October,
\n1994 permitting the petitioner to approach the Fianancial
\nCommissioner by way of a Review Petition wherein she
\ncould raise all the questions sought to be raised in the Writ
\nPetition.  Thus the matter went back to the Financial
\nCommissioner  by way of Review applications.  The review
\napplications were dismissed by the Financial Commissioner
\nvide order dated 10th March, 1998.  The order of the
\nFinancial Commissioner was again challenged by way of
\nWrit Petitions filed in the Punjab and Hayana High Court at
\nChandigarh.  The Writ Petitions were again dismissed by the
\nHigh court vide order dated 30th July, 1998.  The present
\nappeals are directed against the said orders of the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Manoj Swarup, the learned counsel appearing for
\nthe appellant raised the following points in support of the
\nappeals :\n<\/p>\n
1.\t  The order dated 23rd July, 1985 passed by
\nthe Collector on application under
\nSection 11(5) of the Act holding that
\nthere was no surplus land had become
\nfinal and the same could not be reviewed
\nor reopened by the Collector particularly
\nafter 90 days in view of Section 81 of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t   Section 11(5) of the Act conferred a right
\non the land owner which could not be
\ndefeated by sub-section (7) of Section 11
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Regarding the first point it was contended that at the
\nmost the respondents (Revenue authorities) could take the
\nbenefit of a period of ninety days to file review against the
\norder dated 23rd July, 1985 whereby declaration of surplus
\nland was re-determined and it was held that there was no
\nsurplus land in the hands of Daya Singh.  The Collector
\nsought review after about nine months which was clearly
\nbarred by time.  In reply the learned counsel for respondents
\nsubmitted that there is power to condone delay with the
\nauthorities in exercise of which time to seek review can be
\nextended.  In support of the submission, our attention was
\ninvited to  Section 82 of the Act which contains provision
\nregarding  review of orders of revenue authorities.
\nAccording to sub-clause (b) of Section 82(1) “no application
\nfor review of an order shall be entertained unless it is made
\nwithin ninety days from the passing of the order or unless the
\napplicant satisfies the Revenue Officer that he had sufficient
\ncause for not making the application within that period.” We
\nhave considered the rival contentions.  In our view the bar of
\nlimitation does not come in the way of the Collector re-
\ndetermining the permissible land holding of Daya Singh. A
\nbare reading of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 82
\nshows that review can be made even after expiry of period of
\nninety days where the Revenue Officer is satisfied about
\ncause for delay.  The fact that the Commissioner granted
\npermission to the Collector to review his order  suggests that
\nthe hurdle of limitation had been successfully crossed.\n<\/p>\n
\tComing to the second point a conflict is suggested
\nbetween sub-sections (5) and (7) of Section 11 of the Act.
\nWe would like to quote the relevant provisions :\n<\/p>\n
“Section 11 :\n<\/p>\n
(1)
\n(2)
\n(3)
\n(4)
\n(5)\tNotwithstanding anything contained in any
\nother law for the time being in force and save in the
\ncase of land acquired by the State Government
\nunder any law for the time being in force or by an heir
\nby inheritance, no transfer or other disposition of land
\nwhich is comprised in the surplus area under the
\nPunjab law, the Pepsu law or this Act, shall affect the
\nvesting thereof in the State Government or its
\nutilization under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
(6) ..\n<\/p>\n
(7)   Where succession has opened after the
\nsurplus area or any part thereof has been determined
\nby the Collector, the saving specified in favour of an
\nheir by inheritance under sub-section(5) shall not
\napply in respect of the area so determined.”\n<\/p>\n
According to sub-section (5) no transfer or other
\ndisposition of land which comprised in the surplus area shall
\naffect the vesting thereof in the State Government or its
\nutilisation under the Act.  However, exception is created in
\ncases of :\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tacquisition of land by the State Government;
\n(2)\tinheritance, that is, devolution of interest in  the
\nland on account of death etc. in the family which
\nwill be a case of involuntary transfer.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section (7)seems to take away the benefit
\nconferred by sub-section (5) regarding reopening of
\ndetermination of surplus land in cases specified in the said
\nsub-section.  According to sub-section (7) where succession
\nopens after the surplus area or any part thereof has been
\ndetermined by the Collector,the exception provided in sub-
\nsection (5) shall not apply in respect of the surplus land.\n<\/p>\n
 It is argued that sub-section (7) takes away the right
\nconferred by  sub-section (5), therefore the same has to be
\nignored.  In support of his contention the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Punjab
\nand Haryana High Court in Ajit Kaur and ors. Vs. State of
\nPunjab and ors.  (1980) Punjab Law Journal 354.  The said
\njudgment indicates that the Full Bench posed a conflict
\nbetween the two provisions and tried to resolve the same.\n<\/p>\n
  In our view, it is not necessary for us to enter into the
\ncontroversy regarding the alleged conflict between the
\nprovisions of sub-sections (5) and (7) of Section 11 of the
\nAct.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that these
\nappeals can be decided on the basis of the fact that the
\ninitial order whereby the Collector declared 3.12 hectares of
\nland as surplus was passed on 30th September, 1976.  The
\nappeal against the said order filed by Daya Singh, land
\nowner, was dismissed on 27th March, 1979.  Kartar Kaur wife
\nof Daya Singh, along with whom Daya Singh had filed a joint
\nreturn with respect to the lands, died on 9th October, 1980.
\nThe surplus lands were mutated in favour of the State
\nGovernment in the year 1982 and the State Government
\nallotted the same to third parties including the respondents
\nNo..5 to 7 herein in the year 1983.  Respondent No.7 has
\nfiled an affidavit stating that he is in possession of the land
\nallotted to him.  Kartar Kaur is said to have made a Will on
\n15th October, 1979 regarding a portion of land declared
\nsurplus in favour of a Gurudawara which has been
\nimpleaded as respondent No.8 in this appeal.  On 15th
\nOctober, 1979 when Kartar Kaur made her Will she was left
\nwith no interest or title in the land and therefore she could
\nnot have made a Will with respect thereto.  Daya Singh filed
\nan application for re-determination of the surplus land under
\nSection 11(5) of the Act only on 21st June, 1985.on the basis
\nof the fact that Kartar Kaur had died and succession had re-
\nopened. This application was made almost 5 years after the
\ndeath of Kartar Kaur.  In our view, this delay in making the
\napplication is fatal for Daya Singh and the application for re-
\ndetermination ought to have been dismissed on this ground
\nalone.  Assuming that Daya Singh had a right to make an
\napplication under section 11(5) of the Act but the  right had
\nto be exercised within a reasonable time.  It cannot be said
\nthat the right under Section 11(5) can be exercised at any
\ntime at the sweet will of the applicant.  The order regarding
\ndetermination of surplus land by the Collector has  serious
\nconsequences:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tSo far as the land owner is concerned he is
\ndivested of the land.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe surplus land vests in the State
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe State Government utilizes the surplus land
\nin accordance with law which includes allotment
\nof the surplus land to third parties like landless
\npersons for purposes of cultivation etc.<\/p>\n
Permitting an application under Section 11(5) to be
\nmoved at any time would have disastrous consequences.
\nThe State Government in which the land vests on being
\ndeclared as surplus, will not be able to utilize the same. The
\nState Government cannot be made to wait indefinitely before
\nputting the land to use.  Where the land is utilized by the
\nState Government a consequence of the order passed
\nsubsequently could be of divesting it of the land.  Taking the
\nfacts of present case by way of an illustration, it would mean
\nthe land which stood mutated in the State Government in
\n1982 and which was allotted by the State Government to
\nthird parties in 1983, would as a result of reopening the
\nsettled position, lead to third parties being asked to restore
\nback the land  to the State Government and the State
\nGovernment in turn would  have to be divested of the land.
\nThe land will in turn be restored to the land owner.  This will
\nbe the result of the land being declared by the Collector as
\nnot surplus with the land owner.  The effect of permitting
\nsuch a situation will be that the land will remain in a situation
\nof flux. There will be no finality.  The very purpose of the
\nlegislation will be defeated.  The allottee will not be able to
\nutilize the land for fear of being divested in the event of
\ndeaths and births in the family of the land owners.  Deaths
\nand births are events which are bound to occur.  Therefore,
\nit is reasonable to read a time limit in sub-section (5) of
\nSection 11.  The concept of reasonable time in the given
\nfacts would be most appropriate. An application must be
\nmoved within a reasonable time. The facts of the present
\ncase demonstrate that  re-determination under sub-section
\n(5) of Section 11 almost 5 years after the death of Kartar
\nKaur and more than 6 years after the order of Collector
\ndeclaring the land as surplus had become final, has resulted
\nin grave injustice besides defeating the object of the
\nlegislation which was envisaged as a socially beneficial
\npiece of legislation.  Thus we hold that the application for re-
\ndetermination filed by Daya Singh under sub-section (5) of
\nSection 11 of the Act on 21st June, 1985 was liable to be
\ndismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and the
\nCollector was wrong in re-opening the issue declaring the
\nland as not surplus  in the hands of Daya Singh and Kartar
\nKaur.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above reasoning is in consonance with the
\nprovision in sub-section (7) of Section 11 of the Act.  Sub-
\nsection (7) uses the words “where succession is opened
\nafter the surplus area or any part thereof has been
\ndetermined by the Collector.”.  The words “determined by
\nthe Collector” would mean that the order of the Collector has
\nattained finality. The provisions regarding appeals etc.
\ncontained in Sections 80  82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act,
\n1887, as made applicable to proceedings under the Punjab
\nLand Reforms Act, 1972, show  that the maximum period of
\nlimitation in case of appeal or review is ninety days.  The
\nappeal against the final order of the Collector dated 30th
\nSeptember, 1976 whereby 3.12 hectares of land had been
\ndeclared as surplus was dismissed on 27th March, 1979.
\nThe order was allowed to become final as it was not
\nchallenged any further.  Thus the determination by the
\nCollector became final on 27th March, 1979.  The same
\ncould not be re-opened after a lapse of more than 6 years by
\norder dated 23rd July, 1985.  The subsequent proceedings
\nbefore the Revenue authorities did not lie.  The order dated
\n23rd July, 1985 is non-est.  All the subsequent proceedings
\ntherefore fall through.  The issue could not have been
\nreopened.\n<\/p>\n
 As a result of above discussion,  we find no merit in
\nthese appeals.  The same are dismissed leaving the parties
\nto bear their respective costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004 Author: A Kumar Bench: Brijesh Kumar, Arun Kumar. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6489-6490 of 1998 PETITIONER: Ajmer Kaur RESPONDENT: State of Punjab and ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/05\/2004 BENCH: BRIJESH KUMAR & ARUN KUMAR. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT ARUN KUMAR, J. […]<\/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-104419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAjmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004 - 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\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-24T11:51:46+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-24T11:51:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2412,\"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\\\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004\",\"name\":\"Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-24T11:51:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004 - 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\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-24T11:51:46+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004","datePublished":"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-24T11:51:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004"},"wordCount":2412,"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\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004","name":"Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-24T11:51:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-7-may-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajmer Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2004"}]},{"@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\/104419","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=104419"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104419\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}