{"id":106176,"date":"2010-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-27T14:29:55","modified_gmt":"2019-02-27T08:59:55","slug":"shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n\n\n\nRESERVED\n\nCourt No. - 10\n\n\n\nCase :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 6531 of 1985\nPetitioner :- Shahzade And Others.\nRespondent :- D.D.C.& Others\nPetitioner Counsel :- Haidar Abbas,R.K. Sharma\nRespondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kalra,Shyam Mohan\n\n\n\nHon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.\n<\/pre>\n
      Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and counsel for the rest respondents. Shri<\/p>\n
Shyam Mohan, Advocate, stated that he is holding brief of Shri Akhilesh<\/p>\n
Kalra and said that he represents all the private respondents.<\/p>\n
      This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ in the<\/p>\n
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order contained in Annexure<\/p>\n
Nos. 4 & 6 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent no. 1, Deputy<\/p>\n
Director of Consolidation, Sitapur (D.D.C.) and Settlement Officer<\/p>\n
Consolidation, Sitapur (S.O.C.).\n<\/p>\n
      An order was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (A.C.O.)<\/p>\n
dated 24.07.1977 in Case No. 2032 under Section 9-Ka (1) of the U.P.<\/p>\n
Consolidation of Holdings Act (C.H.Act), on the basis of compromise<\/p>\n
entered between the parties. The order was set aside by the S.O.C. for the<\/p>\n
land of plot no. 76 only on Appeal filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1,<\/p>\n
4 & 6 saying that no dispute was there between the parties in case No.<\/p>\n
2032 regarding the land of Plot No. 76 and objections under Section 9 were
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
only raised on behalf of the petitioner for the land of Plot No. 75, as such,<\/p>\n
no compromise was between the patsies to the case of 2032 could be<\/p>\n
entertained by the A.C.O. for the land of Plot No. 76 but while deciding<\/p>\n
the case, the S.O.C. has not disturbed the order passed by the A.C.O. for<\/p>\n
the land of Plot No. 75. Revision filed by the petitioners before the D.D.C.<\/p>\n
challenging the order of S.O.C. was also dismissed, almost on the same<\/p>\n
ground, hence the instant writ petition has been filed by the<\/p>\n
Revisionists\/petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
      Record shows that the private respondents have also stated before<\/p>\n
the S.O.C. in Appeal that they have not signed or put their thumb<\/p>\n
impressions on the Compromise deed. Their Thumb impressions were<\/p>\n
obtained on a blank sheet and later on the Compromise Deed was drafted<\/p>\n
on the same and the same was taken on record under the conspiracy. Later<\/p>\n
on they came to know about this Compromise. Immediately, they filed an<\/p>\n
appeal. Although the copy of the Compromise is not on record but it is<\/p>\n
clear from the record that on the basis of the Compromise, A.C.O. has<\/p>\n
passed the order on 24.07.1977 in respect of the land of Plot Nos. 75 and<\/p>\n
76 both. Names of some tenure holders were stuck off and some were<\/p>\n
added on the land of both these plots under the Compromise, but the<\/p>\n
S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have not disturbed the order of the A.C.O. for the<\/p>\n
land of plot no. 75 and the same was disturbed only for the land of Plot No.<\/p>\n
76 and the part of the order was set aside.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that approach of both<\/p>\n
the courts below (S.O.C. & the D.D.C) are not correct because when there<\/p>\n
was specific plea of the respondents that they have not signed\/put the
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
thumb impressions on the Compromise deed and they have not entered into<\/p>\n
the compromise and they said that the Compromise deed was later on<\/p>\n
prepared on the blank sheet in their absence and was filed then it was the<\/p>\n
primary duty of both the courts below to see whether the contention of the<\/p>\n
respondents was correct or not but without verifying the correctness of this<\/p>\n
contention, hot and cold were blown in the same order by the courts below.<\/p>\n
The compromise filed was got verified by          the A.C.O. and    after his<\/p>\n
satisfaction only he had given effect to it. There was no evidence before the<\/p>\n
appellate court of fraud misrepresentation and forgery. It was further<\/p>\n
argued that in the facts and circumstances, court below should not have<\/p>\n
accepted the compromise in part for the land in Plot No. 75 only and<\/p>\n
seeing the contention of the respondents the matter should have been<\/p>\n
remitted to the courts below for disposal of the objections raised on behalf<\/p>\n
of the petitioners for the land of Plot No. 75.\n<\/p>\n
      It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that<\/p>\n
some of the parties of the case were belonging to one family and to resolve<\/p>\n
their dispute, they all entered into Compromise and the same was filed<\/p>\n
before the different courts where the cases were pending between them. It<\/p>\n
was further urged that in other three cases between the parties, 2712, 2713<\/p>\n
and 2716, (referred in paragraph 2 of the writ petition) similar orders were<\/p>\n
passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the compromise<\/p>\n
entered into between the parties. Copy of the order is Annexure -2 filed<\/p>\n
with the writ petition. but this order was not challenged before the<\/p>\n
appellate court which shows that the intention of the private respondents<\/p>\n
was malafide. Where the compromise entered between the parties extended
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
benefit to them, they have not challenged it and where it extended benefit<\/p>\n
to the petitioners, its validity was challenged. Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners argued that courts below have not given thought to it.<\/p>\n
      Further it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that no law<\/p>\n
prohibits the parties to enter into compromise, in case where lis between<\/p>\n
them was in respect only one property and they want to settle their dispute<\/p>\n
regarding other property which was not subject matter of that case pending.<\/p>\n
In respect of this, learned counsel cited the Law AIR 1933 Allahabad 649<\/p>\n
Sahu Shyam Lal vs. M. Shyam Lal<\/a> where in Full Bench decision, this<\/p>\n
Court laid down as follows :\n<\/p>\n
            ” In cases where a part of the compromise does not<\/p>\n
      strictly speaking relate to the suit and nevertheless the<\/p>\n
      Court decides that it relates to the suit and incorporates it<\/p>\n
      into the operative portion and passes a decree in terms of<\/p>\n
      it, the decree is not a nullity and not one passed without<\/p>\n
      jurisdiction, but would be binding upon the parties to the<\/p>\n
      decree………”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            ” Where a Court has jurisdiction to deal with the<\/p>\n
      property having regard to its nature, character and<\/p>\n
      valuation, the mere fact that it was not originally included<\/p>\n
      in the plaint would not oust the jurisdiction of the Court<\/p>\n
      when it was acting upon the agreement of the parties.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Principles laid down in Full Bench decision was also followed by<\/p>\n
this Court in another case 1985 (3) LCD 202 Amar Nath vs. D.D.C.,<\/a> it was
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
further argued that wrong findings were recorded by the courts below that<\/p>\n
there was no dispute between the parties regarding the land of plot no. 76.<\/p>\n
In another case, (referred in paragraph 2 of the writ petition) orders for<\/p>\n
strucking off and adding the names of the parties were passed on the land<\/p>\n
of plot no. 76 on the basis of compromise which prima-facie shows that<\/p>\n
there was some dispute between them regarding this plot also and they<\/p>\n
have settled it by compromise and they have not filed appeal against the<\/p>\n
order passed in that case (Annexure -2).\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the respondents including the learned Standing<\/p>\n
Counsel have only tried to support the finding of S.O.C.\/D.D.C. but no<\/p>\n
specific reply was given on their behalf of the arguments raised by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners and also Law cited by him. It was<\/p>\n
simply said as there was no dispute of the land of plot no. 76 in the case<\/p>\n
before the A.C.O. and alleged compromise-deed was based on fraud and<\/p>\n
misrepresentation and such compromise was never entered between the<\/p>\n
parties. Firstly there was no evidence of fraud and misrepresentation and<\/p>\n
forgery on the record before the S.O.C. Secondly, there is no such finding<\/p>\n
of the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. of fraud and misrepresentation and forgery by<\/p>\n
the petitioners. Partly for the land of plot no. 75, order of the A.C.O. was<\/p>\n
confirmed by both the courts and orders were passed against the petitioners<\/p>\n
on the basis of the compromise and their objections under Section 9 of<\/p>\n
C.H.Act were dismissed. Sufficient reasons are not given why the<\/p>\n
Compromise for the land of plot no. 76 was not accepted and if it was not<\/p>\n
filed by the respondents and it was not a valid Compromise, why it was<\/p>\n
accepted in part and why the objections under Section 9 C.H. Act of the
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners were not decided on merit. These orders of S.O.C. and D.D.C.<\/p>\n
are prejudicial to the right of the petitioners regarding the land in dispute.<\/p>\n
      In the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned orders passed<\/p>\n
by the learned D.D.C. and S.O.C. are liable to be set aside and case is to be<\/p>\n
remanded back to the court of S.O.C. to decide the appeal again in the light<\/p>\n
of observations made above.\n<\/p>\n
      Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed. Finding recorded<\/p>\n
by the D.D.C. and the S.O.C. are hereby set aside. Case is remitted back to<\/p>\n
the court of S.O.C. and first he will decide whether parties entered into the<\/p>\n
compromise or not and compromise is valid or not.\n<\/p>\n
      If it is found that the same was filed then its validity will be seen for<\/p>\n
the land of plot no. 76 in the light of Law referred above. However, if it is<\/p>\n
found that parties did not entered into such compromise then the learned<\/p>\n
S.O.C. will take steps to get decided the objections raised by the petitioners<\/p>\n
under Section 9 of the C.H. Act giving opportunity of filing reply and<\/p>\n
adducing evidence to both the parties. However, the matter is very old.<\/p>\n
Learned S.O.C. will take all steps so that the matter should be decided<\/p>\n
within three months from the date when the copy of this order is placed<\/p>\n
before him or record is received in his court.\n<\/p>\n
      Copy of this order be sent to the District Magistrate of the district<\/p>\n
concerned to see the compliance the order of this Court.<\/p>\n
07.07.2010
\nKaushal\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 2010 1 RESERVED Court No. – 10 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. – 6531 of 1985 Petitioner :- Shahzade And Others. Respondent :- D.D.C.& Others Petitioner Counsel :- Haidar Abbas,R.K. Sharma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kalra,Shyam Mohan Hon’ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J. Heard learned counsel […]<\/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-106176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 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\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-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=\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-27T08:59:55+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-27T08:59:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1696,\"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\\\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-27T08:59:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 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":"Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 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\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-27T08:59:55+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-27T08:59:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010"},"wordCount":1696,"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\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010","name":"Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-27T08:59:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahzade-and-others-vs-d-d-c-others-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shahzade And Others. vs D.D.C.& Others on 7 July, 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\/106176","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=106176"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106176\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}