{"id":113424,"date":"2008-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-02T15:53:45","modified_gmt":"2017-03-02T10:23:45","slug":"gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court<\/div>\n
Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU             \nOWP No. 813 of 2007 and OWP No. 814 of 2007    \n\n 1. Gurmukh Singh & Ors  \n  2. Veryam Singh & Ors \n  Petitioners\n\nJ&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors\n  Respondent <\/pre>\n
!Mr. M.R.Qureshi, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
^Mr. S.S.Lehar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhushan Lal, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
Coram:\n<\/p>\n
Mr. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Dated: 14\/07\/2008 <\/p>\n
:judgment:\n<\/p>\n
Khairati Lal, respondent no. 7’s parents, and
\nother adult members of the family were killed by
\nraiders during the disturbances of 1947 in the State
\nof Jammu and Kashmir. Khairati Lal, taken to
\nPakistan Occupied Kashmir during the disturbances,
\nhowever, managed to return after about 6\/7 years.
\nThe properties of the family, in the meanwhile, had
\nbeen however, declared as Evacuees’ Property and
\n2<\/span>
\nallotted to various local, and non-local displaced
\npersons. Khairati Lal had obtained requisite
\ncertificate under Rule 16 (4) of the Rules framed
\nunder the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees’
\n(Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 for
\nrestoration of his property in full. A detailed enquiry
\nappears to have been held in the matter by Assistant
\nCustodian, Rajouri, who directed restoration of the
\nproperty to him. The property, which was in
\npossession of the locals, was restored to his
\npossession whereas only part of the possession of the
\nproperty in occupation of the displaced persons could
\nbe delivered to him as the other displaced persons
\nhad resisted the delivery of possession.
\nCustodian Evacuees’ Property, Jammu,
\ntherefore, directed the Assistant Custodian, Rajouri
\nto deliver the possession of land which stood restored
\nto respondent, Khairati Lal in 1955 pursuant to the
\norders passed by Assistant Custodian, Rajouri in this
\nbehalf. This was done vide his letter No. 930-AP of
\nSeptember 19, 1964.\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
This letter of the Custodian Evacuees’ Property,
\nJammu directing delivery of possession to
\nrespondent Khairati Lal, was questioned by
\nGurbaksh Singh, Jeet Ram, Bishan Singh and Lal
\nSingh, in appeal, before learned Custodian General,
\nwho dismissed it vide his detailed order of January
\n27, 1965.\n<\/p>\n
This decision of the Custodian General remained
\nunquestioned for about twenty two (22) years whereafter
\nthe successors of one Mohan Singh questioned
\nCustodian General’s Order of January 27, 1965 before
\nthe Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu in
\nRevision Petition No. STJ\/A26.\n<\/p>\n
It needs to be noticed, at this stage, that Lal Singh
\nand Mohan Singh are the sons of one Sobha Singh, and
\nthat Mohan Singh, during his life time, had not
\nquestioned the order of restoration of Property in favour
\nof Khairati Lal, respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, however,
\ndismissed the revision petitions as not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
The legal representatives of Mohan Singh i.e.
\nRajinder Kour, his widow, and his sons, And one S.
\nHarjit Singh, son of Lal Singh, appear to have
\nquestioned the Special Tribunal’s Order by OWP Nos.
\n874\/1995 & 76\/1996 in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
These writ petitions were allowed vide judgment of
\nOctober 22, 1998 by issuing a direction to the Tribunal
\nfor fresh decision in the matter in accordance with the
\nobservations made in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Questioning the judgment of learned Single Judge,
\nKhairati Lal, respondent filed two Letters Patent
\nAppeals being LPA (OWP) Nos. 495\/1998 and 634 \/1999
\nwhich were disposed of by a Division Bench of this
\nCourt with the following observations\/directions:-
\n“After hearing learned counsel for the
\nappellant, we do not find any ground to
\ninterfere with the order passed by the learned
\nSingle Judge as we are of the view that the
\nrevision petition before the Tribunal was
\nmaintainable. However, in the circumstances
\nof this case, we direct the Tribunal that
\nbefore deciding the revision petition on merit,
\nit would be apt to framed preliminary issues
\nin regard as to whether the revision petition
\nis filed within time or any sufficient cause
\nhas been made out for condoning the delay in
\nfiling the revision petition and secondly
\nwhether the revision petitioner has a locusstandi
\nto file the revision petition. It is only
\nafter giving finding on the said issue, the
\nrevision petition would be decided on merit, if
\nnecessary. In case the parties wish to lead
\n5<\/span>
\nevidence on the said issues, they shall be
\npermitted to do so.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the above, both these
\nappeals stand disposed of.”\n<\/p>\n
After deciding the issues in terms of the directions
\nissued by the Letters Patent Bench, the Jammu and
\nKashmir Special Tribunal dismissed these revision
\npetitions. Petitioners have approached this Court with
\nthese two writ petitions questioning the order of the
\nSpecial Tribunal dated August 20, 2007 whereby their
\nrevision petitions have been dismissed.
\nAs similar questions have been raised in the two
\nwrit petitions relating, inter alia, to the validity of
\nrestoration of property in favour of Khairati Lal
\nrespondent in both the writ petitions, so these petitions
\ntaken up for joint hearing are being disposed of by this
\ncommon judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
\nsubmitted that the Tribunal had erred in dismissing
\npetitioners’ revision petitions holding these to be barred
\nby time and that principles of natural justice had not
\nbeen violated by the authorities under the Jammu and
\nKashmir State Evacuees’ (Administration of Property)
\n6<\/span>
\nAct, Svt. 2006 in directing restoration and delivery of
\nproperty to respondent Khairati Lal.
\nLearned counsel for Khairati Lal respondent, on
\nthe other hand, submitted that petitioners’ revision
\npetitions were misconceived, in that, they had no right to
\nclaim the property which legally belonged to Khairati
\nLal and during his forced absence from the State of
\nJammu and Kashmir to Pakistan when his parents and
\nother family members had been killed, had been
\ndeclared as Evacuees’ Property. Learned counsel
\nsubmitted that after having returned to the State and
\nobtained requisite permission from the competent
\nauthority under the Jammu and Kashmir State
\nEvacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006
\n(hereinafter to be referred as the “Act”), for restoration of
\nland, to facilitate his settlement in his own State and
\ncountry, Khairati Lal, cannot, by any stretch of
\nreasoning, be deprived of his fundamental right to hold
\nproperty and in securing possession thereof which had
\nbeen ordered to be delivered to him pursuant to the
\norders passed by Assistant Custodian, Rajouri in 1955
\n7<\/span>
\nwhich had not been questioned either by the local
\nallottees or other displaced persons.
\nLearned Counsel strenuously urged that the
\npetitioners had no locus standi to question the
\nrestoration of respondent’s property to him when their
\npredecessors-in-interest had opted not to question the
\nrespondent’s right to restoration and possession thereof
\nby not questioning the appellate order of the Custodian
\nGeneral passed in the year 1965.\n<\/p>\n
It was specifically urged by the learned counsel
\nthat Veryam Singh, his brothers and mother, the
\nsuccessors-in-interest of S. Mohan Singh had no locus
\nstandi to question the order of restoration made in
\nfavour of Khairati Lal respondent, because their
\npredecessor-in-interest, S. Sobha Singh, the father of
\nMohan Singh, had not questioned either the Assistant
\nCustodian’s order of 1955 or that of the Custodian made
\non September 17, 1964.\n<\/p>\n
I have heard learned counsel for the parties,
\nconsidered their submissions and gone through the
\norders passed by the authorities under the Act, and by
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
Records bear testimony, and even otherwise, it is
\nadmitted, on facts, by the parties that the basic order of
\nrestoration of property was made in favour of Khairati
\nLal in the year 1955. All the persons in possession of the
\nproperty, which had been ordered to be restored to
\nKhairati Lal, appear to have been summoned by
\nAssistant Custodian, Rajouri. Whereas only some of
\nthem had appeared in answer to the summons, the
\nothers had opted to remain absent. Even bailable
\nwarrants are shown to have been issued to the allottees
\nfor delivery of possession to Khairati Lal.
\nS. Mohan Singh, one of the allottees, does not
\nappear to have contested either the order of restoration
\nor delivery of possession passed by the Custodian in this
\nbehalf. His brothers had, however, questioned the
\nCustodian’s order of September 17, 1964 before
\nCustodian General. Mohan Singh’s legal representatives
\ntoo had not preferred any proceedings still less an appeal
\nto question the order of the Custodian.
\nIn view of Mohan Singh’s, predecessor-in-interest
\nof Veryam Singh and others, having all along accepted
\nthe order of Assistant Custodian and the Custodian
\n9<\/span>
\ndirecting restoration of evacuees’ property and delivery
\nof possession thereof to Khairati Lal, Veryam Singh and
\nothers, his successors-in-interest, would not be entitled
\nto any fresh hearing in the matter and the submission of
\ntheir counsel, that by not providing hearing to them, the
\norder of Custodian directing delivery of possession to
\nrespondent Khairati Lal was violative of the principles of
\nnatural justice and could not be executed, is misconceived
\nand is, accordingly, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Custodian General’s order passed on January 27,
\n1965 was appealable to the High Court under Section 30
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
No appeal having been preferred against this order
\nby the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest had
\nthus provided finality to the order of the Custodian.
\nJammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal has
\ndismissed petitioners’ revision petitions as barred by
\ntime as it had not found any justification for the delay in
\nfiling the revision petitions after about twenty two years,
\nbesides holding that the petitioners had no locus standi
\nto question the order of restoration made in favour of
\nKhairati Lal respondent.\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
I will now proceed to examine the submissions of
\nlearned counsel for the parties to see as to whether the
\nTribunal has committed any error in dismissing
\npetitioners’ revision petitions as barred by time and
\nwhether the petitioners had no locus standi to question
\nthe restoration of property in favour of Khairati Lal
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
Limitation prescribed for filing revisions, appeals
\nand review against the orders of the authorities under
\nthe Act may be found in the Jammu and Kashmir State
\nEvacuees’ (Administration of Property) Rules, Svt. 2008.
\nRule 27 of these Rules prescribes the period for filing
\nappeals, review and revisions. It reads thus:-
\n“27. Appeal, review and revision
\n(1) All appeals under the Act shall, when they lie
\nto the Custodian, be filed within thirty days of
\nthe date of the order appealed against and
\nwhen they lie to the Custodian General or the
\nHigh Court, within sixty days of such date.
\n(2) The petition or appeal shall be presented in
\nperson or through a legal practitioner or a
\nrecognized agent, when the appeal lies to the
\nCustodian General the petition of appeal may
\nbe sent by registered post.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Every petition shall state sufficiently the
\ngrounds on which order appealed from is
\nattacked and shall be accompanied by a
\ncertified copy of such order unless the appellate
\nauthority dispenses with such copy.\n<\/p>\n
(4) Except as otherwise expressly provided in the
\nAct or in these rules, the procedure laid down
\nin order XLI of Civil Procedure Code shall, so
\nfar as applicable, apply to the hearing and the
\ndisposal of appeals under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
(5) Any petition for revision when made to the
\nCustodian shall ordinarily be filed within
\nthirty days of the order sought to be revised,
\nwhile a petition for revision when made to the
\nCustodian General shall ordinarily be made
\nwithin sixty days of such date. The petition
\nshall be presented in the same manner as a
\npetition of appeal when it is made to the
\nCustodian but it may be sent by registered post
\nwhen made to the Custodian General. The
\npetition shall be accompanied by a certified
\ncopy of the order sought to be revised and when
\nmade to the Custodian General, by also a
\ncertified copy of the original order unless the
\nappellate authority dispenses with the
\nproduction of any such copy.\n<\/p>\n
(6) An application for review of any order may be
\nmade within thirty days of the date of such
\norder and shall be presented either in person
\nor through a legal practitioner or a recognized
\nagent.\n<\/p>\n
(7) The provisions of sections 4, 5, and 12 of the
\nJammu and Kashmir Limitation Act, 1995,
\nshall , so far as they are applicable, apply in
\ncomputing the period of limitation provided in
\nthis rule.\n<\/p>\n
(8) A notice of any appeal, revision or review may
\nbe given in addition to the persons concerned,
\nto any other person who, in the opinion of the
\nauthority hearing the appeal, the revision or
\nthe review, may be interested in the same.
\n(9) Any authority hearing any appeal or revision
\nmay admit additional evidence before its final
\ndisposal or may remand the case of admission
\nof additional evidence and report or for a fresh
\ndecision, as such authority may deem f it.”
\nPerusal of above quoted rule demonstrates the
\nintention of the rule making authorities to prescribe
\nperiod of limitation for filing appeals, review and for
\nmoving motion of revisions against the orders of the
\nauthorities under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Section 30-A of the Act, which was introduced
\nsubsequently in the statute by way of amendment vests
\n12<\/span>
\nadditional powers of revision in the Minister Incharge.
\nThis section uses the same phraseology as had been
\nemployed by the Legislature while enacting section 30 of
\nthe Act in terms whereof power of revision against the
\norders of the officers subordinate to the revisional
\nauthorities vests in the Custodian and the Custodian
\nGeneral.\n<\/p>\n
Although section 30-A does not prescribe any period
\nof limitation for moving motion for revision before the
\nMinister Incharge, yet going by the intention of the rule
\nmaking authority, it is apparent that the Legislature,
\nwhile enacting section 30-A had not intended to oust the
\napplication of the limitation period prescribed under the
\nrules for motions of revisions before the Minister
\nIncharge.\n<\/p>\n
Same period of limitation as prescribed for moving
\na motion for revision before the Custodian General,
\nwould, therefore, by necessary implication, apply to the
\nrevisions, cognizance whereof, may be taken by the
\nMinister Incharge of the Evacuees’ Property Department
\nunder Section 30-A of the Act and now by the Jammu
\nand Kashmir Special Tribunal which has been vested
\n13<\/span>
\nwith the powers which the Minister Incharge would
\nexercise under Section 30-A of the Act.
\nHon’ble the Division Bench of this Court had thus,
\nin this background of the facts and law on the point,
\ndesired the Tribunal to opine as to whether or not any
\nsufficient cause had been made out by the petitioners for
\ncondonation of delay in filing the revision petitions.
\nAs against the finding of the Tribunal that the
\npetitioners had not made out any case to
\ndemonstrate sufficient cause which had disabled
\nthem in filing revision petitions for a period of twenty
\ntwo years, the petitioners have not projected any
\ncause, much less sufficient cause, even in these writ
\npetitions, on the basis whereof, the finding of the
\nTribunal may be faulted.\n<\/p>\n
I am in agreement with the view taken by the
\nSpecial Tribunal that the petitioners had not made
\nout any case much less projecting sufficient cause for
\ncondonation of delay in filing their revision petitions,
\nparticularly, when their predecessor(s)-in-interest
\nhad not questioned the order of the Assistant
\n14<\/span>
\nCustodian, Rajouri restoring the property in favour
\nof Khairati Lal, and had acquiesced to the order
\npassed by the Custodian General dated January 27,
\n1965 for about twenty two years.\n<\/p>\n
Khairati Lal has fundamental right to the
\nproperties left by his predecessors-in-interest who
\nhad been killed in the holocaust of 1947. He could not
\nthus be deprived of his property. Allotment of his
\nproperty, during his temporary and forced absence
\nfrom the State, to the predecessors-in-interest of the
\npetitioners, would not, in any case, vest any such
\nright in the petitioners which can defeat Khairati
\nLal’s ownership rights over his property.
\nPetitioners’ plea that they cannot be deprived of
\nthe possession of the property which had been
\nallotted to them during the period of temporary
\nabsence of Khairati Lal, over which they had
\nacquired proprietary rights in terms of the
\nGovernment orders, is mis-conceived because
\nKhairati Lal’s return to the State for his permanent
\nsettlement would take away all that had been given
\n15<\/span>
\nto the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest.
\nThis is so because the petitioners or their
\npredecessors-in-interest could claim rights of stay on
\nthe property only so long as its status remained as
\nthat of an evacuee property. The property in
\nquestion having ceased to remain as evacuees’
\nproperty, petitioners cannot be said to have retained
\nany right therein which may defeat the absolute
\nright of an owner, like Khairati Lal over his
\nproperties. The petitioners cannot thus deprive
\nKhairati Lal, the owner of the property of the
\npossession thereof.\n<\/p>\n
The writ petitioners had, therefore, no locus
\nstandi to question the orders passed by Assistant
\nCustodian, Rajouri and Custodian General,
\nEvacuees’ Property Jammu and Kashmir and to file
\nrevision petitions before the Jammu and Kashmir
\nSpecial Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
For all what has been said above, I do not find
\nany ground to interfere with the conclusion reached
\n16<\/span>
\nat by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal in
\ndismissing petitioners’ revision petitions.
\nThese writ petitions lack substance and are,
\naccordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU OWP No. 813 of 2007 and OWP No. 814 of 2007 1. Gurmukh Singh & Ors 2. Veryam Singh & Ors Petitioners J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors Respondent !Mr. M.R.Qureshi, Advocate. ^Mr. […]<\/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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - 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\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-02T10:23:45+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-02T10:23:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2769,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-02T10:23:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - 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\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-02T10:23:45+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-02T10:23:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008"},"wordCount":2769,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008","name":"Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-02T10:23:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmukh-singh-ors-vs-jk-spl-tribunal-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurmukh Singh & Ors vs J&K Spl.Tribunal & Ors on 14 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/113424","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=113424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113424\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}