{"id":117394,"date":"2010-06-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010"},"modified":"2015-02-16T16:28:00","modified_gmt":"2015-02-16T10:58:00","slug":"jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Principal &#8230; on 18 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Principal &#8230; on 18 June, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                                                   Court No.21\n\n\n            Civil Misc. Writ Petition (PIL) No.35248 of 2010\n\nJai Singh                              .............. Petitioner\n\n                       Versus\n\nState of U.P. and others               .............. Respondents\n\n\n\nHon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>Hon&#8217;ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Heard Sri H.R. Misra, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri<br \/>\nK.M. Misra for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the<br \/>\nState.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This is a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner is a practising<br \/>\nAdvocate of this Court for about last 34 years. By this petition, he has<br \/>\nchallenged the validity of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Stamp<br \/>\n(Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 on the ground that under Rule 4(2)<br \/>\nof the said rules the Collector of the District has been given unbridled<br \/>\nunguided power to determine and revise the Circle Rates of<br \/>\nimmoveable property within the territorial limit of the District for<br \/>\ncharging Stamp Duty upon the instrument containing the transactions<br \/>\nof conveyance, as such, Rule 4 of said rules suffers from vice              of<br \/>\nexcessive delegation. It is stated that Rules 1997 does not provide any<br \/>\nguiding principle or the material to be taken into consideration by the<br \/>\nAuthority, to whom the power has been delegated under Rule 4 of the<br \/>\nRules, 1997 to determine\/revise the minimum value (Circle Rate) of the<br \/>\nimmovable property of the area for the purpose of imposing Stamp<br \/>\nduty. The Government also did not frame separate guidelines fixing the<br \/>\nnorms and the principles for evaluating the minimum rate\/market value<br \/>\nof the area to be determined by Authority concerned. Thus, the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Authority\/District Magistrate having been conferred unbridled and<br \/>\nunfettered power under Rule 4 to revise the Circle Rate of the area as<br \/>\nsuch the rule in question is also altra vires the Parent Act. It is stated<br \/>\nthat Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 1997 is unconstitutional and invalid on the<br \/>\nground that the rule making authority, that is the Government cannot<br \/>\nfurther delegate the District Collector to determine the minimum<br \/>\nvalue\/Circle Rate of the area.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is stated that earlier to the aforesaid rule, there was another<br \/>\nrule namely U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942. Chapter XV of the said Rules<br \/>\nprovided the rules for determining the market value of certain<br \/>\ninstrument. Under Rule 341-E of which it was provided that for the<br \/>\npurposes of payment of Stamp Duty, the minimum market value of<br \/>\nimmoveable property forming the subject matter of an instrument<br \/>\nreferred to under in Clause (c) of 340(1) may be equal to the value<br \/>\nworked out on the basis of average price per square metre prevailing in<br \/>\nthe locality on the date of instrument. Whereas under new rules 1997,<br \/>\nno such guidelines or principles is provided for fixation of minimum rate<br \/>\nfor valuation of land. The aforesaid rules existing earlier has been<br \/>\nsuperseded and repealed       by 1997 Rules. Therefore, the aforesaid<br \/>\nguiding factor existing under earlier rules have no application under the<br \/>\nnew rule 1997 and now it is open for the Collector to fix Circle Rate in<br \/>\nwhimsical and arbitrary manner as he likes, therefore, merely on this<br \/>\nground alone the provisions of said Rules can be struck down by this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is stated that the Government policy of converting Nazul land<br \/>\nheld by the lease-holders into free-hold contained in various<br \/>\ngovernment orders issued from time to time has resulted in big<br \/>\ncolonizers and land- mafias of the area becoming active, inasmuch as<br \/>\nhaving got nomination by the original lease-holders in their favour, they<br \/>\ngot it converted into free-hold in their name converting them into small<br \/>\nplots and constructing multi-storied residential colonies, commercial<br \/>\ncomplexes, hospitals etc. extracting huge profits out of the same. In<br \/>\nthis way, the big colonizers, land-mafias and the persons having lot of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>black-money with the help of higher ups of the local administration<br \/>\nhave formed a caucus and succeeded in their illegal design in getting<br \/>\ndisproportionate enhancement of the Circle Rate in District Allahabad<br \/>\nparticularly in City Allahabad.\n<\/p>\n<p>         It is stated that the Circle Rates revised by the Collector in the<br \/>\nimpugned notification is highly exorbitant and the same are not<br \/>\nreflective of the true minimum value of the land of area, inasmuch as<br \/>\nthe rates have been enhanced 10 to 15 times based on no justifiable<br \/>\nmaterial or factors to be taken into consideration for determining the<br \/>\nminimum value (Circle Rate) of the land of the area. It is stated that the<br \/>\nimpugned notification contains the highest circle rate at Mahatma<br \/>\nGandhi Marg to the tune of Rs. 27,000\/- per sq. metre from High Court<br \/>\nHanuman Mandir to Hanuman Mandir (Hanumat Niketan). Likewise,<br \/>\nRs. 24,000\/-per sq. metre for the Elgin Road (From Cooper Road<br \/>\nChauraha to Prayag Sangeet Samiti) and these rates are not based<br \/>\nupon taking into consideration the relevant material for the said<br \/>\npurpose like sale-exemplar of the area, previous transactions, location,<br \/>\netc. rather, it has been whimsically fixed on account of the impact of<br \/>\nthe various transactions of the area carried out through big colonizers,<br \/>\nland-mafias by first getting the land converting into free-hold and<br \/>\ncreating multi-stories colonies, complexes etc. over the same. Thus,<br \/>\nthe impugned notification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n<p>         While demonstrating the arbitrary fixation of the Circle Rates of<br \/>\nimmovable properties in urban areas of Allahabad City certain other<br \/>\nnotification containing circle rates, earlier fixed by the Collector<br \/>\nAllahabad have also been brought on record by filing supplementary<br \/>\naffidavit in the said writ petition. It is stated that on 1.4.2006 a<br \/>\nnotification fixing Circle Rates of urban area of City Allahabad has<br \/>\nbeen issued for a period of two years but before expiry of said period<br \/>\nanother notification fixing further enhanced Circle Rates of the same<br \/>\nurban area has been issued on 11.6.2007 and on expiry of merely nine<br \/>\nmonths before expiry of even one year what to say of two years<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>another notification dated 20.8.2008 enhancing the circle rates of the<br \/>\nsame urban areas has been issued again by Collector, Allahabad.\n<\/p>\n<p>     While demonstrating arbitrary fixation of circle rates, it is stated<br \/>\nthat in the notification dated 1.4.2006 for residential purposes the<br \/>\nCircle Rates of land of civil area of Allahabad City has been fixed<br \/>\nRs.8,000\/- to Rs.9000\/- per sq. meter according to site of land and<br \/>\nwidth of road where the land is situated and for commercial purposes it<br \/>\nwas fixed Rs. 11000\/- to Rs. 12000\/- but in subsequent notification<br \/>\ndated 11.6.2007 the Circle Rats of the aforesaid area has been<br \/>\nenhanced for residential purposes from Rs. 9000\/- to Rs. 10000\/- and<br \/>\nfor commercial purposes from Rs. 14000\/- to Rs. 15000\/-. Immediately<br \/>\nthereafter Circle Rates of civil area has been      again enhanced for<br \/>\nresidential purposes from Rs. 16000\/- to Rs. 17000\/- and for<br \/>\ncommercial purposes from Rs. 18000\/- to Rs. 20000\/-. It appears that<br \/>\nagain vide notification dated 20.8.2008 the circle rates of Nawab Yusuf<br \/>\nRoad, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Sardar Patel Marg and Elgin Road for<br \/>\nresidential purposes Rs. 16000\/- to Rs.17000\/- in preceding year have<br \/>\nbeen enhanced to Rs. 24000\/- Rs.27000\/- per sq. meter.           Similar<br \/>\nenhancement of Circle Rates have also been shown in respect of other<br \/>\nareas of Allahabad City. At the strength of aforesaid notifications<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the City<br \/>\nAllahabad, the Collector Allahabad has enhanced the Circle Rates<br \/>\nabout 300% within two years four months since 1.4.2006 to 20.8.2008<br \/>\ni.e. about three times of the existing circle rate as on 1.4.2006,<br \/>\nwhereas it could be revised biennially (on expiry of two years). The<br \/>\nrevisions of circle rates have been made three occasions during short<br \/>\nspan of two years four months arbitrarily, without any genuine sale,<br \/>\nexemplars and justifiable materials, despite thereof, learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner told us on the basis of news published in Daily News<br \/>\nPaper &#8220;Dainik Jagran&#8221;       that the Collector Allahabad is going to<br \/>\nenhance circle rate of the District from July, 2010 again.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the<br \/>\nlearned Senior counsel for the petitioner       has submitted that the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>aforesaid action of Collector, Allahabad is not merely based on<br \/>\ncolourable and\/or arbitrary exercise of power rather it is fraud on the<br \/>\npower. It is a case of extortion of money by State functionary from the<br \/>\npeople in one hand and on other hand diverting the immovable<br \/>\nproperty of City Allahabad in the hands of land-mafias and persons<br \/>\nhaving huge black money. He told us that on account of arbitrary<br \/>\nfixation of circle rate, the common and middle class people are feeling<br \/>\naggrieved by undue escalation of price of land of City Allahabad and<br \/>\npersons having black-money are investing the money in purchasing the<br \/>\nland for the reason that such person can not deposit black-money in<br \/>\nBank and the interest rate of which can also not match the escalation<br \/>\nin price of land during said period. In this view of the matter, he has<br \/>\nsubmitted and prayed for indulgence of this Court to protect Public<br \/>\nInterest by keeping the State machineries within the limits of its<br \/>\npowers.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In our opinion, submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nhave some substance and require serious consideration by this Court.<br \/>\nSince the validity of 1997 has also been challenged in the writ petition,<br \/>\ntherefore hearing of the learned Advocate General, U.P. is necessary<br \/>\nin the case. Issue notice to the learned Advocate General, U.P. fixing<br \/>\n16.7.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned standing counsel is directed to file counter affidavit<br \/>\nwithin three weeks on behalf of respondents. The counter affidavit shall<br \/>\nbe sworn by the officer of State Government atleast status of Secretary<br \/>\nto the Government of concerned department. While filing said counter<br \/>\naffidavit he shall also file complete compilation of     of Government<br \/>\nOrders containing the policy of Govt. for conversion of Nazul lease land<br \/>\ninto free-hold land issued by Government from time to time by now.<br \/>\nWhile filing said affidavit, the Secretary of the Government shall clearly<br \/>\nindicate the person in whose favour the lease land of Nazul can be<br \/>\nconverted into free hold and circumstances under which it can be so<br \/>\nconverted? Further as to whether the conversion of Nazul lease land<br \/>\ninto free hold is permissible into Government Orders in favour of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>nominee of lesee, if so as to whether         such policy permits illegal<br \/>\ntransaction of sale of property or lease hold rights in favour of<br \/>\nnominees which is otherwise contrary to provisions         of law and on<br \/>\naccount of such provisions containing such conversion as to whether<br \/>\nthe Government is suffering loss of Stamp Duty which could be<br \/>\notherwise realized by the Government on transfer of lease hold right of<br \/>\nthe land in question? And further as to whether on account of these<br \/>\nfactors, such provision contained in Government Orders can be held<br \/>\njustified or not? And further as to whether due to such provision the<br \/>\nlease holders of Nazul land are making profit by selling their land to the<br \/>\nnominees by defeating the provisions of Registration Act, Transfer of<br \/>\nproperty Act and Indian Stamp Act which is not permissible under law?<br \/>\nThe Secretary shall further state that if the Government permits the<br \/>\nnominee of lease holders of Nazul land for conversion of Nazul land<br \/>\ninto free hold land as to why the occupiers of Nazul lease land can not<br \/>\nbe conferred such right of converting Nazul lease land into free hold<br \/>\nland in their favour in our welfare state?\n<\/p>\n<p>      The Collector Allahabad is also directed to file another counter<br \/>\naffidavit sworn by him making specific reply of assertions made in the<br \/>\nwrit petition and supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. While<br \/>\nfiling said counter affidavit the Collector Allahabad shall also verify the<br \/>\nnotifications containing the Circle Rates of urban areas of Allahabad<br \/>\nCity filed by the petitioner as Annexure No.1 of the writ petition and as<br \/>\nAnnexure Nos. SA-1, SA-2 and SA.3 of the supplementary affidavit<br \/>\nfiled by the petitioner and state specifically as to whether the Circle<br \/>\nRates mentioned in the aforesaid notifications are correctly mentioned<br \/>\nin the photostate copy filed by the petitioner or not? If necessary, he<br \/>\nshall file correct copy of notifications containing the Circle Rates of the<br \/>\nAllahabad City allegedly issued on 20.8.2008, 6.11.2007 and 1.4.2006<br \/>\nas enclosed in the supplementary affidavit. Besides the aforesaid<br \/>\nnotifications, the Collector Allahabad shall also file the notifications of<br \/>\nCircle Rates of immovable property of urban areas of Allahabad City<br \/>\npreceding the years of 2006. If such notifications were issued earlier in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>2004, 2002 and 2000 and file the copy of notification containing the<br \/>\nCircle Rates of immovable property of Allahabad City alone.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The Collector, Allahabad shall also indicate          the names of<br \/>\nCollectors who had issued aforesaid notifications fixing Circle Rates of<br \/>\nAllahabad City as indicated hereinbefore in aforesaid years and their<br \/>\npresent place of posting alongwith their full particulars of residence<br \/>\nwhether they are working or retired from service.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the said counter affidavit the Collector, Allahabad shall also file<br \/>\na comparative chart of Circle Rates fixed in the aforesaid areas for the<br \/>\nland of commercial and residential purposes of Allahabad City<br \/>\nparticularly pointing out atleast prominent Mohallas like Civil Lines,<br \/>\nAshok Nagar, Katra, Mumfordganj, Darbhanga Colony, George Town,<br \/>\nTagore Town, Colonelganj, Allahapur, Alopibagh, Daraganj, Bairahana,<br \/>\nTularam Bagh, North and South Malaka, Keydganj, Chowk, Myorabad,<br \/>\nRajapur, Mehdauri Colony, Govind Nagar Colony, Chhota and Bara<br \/>\nBaghara, Tubewell Colony, Naini, Jhunsi, Fafamau and the aforesaid<br \/>\nareas identified through roads particularly mentioning the Circle Rates<br \/>\nfixed from time to time in respect of civil areas of Nawab Yusuf Road,<br \/>\nMahatma Gandhi Marg, Sardar Patel Marg, Elgin Road, Kamla Nehru<br \/>\nRoad, Sarojani Road, Droumand Road, Stretchy Road, Thornhil Road,<br \/>\nPatrika Marg, Ponappa Marg, Muir Road, Auckland Road, Circular<br \/>\nRoad, Minto Road, Stainley Road etc. and other roads like University<br \/>\nRoad, Hasimpur, Bank Road and roads passing through George Town<br \/>\nand Darbhanga Kaisal and other localities including Panna Lal Road,<br \/>\nLouder Road, Motilal Nehru Road, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Lidle Road,<br \/>\nChurch Lane, Madanmohan Malviya Road, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road,<br \/>\nHamilton Road or Amarnath Jha Marg and other areas from the<br \/>\naforesaid notifications issued in aforesaid years, showing the<br \/>\npercentage     of increase in circle rates in specific columns. The<br \/>\nCollector Allahabad shall also file sketch map of City Allahabad<br \/>\nindicating names of Road passing through particular Mohalla or<br \/>\nlocality.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Besides this the Collector Allahabad is also directed to place<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>material alongwith counter affidavit on the basis of which Circle Rates<br \/>\nhave been determined by the Collector Allahabad from time to time<br \/>\nwhile issuing the aforesaid notifications. The aforesaid counter affidavit<br \/>\nshall be filed immediately on the date of expiry of three weeks. The<br \/>\nCollector and A.D.M. Nazul, Allahabad shall also remain present in the<br \/>\nCourt in person on the date fixed by this Court i.e. on 16.07.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>        List on 16.07.2010 as part heard before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Registrar General is directed to communicate this order to the<br \/>\nSecretary Finance and Revenue U.P. Govt. Lucknow and District<br \/>\nMagistrate, Allahabad through fax forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>        A copy of this order also be given to Learned Chief Standing<br \/>\nCounsel, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi for communication and necessary action<br \/>\nfree of costs forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dt.18.06.2010<\/p>\n<p>Pk\/LJ\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Principal &#8230; on 18 June, 2010 Court No.21 Civil Misc. Writ Petition (PIL) No.35248 of 2010 Jai Singh &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. Respondents Hon&#8217;ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J. Hon&#8217;ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J. Heard Sri H.R. Misra, learned Senior counsel assisted [&hellip;]<\/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-117394","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#039; Principal ... on 18 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#039; Principal ... on 18 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-16T10:58:00+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\\\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Principal &#8230; on 18 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-16T10:58:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2471,\"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\\\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Principal ... on 18 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-16T10:58:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Principal &#8230; on 18 June, 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":"Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Principal ... on 18 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Principal ... on 18 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-16T10:58:00+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\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Principal &#8230; on 18 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-16T10:58:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010"},"wordCount":2471,"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\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010","name":"Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Principal ... on 18 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-16T10:58:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-principal-on-18-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jai Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Principal &#8230; on 18 June, 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\/117394","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=117394"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117394\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}