{"id":128271,"date":"2011-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-10-20T16:17:22","modified_gmt":"2015-10-20T10:47:22","slug":"jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave<\/div>\n
                                                                               REPORTABLE\n\n\n                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5461 OF 2011\n\n                 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14396 of 2010]\n\n\n\n\nJalandhar Improvement Trust                           .... Appellant\n\n\n\n\n\n                                        Versus\n\n\n\n\n\nVinod Kumar & Ors.                                                .... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. For the reasons stated  in the application for condonation of <\/p>\n
      delay,   we   are   of   the   view   that   there   is   sufficient   cause   for <\/p>\n
      such condonation.  Accordingly, delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n
2. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
3.    This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated <\/p>\n
      30.04.2009  passed  by  the  High  Court  of Punjab  & Haryana <\/p>\n
      at   Chandigarh   in   Civil   Writ   Petition   No.   10203   of   2007, <\/p>\n
      whereby   the   High   Court   disposed   of   the   writ   petition   by <\/p>\n
      remanding back the matter to the Settlement Commissioner <\/p>\n
      for   considering   the   claims   of   the   respondents   while <\/p>\n
      maintaining status quo in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that <\/p>\n
      the land in dispute belongs to the State.  It is averred by the <\/p>\n
      respondents   that  they   have  occupied   the   land   in   dispute   in <\/p>\n
      the   year   1947,   measuring   2-1\/2   kanals   in   Khasra   No. <\/p>\n
      16693\/6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme as they <\/p>\n
      were   displaced   persons   from   Pakistan.     On   the   other   hand <\/p>\n
      the appellant – Improvement Trust Jalandhar has stated that <\/p>\n
      respondents   encroached   the  said   land  which  belongs   to  the <\/p>\n
      Government.\n<\/p>\n
5.    An Award was passed on 05.01.1977 by the Land Acquisition <\/p>\n
      Collector, Jalandhar Improvement Trust in Land Acquisition <\/p>\n
      No.   1  of   1975-76   and   in   the   said   Award,   it   was   stated   that <\/p>\n
      the   State   Government   (Local   Government)   vide   their <\/p>\n
      notification   No.   8080-3CI-75\/21963   dated   the   10th  July, <\/p>\n
      1975,   issued   under   Section   42   of   the   Punjab   Town <\/p>\n
      Improvement   Act,   1922,   accorded   sanction   to   the <\/p>\n
      Development   Scheme   for   an   area   measuring   approximately <\/p>\n
                                      Page 2 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
      55.0   acres   on   Police   Lines   Road,   behind   Commissioner’s <\/p>\n
      Office,   Jalandhar   framed   by   the   Jalandhar   Improvement <\/p>\n
      Trust.   The   aforesaid   Trust   vide   its   Memorandum   No. <\/p>\n
      JIT\/3058   dated   the   26th  July,   1975,   applied   for   the <\/p>\n
      acquisition   of   the   non-evacuee   and   composite   property <\/p>\n
      comprised   in   the   Scheme   under   the   Land   Acquisition   Act, <\/p>\n
      1894.   It   was   also   stated   in   the   aforesaid   award   that <\/p>\n
      according to the acquisition file prepared by the revenue staff <\/p>\n
      of   the   Trust   total   area   of   the   scheme   works   out   to   be   598 <\/p>\n
      Kanal   2   Marlas   and   out   of   this   area   measuring   69   Kanals <\/p>\n
      and   2  Marlas   belongs   to   the   Improvement   Trust,   Jalandhar <\/p>\n
      itself.   The   aforesaid   Award   included   the   area   in   dispute <\/p>\n
      which is the subject matter of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
6.    The respondents, however, contended inter alia that they are <\/p>\n
      in occupation of the said land by way of evacuee property as <\/p>\n
      they   were  being  displaced   persons  from  Pakistan.    The said <\/p>\n
      land   was   transferred   to   the   Improvement   Trust,   Jalandhar <\/p>\n
      for   the   execution   of   55.0   Acres   Development   Scheme <\/p>\n
      developed by the Punjab Government.   The Land Acquisition <\/p>\n
      Collector   vide   its   Award   dated   5th  January,   1977   held   that <\/p>\n
      the   land   occupied   by   the   respondents   had   already   been <\/p>\n
                                      Page 3 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
   received   by   the   Improvement   Trust,   Jalandhar   in   the <\/p>\n
   package deal.\n<\/p>\n
7. Respondents   filed   an   application   for   grant   of   proprietary <\/p>\n
   rights  in respect of land  measuring  2-1\/2 kanals in Khasra <\/p>\n
   No.   16693\/6729   in   the   55.0   Acres   Development   Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
   However, the application filed by the respondents for grant of <\/p>\n
   proprietary   rights   was   dismissed   by   the   Naib   Tehsildar   (S), <\/p>\n
   M.O.   Jalandhar   on   03.08.1981   on   the   ground   that   the <\/p>\n
   aforesaid   area   had   already   been   acquired   by   the <\/p>\n
   Improvement Trust Jalandhar and that it was not an evacuee <\/p>\n
   property.\n<\/p>\n
8. The   respondents   then   filed   appeals   before   the   Settlement <\/p>\n
   Commissioner,            Punjab,         Rehabilitation         Department, <\/p>\n
   Jalandhar   against   the   order   dated   03.08.1981   which   were <\/p>\n
   accepted   by   the   Settlement   Commissioner   vide   its   order <\/p>\n
   dated   5.10.1981   and   remanded   the   matter   to   the   Tehsildar <\/p>\n
   (S)-cum-M.O., Jalandhar for fresh decision, after hearing the <\/p>\n
   respondents.\n<\/p>\n
9. In   the   meantime   the   predecessor-in-interest   of   the <\/p>\n
   respondents   Nos.   1   &   2   filed   a   civil   suit   seeking   for <\/p>\n
                                 Page 4 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
  injunction          restraining          the         appellant         herein         from <\/p>\n
  dispossessing   the   predecessor-in-interest   from   the   land <\/p>\n
  illegally, unlawfully or by force.  The Trial Court, namely, the <\/p>\n
  Sub Judge passed an order in the said suit that the plaintiff <\/p>\n
  would  not be  dispossessed from  the   suit  property  otherwise <\/p>\n
  than in due course of law.   The said order of the Trial Court <\/p>\n
  was also upheld by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar <\/p>\n
  vide his judgment dated 18.01.1985.\n<\/p>\n
10.Subsequent   to   the   aforesaid   order,   an   application   under <\/p>\n
  Sections   5   and   7   of   the   Punjab   Public   Premises   Land <\/p>\n
  [Eviction and Rent Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1973 [hereinafter <\/p>\n
  referred   to   as   the   “Eviction   Act”]   was   filed   by   the   appellant <\/p>\n
  initiating   a   proceeding   for   eviction   of   the   respondents.     The <\/p>\n
  competent authority issued notice to the respondents and at <\/p>\n
  the   stage   when   the   said   proceeding   was   at   the   stage   of <\/p>\n
  evidence, the file of the case lost, consequent upon which the <\/p>\n
  proceeding was stopped.\n<\/p>\n
11.In the meantime the respondents filed a Writ Petition before <\/p>\n
  the   Punjab   and   Haryana   High   Court   contending   inter   alia <\/p>\n
  that the aforesaid land is an evacuee property and therefore <\/p>\n
                                     Page 5 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
  the aforesaid initiation of proceedings under Sections  5 and <\/p>\n
  7   of   the   Punjab   Public   Premises   Land   [Eviction   and   Rent <\/p>\n
  Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1973 is without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
12. The appellant herein filed a counter affidavit in the said writ <\/p>\n
  petition.     The  High   Court  by   its   order   dated   12.05.2006 <\/p>\n
  disposed   of   the   said   writ   petition   by   holding   that   if   the <\/p>\n
  Settlement   Commissioner   finds   that   the   claim   of   the <\/p>\n
  respondents  is  without any merit and   they  are  not entitled <\/p>\n
  to   any   alternative   sites\/rehabilitation   then   they   would   also <\/p>\n
  have   no   action   to   claim   to   retain   the   sites   which   are   under <\/p>\n
  their possession.   Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the <\/p>\n
  High Court the matter was placed before the Sub Divisional <\/p>\n
  Magistrate,   Jalandhar   by   the   respondents   herein   for <\/p>\n
  allotment of property comprising in Khasra No. 16693\/6729 <\/p>\n
  situated in Bhisti Darwaja, Civil Lines, Jalandhar.\n<\/p>\n
13.The   Sub   Divisional   Magistrate,   Jalandhar   passed   an   order <\/p>\n
  dated 27.04.2007 holding that the case could not be decided <\/p>\n
  in   view   of   repeal   of   Displaced   Persons   (Compensation   & <\/p>\n
  Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by the Ministry of Law and Justice, <\/p>\n
  Legislative Department, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
                                  Page 6 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
14.Thereupon,   the   respondents   herein   filed   a   separate   writ <\/p>\n
   petition  for  quashing   the  order  dated   27.04.2007  passed  by <\/p>\n
   the Settlement Commissioner which was registered as 10203 <\/p>\n
   of 2007.  In the said writ petition the State of Punjab filed its <\/p>\n
   counter   affidavit   in   which   it   was   averred   that   the <\/p>\n
   respondents   have   already   transferred   their   land   which   was <\/p>\n
   being used as residential. With regard to the remaining land <\/p>\n
   being   used   for   Dairy,   it   was   stated   that   they   are   not   using <\/p>\n
   the   said   land   as   the   Dairy   business   has   been   shifted   to <\/p>\n
   Jamsher   Tehsil   Jalondha   in   the   light   of   the   decision   of <\/p>\n
   Municipal Corporation of Jalandhar wherein the respondents <\/p>\n
   have   been   allotted   four   different   plots   bearing   Nos.   139   to <\/p>\n
   142 vide letter dated 12.03.2008.\n<\/p>\n
15. The  High   Court   passed   an  order   dated   30.04.2009   which   is <\/p>\n
   the   impugned   order   herein   and   whereby   the  High   Court <\/p>\n
   remanded   back   the   matter   to   the   Settlement   Commissioner <\/p>\n
   once   again   to   consider   the   claims   of   the   respondents   and <\/p>\n
   also   stayed   their   dispossession   till   the   matter   is   decided   by <\/p>\n
   the Settlement Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                   Page 7 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
16.Being   aggrieved   by   the   said   order   the   present   appeal   was <\/p>\n
   filed   on   which   we   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for <\/p>\n
   the parties. Counsel appearing for the parties have taken us <\/p>\n
   meticulously through the entire records.\n<\/p>\n
17.There can be no dispute with regard to the fact that the land <\/p>\n
   in dispute is a part of the Award and the same belongs to the <\/p>\n
   Punjab   Town   Improvement\/Government   being   a   part   of <\/p>\n
   development   scheme.     The   respondents   claimed   to   be   in <\/p>\n
   possession   of   the   said   land   as   an   evacuee   property.     If   in <\/p>\n
   case the respondents were in possession of the said land as <\/p>\n
   an   evacuee   property   and   not   as   encroachers   meaning <\/p>\n
   thereby   holding   right   and   title   to   hold   and   possess   such <\/p>\n
   land,   they   were   required   to   challenge   the   Award   passed   on <\/p>\n
   05.01.1977.   The said Award having not been challenged by <\/p>\n
   the  respondents   the  same   has  become   final  and  binding  on <\/p>\n
   all concerned.\n<\/p>\n
18.The   civil   suit   filed   by   the   predecessor-in-interest   of   the <\/p>\n
   respondents   Nos.   1   &   2   was   disposed   of   by   the   trial   court, <\/p>\n
   namely,   the   Sub   Judge   with   a   direction   that   the   plaintiff <\/p>\n
   would  not be  dispossessed from  the   suit  property  otherwise <\/p>\n
                                   Page 8 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
than in due course of law as respondents were in possession <\/p>\n
of the land, may be as encroachers.  Consequent thereto, the <\/p>\n
appellant has moved the competent authority for initiation of <\/p>\n
proceedings   under   the   Punjab   Public   Premises   Land <\/p>\n
(Eviction   and   Rent   Recovery)   Act,   1973.     In   the   said <\/p>\n
proceedings   all   the   issues   could   be   urged   as   to   whether   or <\/p>\n
not   the   respondents   are   owners   and   have   their   rights   over <\/p>\n
the disputed land and also as to whether or not appellant is <\/p>\n
owner of the land and as to whether or not the respondents <\/p>\n
are   authorised   occupants   or  unauthorised   occupants   of   the <\/p>\n
land.  It was also averred clearly in the writ petition and also <\/p>\n
in   this   appeal   that   the   respondents   have   been   allotted   four <\/p>\n
alternative plots in lieu of their occupation of the land which <\/p>\n
is part of the disputed land.  The aforesaid fact although has <\/p>\n
been   disputed   by   the   respondents   in   their   counter   affidavit <\/p>\n
but   no  documentary   evidence   has  been  placed  on  record  to <\/p>\n
indicate   that   the   aforesaid   land   was   not   allotted   by   the <\/p>\n
Government to the respondents and that they had purchased <\/p>\n
the   land   by   paying   full   consideration   thereof   from   the <\/p>\n
competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
                               Page 9 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
19.Be that as it may, as to whether or not the respondents are <\/p>\n
  lawful   owners   of   the   land   in   question   or   they   are   mere <\/p>\n
  encroachers and liable to be evicted would be gone into and <\/p>\n
  decided   although   in   a   summary   manner   in   the   proceedings <\/p>\n
  which were initiated against them.\n<\/p>\n
20. Since the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 has been  repealed, we <\/p>\n
  see no justification in the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by <\/p>\n
  the High Court remanding back the matter to the Settlement <\/p>\n
  Commissioner to consider the claim of the respondents once <\/p>\n
  again   inasmuch   as   the   issue   as   to   whether   or   not <\/p>\n
  respondents   are   authorised   or   unauthorised   occupants   of <\/p>\n
  the land in dispute and as to whether or not the respondents <\/p>\n
  are entitled  to  alternative plots  or rehabilitation are matters <\/p>\n
  which   can   be   adjudicated   upon   separately   in   accordance <\/p>\n
  with   law   but   not   in   the   manner   as   suggested   by   the   High <\/p>\n
  Court.   Even   if   respondents   are   entitled   to   rehabilitation <\/p>\n
  under any law the same has to be established by due process <\/p>\n
  of  law.  But  they   cannot  claim   any   land  within   the   acquired <\/p>\n
  area\/55.0 Acres of Development Scheme but in case an order <\/p>\n
  is   passed   in   their   favour,   they   would   be   rehabilitated   in <\/p>\n
  alternative plot(s).   Therefore, they would have to prove their <\/p>\n
                                Page 10 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
  case   before   the   competent   authority   and   not   before   the <\/p>\n
  Settlement Commissioner.  However, in order to comply with <\/p>\n
  the   directions   of  the   Civil   Court   and   also  for   his  eviction   in <\/p>\n
  accordance   with   law,   proceeding   has   to   be   initiated   under <\/p>\n
  the Public Premises Eviction Act, which stands initiated, and <\/p>\n
  therefore,   the   said   proceeding   should   be   continued   till   the <\/p>\n
  same would come to a logical end.\n<\/p>\n
21. The   respondents   have   not   challenged   the   award   and <\/p>\n
  therefore the aforesaid Award has become final and binding.\n<\/p>\n
  Therefore,   we   set   aside   the   order   passed   by   the  High   Court <\/p>\n
  and   hold   that   the   proceedings   initiated   against   the <\/p>\n
  respondents   under   Sections   5   and   7   of   the   Eviction   Act <\/p>\n
  would   be   allowed   to   be   continued   and   the   same   shall   be <\/p>\n
  brought to a logical end as expeditiously as possible.\n<\/p>\n
22.The land in question is a part of the Development Plan and <\/p>\n
  therefore   the   matter   requires   urgent   consideration.     In   any <\/p>\n
  case   the   land   in   question   being   a   part   of   the   Development <\/p>\n
  Plan   cannot   be   left   to   the   occupation   of   the   respondents   if <\/p>\n
  they are held to be encroachers by passing an interim order.\n<\/p>\n
  Therefore,   in   our   considered   opinion   the   proceedings   to <\/p>\n
                                  Page 11 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
   adjudicate upon and decide as to whether or not respondents <\/p>\n
   are   authorised   or   unauthorised   occupants   of   the   land   in <\/p>\n
   dispute   should   be   completed   and   brought   to   an   end.   As   to <\/p>\n
   whether  or  not  the   respondents   are  encroachers   would  also <\/p>\n
   be   decided   in   the   said   proceeding.       All   other   claims <\/p>\n
   regarding entitlement of alternative plot or rehabilitation and <\/p>\n
   whether or not such land is already allotted as rehabilitation <\/p>\n
   package   could   be   raised   by   the   respondents   only   after   the <\/p>\n
   proceeding   initiated   under   the   Eviction   Act   is   finalised   and <\/p>\n
   also depending on its outcome.\n<\/p>\n
23.Six   months   time   is   granted   to   the   competent   authority   to <\/p>\n
   complete proceedings initiated under Sections 5 and 7 of the <\/p>\n
   Eviction   Act,   so   that,   the   matter   is   disposed   of     as <\/p>\n
   expeditiously   as   possible   as   the   same   is   pending   for   a   very <\/p>\n
   long time.\n<\/p>\n
24. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed and the order passed <\/p>\n
   by the High Court accordingly stands quashed.  We leave the <\/p>\n
   parties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ……………………………………………J<\/p>\n
                                    Page 12 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                   [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]<\/p>\n
                                    ……………………………………………J<\/p>\n
                                              [Anil R. Dave]<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
July 15, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                 Page 13 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011 Author: . M Sharma Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5461 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14396 of 2010] Jalandhar Improvement Trust …. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011 - 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\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-20T10:47:22+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-20T10:47:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2066,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-20T10:47:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011 - 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\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-20T10:47:22+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-20T10:47:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011"},"wordCount":2066,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011","name":"Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-20T10:47:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jalandhar-improvement-trust-vs-vinod-kumar-ors-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 15 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/128271","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=128271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128271\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}