{"id":135159,"date":"2002-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002"},"modified":"2018-08-14T02:53:17","modified_gmt":"2018-08-13T21:23:17","slug":"shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S K Kaul<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S K Kaul<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the<br \/>\nimpugned public notice dated 13.3.2001 threatening to cancel the allotment if no<br \/>\nbuilding is constructed by the allottees of warehousing plots before 30.6.2001 and for<br \/>\ndeclaration that the use of plot for warehousing as separate and distinguished from<br \/>\nindustrial use and thus respondent DDA should not insist on construction of building.<br \/>\nA further plea has been raised restraining respondent DDA from recovering<br \/>\ncomposition fee\/penalty for non-construction of building.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. At the stage of issuing show cause notice on 9.4.2001 the court had set<br \/>\ndown the points urged on behalf of the petitioner as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;(i) Petitioner submits that his case is governed by the applicable<br \/>\nFAR of 150 as per MPD 1962; (ii) the FAR as per MPD 2001,<br \/>\nwhich stands reduced to 60 as against 150, is not applicable to his<br \/>\ncase; and thirdly the petitioner is not required to raise any<br \/>\nconstruction in terms of a policy dated 8.7.1979, applicable to<br \/>\nwarehousing business.\n<\/p>\n<p> Learned counsel for the petitioner after some<br \/>\ndeliberation submits that he is not pressing his last plea.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The mother of the petitioner was allotted plot No. B-6, Kirti Nagar, Delhi<br \/>\nmeasuring 450 sq. yards on leasehold basis in pursuance to the letter dated 9.3.1976.<br \/>\nPossession was taken over on 11.3.1976 and a perpetual lease deed was executed on<br \/>\n30.5.83. Since the mother of the petitioner passed away, the mutation was carried out<br \/>\nin favor of the petitioner vide letter dated 10.3.2000. The mother of the petitioner<br \/>\ndid not construct upon the property and paid composition fee from time to time. On<br \/>\n14.8.2000 the petitioner stated that since timber business was being carried out in the<br \/>\nplot in question no construction was required to be made earlier. However, since for<br \/>\noperation of saw mill puce construction is necessary the petitioner intended to<br \/>\nconstruct a building on the plot. The petitioner also sought waiver of the composition<br \/>\nfee. This was followed by a legal notice dated 19.2.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a difference<br \/>\nbetween warehousing business and industrial user though the perpetual lease deed<br \/>\nrefers to plots as industrial plots.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. It was further contended that there was no provision for levy of<br \/>\ncomposition fee which was being charged.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also sought to rely upon office noting<br \/>\ndated 18.6.79 of the then Vice-Chairman of DDA to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;1. A representation has been made to me that in certain<br \/>\nmarkets like Iron &amp; Steel, timber etc. trade is done in bulk items,<br \/>\nDDA is issuing notices for termination of lease on account of non-construction.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. These are items which require stockyard not covered space,<br \/>\nprovided that in such markets the plot is being put to the use for<br \/>\nwhich it was allotted, we should not cancel the lease on account of<br \/>\nnon-construction. Only if the plot is vacant, the lease of conditions<br \/>\nhaving been violated, or the plot is being misused, action should be<br \/>\ntaken for cancellation of the lease.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Learned counsel thus contended that there can be no question of<br \/>\nrecovery of composition fee in view of the aforesaid noting.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that it is the FAR as per the<br \/>\nearlier Master Plan which would be applicable to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly urged that even if the<br \/>\ncomposition fee is to be charged, the same should not be charged for the whole plot<br \/>\nbut only for the area on which no construction had taken place.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, referred to the<br \/>\nperpetual lease deed to contend that the deed itself provided that construction had to<br \/>\ntake place within a period of two years. This was so in terms of Clause II(4). Learned<br \/>\ncounsel contended that in terms of Clause III of the lease deed the respondent had the<br \/>\nright to re-enter the property on the petitioner not complying with the terms of the<br \/>\nlease. Admittedly the petitioner had not constructed on the property which was a<br \/>\nviolation of the terms of lease. However, the respondent had instead of re-entry<br \/>\nimposed only composition charges in terms of proviso to Clause III which is as<br \/>\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Provided that, not withstanding anything contained herein to the<br \/>\ncontrary, the Lesser may without prejudice to his right of re-entry<br \/>\nas aforesaid; and in his absolute discretion, waive or condone<br \/>\nbreaches, temporarily or otherwise, on receipt of such amount and<br \/>\non such terms and conditions as may be determined by him and<br \/>\nmay also accept the payment of the said sum or sums of the rent<br \/>\nwhich shall be in arrear as aforesaid together with interest at the<br \/>\nrate of ten per cent per annum.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. In this behalf learned counsel fort the respondent also referred to office<br \/>\nnoting dated 18.6.1979 sought to be relied by learned counsel for the petitioner and<br \/>\ncontended that even assuming the said noting applied to only consequences of the<br \/>\nsame was that the lease should not be cancelled on account of non-construction but<br \/>\nthe same did not prohibit recovery of composition fee. In the present case the lease<br \/>\nhad been cancelled but only compensation fee had been charged.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. In the counter affidavit reliance has also been placed on the office order<br \/>\ndated 3.1.1984 issued by the DDA declaring the period up to 31.12.1981 as penalty<br \/>\nfree period in respect of allottees in Kirti Nagar Warehousing Scheme and thus the<br \/>\nearlier noting of the year 1979 did not continue to be in force and stood superceded.<br \/>\nThe said noting is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;The Lt. Governor is pleased to order the period for construction<br \/>\nup to 31.12.81 as penalty for period in r\/o allottees of plots in<br \/>\nNaraina and Kirti Nagar Warehousing Scheme who were given<br \/>\nalternative allotments during the clearance operation of Motia Khan<br \/>\nin the year 1975-76. Normal penalties shall, however, be charged<br \/>\nfor the period of belated construction w.e.f. 1.1.82 onwards.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the predecessor in<br \/>\ninterest of the petitioner had in fact on numerous occasions sought extension of time<br \/>\nfor construction on payment of penalty\/composition fee as per the policy of the<br \/>\nrespondent and had paid the composition fee without any objection. It is further<br \/>\nstated that the composition fee is levied for violation of the terms of the perpetual<br \/>\nlease deed and it has no co-relation with FAR to be covered which is not<br \/>\nconstructed for calculation of the composition fee. It is in fact urged that there is no<br \/>\nplea raised in this behalf about the composition fee being charged not in relation to<br \/>\nthe FAR.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. It is relevant to note that the stage of issuance of show cause notice on<br \/>\n9.4.2001 the petitioner did not press the plea to the effect that no construction was<br \/>\nrequired to be raised by the petitioner in terms of the policy dated 18.6.1979 (wrongly<br \/>\nmentioned as dated 8.7.1979) applicable to the warehousing business. In view of this<br \/>\nstatement it is not open to the petitioner now to raise the said plea.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. It may also be noted that with the counter affidavit respondents have<br \/>\nfiled the subsequent office order dated 3.1.1984 in respect of the scheme in question<br \/>\ndeclaring certain period as penalty free period. Further the office noting only talks<br \/>\nabout the non-cancellation of the lease deed and not non-recovery of composition fee.\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. In so far as the user of the plot is concerned, the plot is question is an<br \/>\nindustrial plot given for warehousing business. The predecessors in interest of the<br \/>\npetitioner executed the lease deed and subsequently the property was mutated in the<br \/>\nname of the petitioner. To contend that there can be no requirement of construction on<br \/>\nthe property in question would be unsustainable. This is a specific term of lease deed<br \/>\nwhich prescribes construction to take place within a period of two years. The<br \/>\nconsequence of not complying with the said term is also prescribed as re-entry but the<br \/>\nproviso to Clause III of the perpetual lease deed given an option to the respondent to<br \/>\ncondone the same temporarily by accepting the payment of the sums on such terms<br \/>\nand conditions as may be determined. The composition fee thus arises as a<br \/>\nconsequent of this term and would thus have no co-relation with the FAR to be<br \/>\nconstructed. It is the consequence of the petitioner not complying with the terms and<br \/>\nconditions of the lease deed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 18. It is also relevant to note to that the original allottee and the predecessor in<br \/>\ninterest of the petitioner in fact paid the composition fee and sought the extensions but<br \/>\ndid not construct upon the property. It is only when the composition fee was levied<br \/>\nsubsequently that the petitioner on mutation of the property in his name sought to<br \/>\nraise this issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>19. In so far as the issue of coverage under the permissible FAR is<br \/>\nconcerned the same has to be governed by the policy in existence when the petitioner<br \/>\nseeks sanction of the plan and starts construction. If larger FAR was permissible and<br \/>\nthe petitioner did not construct at the relevant stage of time, the petitioner cannot take<br \/>\nadvantage of the same by subsequent change of policy. It is the permissible FAR at<br \/>\nthe relevant date which would be material. It is the petitioner who is in default in<br \/>\nconstruction on the property.\n<\/p>\n<p> 20. A plea has also been raised in the writ petition arising from the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 which is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;Section 3 of the Govt. Grants Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>  Section (3) &#8220;Government Grants to take effect according to their<br \/>\ntenor- all provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations, ever<br \/>\ncontained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid, shall be valid<br \/>\nand take effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute or<br \/>\nenactment of the legislature to the contrary notwithstanding.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 21. This plea is based on the fact that lease deed being a Government grant,<br \/>\nthe same should take colour from its terms and conditions. I fail to appreciate how<br \/>\nthe same supports the plea of the petitioner. On the other hand it is contrary to the<br \/>\npleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in as much as the perpetual lease<br \/>\ndeed itself prescribes the requirement of construction and the consequence of failure<br \/>\nof construction including recovery of charges as per proviso to Clause III of the<br \/>\nperpetual lease deed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 22. In view of the aforesaid I find no merit in the writ petition. The same is<br \/>\ndismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002 Author: S K Kaul Bench: S K Kaul JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned public notice dated 13.3.2001 threatening to cancel the allotment if [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-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>Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002 - 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\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-13T21:23:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-13T21:23:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1793,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-13T21:23:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002 - 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\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-13T21:23:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-13T21:23:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002"},"wordCount":1793,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002","name":"Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-13T21:23:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-amar-nath-uthra-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Amar Nath Uthra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 October, 2002"}]},{"@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\/135159","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=135159"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135159\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}