{"id":136385,"date":"2006-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006"},"modified":"2017-01-07T08:41:49","modified_gmt":"2017-01-07T03:11:49","slug":"union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B Singh<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4010-4032 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMunshi Ram (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/03\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. Singh &amp; Altamas Kabir\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>B.P. SINGH, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 27th November, 1995 of the High Court for the States of Punjab<br \/>\nand Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the writ petitions filed by the<br \/>\nappellant-UOI challenging various orders determining the compensation<br \/>\npayable to the respondents herein under section 28A of the Land Acquisition<br \/>\nAct, 1894. The relevant facts of the case are these:-\n<\/p>\n<p>Notification under Section 4(1) read with sub-section 1 of the Section 17<br \/>\nof the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act&#8217;)<br \/>\nwas published on June 18, 1984. Land measuring 3609 Kanals and 16 marlas<br \/>\nwere sought to be acquired for extension of the Hissar Cantonment Area. By<br \/>\nhis award of 31st January, 1986 the Land Acquisition Collector categorised<br \/>\nthe lands into 5 categories and granted compensation at different rates for<br \/>\neach category. A reference was made under Section 18 of the Act. The<br \/>\nReference Court by its award dated 23rd October, 1988 enhanced the<br \/>\ncompensation payable to the claimants. However, it divided the lands into<br \/>\nonly two categories, namely, block A and block B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Not satisfied with the decree of the Reference Court, the claimants as well<br \/>\nas Union of India preferred Regular First Appeals before the High Court. A<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated 24th<br \/>\nAugust, 1993 further enhanced the compensation payable in respect of block<br \/>\nA and B lands. Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Union of India were<br \/>\ndismissed by order dated 17th June, 1994. Union of India filed special<br \/>\nleave petitions against the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeals and<br \/>\nnotice was issued in the aforesaid special leave petitions on 27th January,<br \/>\n1995. Ultimately by judgment and order of 29th April, 1997 (judgment<br \/>\nreported in [1997] 6 SCC 159 <a href=\"\/doc\/1771435\/\">Union of India and Ors. v. Mangatu Ram and<br \/>\nOrs.,)<\/a> this Court allowed the appeals filed by the Union of India and<br \/>\nreduced the compensation payable to the claimants. This Court further<br \/>\ncategorised Group A lands into two categories, those which fell within 500<br \/>\nyards of the bye-pass, and the other comprising the rest of the lands in<br \/>\ncategory A.\n<\/p>\n<p>While the special leave petitions were pending before this Court, some of<br \/>\nthe other owners\/respondents herein filed applications under Section 28A of<br \/>\nthe Act claiming compensation at the same rates as were awarded to the<br \/>\nother claimants pursuant to the decree of the Reference Court. Having<br \/>\nregard to the provisions of Section 28A of the Act, the Collector<br \/>\nredetermined the compensation payable to the respondents herein, who had<br \/>\nnot preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act and who had moved the<br \/>\nCollector within the period of limitation prescribed by law. The order<br \/>\nredetermining the compensation under Section 28A of the Act was passed on<br \/>\n12th November, 1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>Union of India challenged the various redetermination orders passed by the<br \/>\nCollector by filing Writ Petitions before the High Court which were<br \/>\ndismissed on the ground of delay, since the Writ Petitions were filed<br \/>\nsometime in the year 1995. Against the order dismissing the Writ Petitions,<br \/>\nspecial leave petitions were filed before this Court and the appeals before<br \/>\nus today are those arising from the aforesaid special leave petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India<br \/>\nsubmitted that having regard to the fact that the compensation awarded by<br \/>\nthe Reference Court, was modified by the High Court, and further modified<br \/>\nby this Court in Appeal, the final decree passed by this Court was<br \/>\nsubstituted in place of the original decree passed by the Reference Court<br \/>\nas modified by the High Court. Therefore, the redetermination of the<br \/>\ncompensation payable must be on the basis of the decree as modified, and<br \/>\nnot on the basis of the decree as originally passed by the Reference Court.<br \/>\nHe further submitted that having regard to the scheme of the Act, Section<br \/>\n28A must be read as a provision which is made in the interest of justice<br \/>\nand equality. It extends the benefit of any enhancement of compensation by<br \/>\nthe Reference Court even to those land owners who did not claim a reference<br \/>\nunder Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, even though not satisfied<br \/>\nwith the amount awarded by the Collector. In such cases Section 28A<br \/>\nmandates that if an application is made by a claimant within three months<br \/>\nfrom the date of the decree of the Reference Court, he may be paid the<br \/>\nenhanced compensation as awarded by the Reference Court. He submitted that<br \/>\nif the compensation awarded to those who had claimed a reference under<br \/>\nSection 18 of the Act is reduced by the appellate court, it must logically<br \/>\nfollow that any amount paid in excess of the reduced compensation to those<br \/>\nwho sought enhancement under Section 28A of the Act, must be<br \/>\nproportionately reduced. He further submitted that applying the principles<br \/>\nof merger of decrees and restitution, it is only equitable and fair that<br \/>\nall claimants whose lands have been acquired under the same Notification<br \/>\nshould get the same amount by way of compensation in accordance with the<br \/>\nfinal decree passed, and excess, if any, paid must be refunded.\n<\/p>\n<p>On behalf of the Respondents, it was submitted that the redetermination of<br \/>\ncompensation under Section 28A was done in November, 1990 whereas Union of<br \/>\nIndia challenged that order by filing Writ Petitions in the year 1995. The<br \/>\nHigh Court was therefore justified in dismissing the Writ Petitions on the<br \/>\nground of delay and latches. He submitted that so far as the respondents<br \/>\nherein are concerned, the order passed under Section 28A of the Act<br \/>\nconferred upon them the right to receive higher compensation as awarded by<br \/>\nthe Reference Court, and that order attained finality not having been<br \/>\nchallenged within reasonable time. The High Court was therefore justified<br \/>\nin dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the UOI challenging the orders of<br \/>\nredetermination under Section 28A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are of the view that the Union of India is right in its submission that<br \/>\nthe amount payable under Section 28A of the Act is the amount which is<br \/>\nfinally payable by way of compensation to the owners of the land who<br \/>\nchallenged the award of the Collector and claimed reference under Section<br \/>\n18 of the Act. The said provision seeks to confer the benefit of enhanced<br \/>\ncompensation even on those owners who did not seek a reference under<br \/>\nSection 18. It cannot be that those who secure a certain benefit by reason<br \/>\nof others getting such benefit should retain that benefit, even though the<br \/>\nothers on the basis of whose claim compensation was enhanced are deprived<br \/>\nof the enhanced compensation to an extent. This would be rather inequitable<br \/>\nand unfair. Moreover, even if it be that the compensation payable to<br \/>\nclaimants who have applied under Section 28A of the Act, is the enhanced<br \/>\ncompensation decreed by the Reference Court, we must understand the decree<br \/>\nto mean the decree of the Reference Court as modified in appeal by higher<br \/>\nCourts. Otherwise, an incongruous position may emerge that a person who did<br \/>\nnot challenge the award of the Collector and did not claim a reference<br \/>\nunder Section 18 of the Act would get a higher compensation than one who<br \/>\nchallenged the award of the Collector and claimed a reference, but in whose<br \/>\ncase a higher compensation determined by the Reference Court was<br \/>\nsubsequently reduced by superior court. There can be no dispute that those<br \/>\nclaiming higher compensation and claiming reference under Section 18 of the<br \/>\nAct are bound by the decree as modified by the superior Court in appeal.<br \/>\nThe principle of restitution must apply to them. For the same reason, the<br \/>\nsame consequence must visit others who have been given benefit of enhanced<br \/>\ncompensation pursuant to the decree passed in reference proceeding on the<br \/>\napplication of others.\n<\/p>\n<p>It was contended before us that after the order of redetermination was<br \/>\npassed, Union of India could have challenged this order, and since it<br \/>\nfailed to do so, it lost its right to challenge that order. The submission<br \/>\noverlooks the basic plea of the Union of India that at the stage when the<br \/>\norder of redetermination was passed under Section 28A of the Act that order<br \/>\nwas fully justified and any further redetermination could be claimed only<br \/>\nif there was variation of the decree and the amount awarded by way of<br \/>\ncompensation was reduced. In the instant case that happened in the year<br \/>\n1997, and therefore, in one sense it was indeed premature for the Union of<br \/>\nIndia to challenge the redetermination under Section 28A in the year 1995,<br \/>\nmuch before the decree was actually modified.\n<\/p>\n<p>We hold that under Section 28A of the Act, the compensation payable to the<br \/>\napplicants is the same which is finally payable to those claimants who<br \/>\nsought reference under Section 18 of the Act. In case of reduction of<br \/>\ncompensation by superior courts, the applicants under Section 28A may be<br \/>\ndirected to refund the excess amount received by them in the light of<br \/>\nreduced compensation finally awarded.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are informed that none of the claimants have yet been paid in accordance<br \/>\nwith the order of redetermination under Section 28A or thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the facts and circumstances of the case, these appeals are allowed and a<br \/>\ndirection is made to the Collector under the Act to redetermine the<br \/>\ncompensation payable to the respondents in accordance with the compensation<br \/>\nawarded by the judgment and decree of this Court dated 29th April, 1997 and<br \/>\npay the same to the claimants within a period of three months from today.\n<\/p>\n<p>It was brought to our notice that in some cases the question of limitation<br \/>\nwas urged against some of the respondents herein. That plea has not been<br \/>\nurged before us. Learned Additional Solicitor General states that the Union<br \/>\nof India is not challenging the applications filed by the respondents<br \/>\nherein under Section 28A of the Act on the ground of delay.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006 Author: B Singh Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4010-4032 of 1997 PETITIONER: Union of India RESPONDENT: Munshi Ram (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/03\/2006 BENCH: B.P. Singh &amp; Altamas [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-07T03:11:49+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-07T03:11:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1664,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-07T03:11:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-07T03:11:49+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-07T03:11:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006"},"wordCount":1664,"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\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006","name":"Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-07T03:11:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-munshi-ram-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-on-1-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 March, 2006"}]},{"@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\/136385","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=136385"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136385\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}