{"id":136910,"date":"2008-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008"},"modified":"2019-02-10T19:47:06","modified_gmt":"2019-02-10T14:17:06","slug":"mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mange Ram vs The District Development And … on 23 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Mange Ram vs The District Development And … on 23 October, 2008<\/div>\n
CWP No.17997 of 2008                      1\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                              CWP No. 17997 of 2008\n                                               Date of decision: 23.10.2008\n\nMange Ram\n                                               ....Petitioner.\n\n                          vs.\n\nThe District Development and Panchayat Officer and others.\n\n\n                                               ..Respondents\n\n\nCORAM:       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.\n             HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.\n\n                              ---\nPresent:     Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.\n                         --\n\nJ.S.KHEHAR,J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The controversy in the present case came to be initiated at the<\/p>\n
hands of three residents of village Chamar Khera Tehsil Uklana District<\/p>\n
Hisar, namely; Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal. The aforesaid residents<\/p>\n
of village Chamar Khera filed an application under section 7 of the Punjab<\/p>\n
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
“the Act”) (as applicable to Haryana), seeking the eviction of Mange Ram<\/p>\n
(the petitioner herein). The title of the aforesaid application reads as under:-<\/p>\n
             “Application under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common
\n             Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for eviction of respondent No.1
\n             from shamlat deh\/chargah land adjoining the plots No.417,418,
\n             426, 430 and 431 (towards village side which has been shown
\n             with red colour with marks ABCDEFIC in rough site plan
\n             attached with the application and at the end of gali No.425)
\n             situated in village Chamar Khera Tehsil Uklana District Hisar
\n             and imposing the penalty be for illegal use and occupation of
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
            the said land; on the basis of evidence both oral and
\n            documentary of every kind.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In furtherance of the aforesaid application,a notice was issued to Mange<\/p>\n
Ram i.e. the petitioner herein by the District Development and Panchayat<\/p>\n
Officer-cum-Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, on 27.8.2007 to appear<\/p>\n
before him on 7.9.2007 and to show cause why an order of eviction be not<\/p>\n
passed against him, as also as to why penalty at the rate of Rs. 10,000\/- per<\/p>\n
hectare per year be not imposed upon him.\n<\/p>\n
            In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, Mange Ram<\/p>\n
appeared before the District Development and Panchayat         Officer-cum-<\/p>\n
Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, on 7.9.2007. On 7.9.2007 a copy of the<\/p>\n
application filed by Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal was furnished to him<\/p>\n
by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar. In his reply filed on 7.9.2007<\/p>\n
itself, he denied that he was in unauthorised possession of the panchayat<\/p>\n
land. He also asserted that the claim made against him was based on wrong<\/p>\n
facts. He affirmed that he was in possession of land which he owned, and<\/p>\n
that, he was not in possession of any land belonging to the Gram Panchayat.<\/p>\n
He expressly invited the applicants Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal to<\/p>\n
get the plot of land demarcated by asserting that if he was found in<\/p>\n
unauthorised possession of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat he<\/p>\n
would vacate the same.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the stance adopted by the petitioner herein i.e.<\/p>\n
Mange Ram, the Gram Panchayat had also been impleaded as              party-<\/p>\n
respondent in the application filed by Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal.<\/p>\n
The Gram Panchayat filed its reply to the aforesaid application before the<\/p>\n
Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, on 3.10.2007, wherein the factual
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
position asserted in the application to the effect that Mange Ram was in<\/p>\n
unauthorised possession of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat was<\/p>\n
acknowledged. Besides the aforesaid, the Gram Panchayat also required the<\/p>\n
Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, to evict Mange Ram from the land in<\/p>\n
question and to hand over the vacant possession of the land to the Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
             In view of the express stance adopted by the petitioner herein<\/p>\n
i.e. Mange Ram before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, an order<\/p>\n
was passed on 1.4.2008 directing the Block Development and Panchayat<\/p>\n
Officer,Uklana to demarcate the land and to submit a report after spot<\/p>\n
inspection. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Block Development<\/p>\n
and Panchayat officer, Uklana, submitted a report dated 8.4.2008. Along<\/p>\n
with the report, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Uklana,<\/p>\n
attached a site plan depicting the unauthorised possession of Mange Ram<\/p>\n
over the land measuring 1705 square yards.\n<\/p>\n
             After the aforesaid report dated 8.4.2008, was placed on the<\/p>\n
record of the ejectment application filed by Sukh Lal,Ram kishan and<\/p>\n
Birbal, the petitioner herein i.e., Mange Ram stopped participating in the<\/p>\n
proceedings before the      Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar. He was<\/p>\n
accordingly proceeded against ex parte. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade,<\/p>\n
Hisar, by his order dated 11.4.2008, arrived at the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
petitioner Mange Ram was in unauthorised possession of 1705 square<\/p>\n
yards of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. He was accordingly<\/p>\n
directed to hand over possession thereof to the Gram Panchayat within a<\/p>\n
period of ten days. In addition to the above, Mange Ram was required to<\/p>\n
pay a penalty of Rs.10,000\/-      per hectare per year for his aforesaid
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
unauthorised occupation of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. He was<\/p>\n
directed to deposit the aforesaid penalty in the account of the Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat within a period of 30 days, failing which the same would be<\/p>\n
recovered as arrears of land revenue.\n<\/p>\n
             Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist<\/p>\n
Grade, Hisar, dated 11.4.2008, Mange Ram preferred an appeal before the<\/p>\n
Collector, Hisar. The appeal preferred by Mange Ram was dismissed by the<\/p>\n
Collector, Hisar on 29.7.2008.\n<\/p>\n
             Having failed before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar,<\/p>\n
as also before the Collector, Hisar, Mange Ram preferred a revision petition<\/p>\n
before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. The Commissioner, Hisar<\/p>\n
Division, Hisar, in the first instance summoned the entire file of the case,<\/p>\n
and thereafter, by an order dated 7.10.2008, concurred with the finding<\/p>\n
recorded in the previous orders passed by the revenue authorities by arriving<\/p>\n
at the conclusion that Mange Ram was in unauthorised possession of land<\/p>\n
belonging to the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, the revision petition filed<\/p>\n
by Mange Ram was dismissed on 7.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
             Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has impugned<\/p>\n
the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, dated<\/p>\n
11.4.2008, the order passed by the Collector, Hisar dated 29.7.2008, as also<\/p>\n
the order passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, dated<\/p>\n
7.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
             The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner is that the land in question is not shamilat deh, and as such, there<\/p>\n
was no question of the revenue authorities ordering the eviction of the<\/p>\n
petitioner therefrom.   The case set up      by the learned counsel for the
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner is that the revenue authorities have described the land as “abadi<\/p>\n
deh”, and as such, there was no question of eviction of the petitioner<\/p>\n
therefrom. In this behalf, the vehement contention of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner, is that land which is described as “abadi deh” is not “shamilat<\/p>\n
deh”. In order to support his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner has placed reliance on a decision rendered by this Court in Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat v. Toti and others, 1973, PLJ 639.\n<\/p>\n
             We have considered the first contention advanced by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner, as has been noticed in the foregoing<\/p>\n
paragraph.\n<\/p>\n
             In order to ascertain as to whether the land allegedly in<\/p>\n
possession of the petitioner was or was not “shamilat deh”, reference is<\/p>\n
liable to be made to section 2(g) of the Act(as applicable to Haryana). The<\/p>\n
same is accordingly being reproduced hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
             “2.Definitions.– In this Act, unless the context otherwise
\n             requires,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (a) to (f)    xxx         xxx          xxx             xxx\n             (g)    \"shamilat deh\" includes-\n<\/pre>\n
                     (1) lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat
\n                    deh or Charand excluding abadi deh’
\n                    (2) shamilat tikkas;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (3) lands described in the revenue records as shamilat,
\n                    tarafs, pattis, pannas and tholas and used according to
\n                    revenue records for the benefit of the village community
\n                    or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village;
\n                    (4)    lands used or reserved for the benefit of village
\n                    community      including   streets,   lanes,   playgrounds,
\n                    schools, drinkings wells or ponds situated within the
\n                    sabha area as defined in clause (mmm) of section 3 the
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
                  Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, excluding lands
\n                  reserved for the common purposes of a village under
\n                  section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation
\n                  and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab
\n                  Act of 1948), the management and control whereof vests
\n                  in the State Government under section 23-A of the
\n                  aforesaid Act;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (4a) vacant land situate in abadi deh or gorah deh not
\n                  owned by any person;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (5) lands in any village described as banjar qadim and
\n                  used for common purposes of the village according to
\n                  revenue records;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  but does not include land which–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (i) becomes or has become shamilat deh due to river
\n                  action or has been reserved as shamilat in villages subject
\n                  to river action except shamilat deh entered as pasture,
\n                  pond or playground in the revenue records;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (ii) has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a
\n                  displaced person;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (ii-a) was shamilat deh, but has been allotted to any
\n                  person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State
\n                  Government, after the commencement of this Act, but on
\n                  or before the 9th day of July 1985.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation
\n                  by individual landholders before the 26th January, 1950;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (iv) having been acquired before the 26th January, 1950,
\n                  by a person by purchase or in exchange for proprietary
\n                  land from a co-sharer in the shamilat deh and is so
\n                  recording in the jamabandi or is supported by a valid
\n                  deed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (v) is described in the revenue records as shamilat, taraf,
\n                 pattis, pannas, and     thola and not used according to
\n                 revenue records for the benefit of the village community,
\n                 or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 CWP No.17997 of 2008                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
                  (vi) lies outside the abadi deh and was being used as
\n                  gitwar, bara, manure pit, house or for cottage indus5try,
\n                  immediately before the commencement of this Act;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (vii) Omitted by Haryana Act No.18 of 1995.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (viii) was shamilat deh, was assessed toland revenue and
\n                  has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-
\n                  sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in
\n                  such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (ix)   is used as a place of worship or for purposes
\n                  subservient thereto;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (6) lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under
\n            section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
\n            Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50
\n            of1948), the management and control whereof vests in the
\n            Gram Panchayat under section 23-A of the aforesaid Act.
\n            Explanation.- Lands entered in the column of ownership of
\n            record of rights as “jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi
\n            Hassab Rasad”, “Jumla Malkan” or “Mushtarka Malkan” shall
\n            be shamilat deh within the meaning of this section;”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Effort of the learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate that the land<\/p>\n
in question should be deemed to be excluded from shamilat deh is based<\/p>\n
on clause (1) of section 2(g) extracted hereinabove.<\/p>\n
            It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid contention of<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the petitioner. In our view the land in question<\/p>\n
would be deemed to be “shamilat deh” under clause (4a) of section 2(g) of<\/p>\n
the Act which expressly mandates that vacant land situated in “abadi deh”<\/p>\n
not owned by any person would be deemed to be shamilat deh. In the site<\/p>\n
plan prepared by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Uklana,<\/p>\n
enclosed with the report submitted by him in furtherance of the direction<\/p>\n
issued by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Uklana, shows that the land
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
under reference is vacant land reserved for “chargah” within “abadi deh”.<\/p>\n
The vacant land in question measures 1705 square yards.             Since the<\/p>\n
petitioner has not been able to demonstrate ownership rights in respect of<\/p>\n
the aforesaid land, we are of the view that the first contention advanced by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived in view of the<\/p>\n
clear mandate of clause (4a) of section 2(g) of the Act,<\/p>\n
            The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner was also to the same effect as the first contention. Relying upon<\/p>\n
the site plan placed on the record of the writ petition as Annexure P12,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner invited this Court’s attention to the fact<\/p>\n
that in the site plan prepared by the Gram Panchayat, the illegal possession<\/p>\n
and construction of the petitioner in respect of the land belonging to the<\/p>\n
Gram Panchayat was described as falling “within abadi deh of village<\/p>\n
Chamar Khera”. On the basis of Annexure P12 also, it was the contention<\/p>\n
of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the land in question from<\/p>\n
which petitioner’s eviction was sought cannot be treated as “shamilat deh”<\/p>\n
and as such the application filed under section 7 of the Act, deserves to be<\/p>\n
dismissed for this reason alone.\n<\/p>\n
            For the same reasons, as have been recorded by us while<\/p>\n
disposing of the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we<\/p>\n
find no merit in the second contention as well, since we have arrived at the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the land under reference which was vacant land within the<\/p>\n
“abadi deh”, and was not in the ownership of any one, the same was liable<\/p>\n
to be treated as “shamilat deh”. An application under section 7 of the Act to<\/p>\n
evict anyone in unauthorised possession thereof was, in our view,<\/p>\n
permissible, from the land under reference.\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.17997 of 2008                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
            The third contention advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner, is that the petitioner is in possession of plots No.417, 418, 426<\/p>\n
etc. situated in village Chamar Khera in the capacity of an owner and not as<\/p>\n
an unauthorised occupant thereof, and as such, there is no question of the<\/p>\n
authorities requiring him to vacate the aforesaid land under any<\/p>\n
circumstances. In so far as the instant contention of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner is concerned, reliance was placed on the reply to the notice<\/p>\n
issued under rule 20 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1964 ( as applicable to Haryana),copy whereof was placed on the<\/p>\n
record of the writ petition as Annexure P3.\n<\/p>\n
            The third contention advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner, in our view, is also wholly misconceived. In the application filed<\/p>\n
under section 7 of the Act at the hands of Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal,<\/p>\n
the eviction of the petitioner was not sought from the place mentioned by<\/p>\n
him in his reply Annexure P3. In fact the head-note of the application filed<\/p>\n
by    Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal, which has been extracted<\/p>\n
hereinabove, reveals that the petitioner’s eviction was sought from the land<\/p>\n
shown in red colour marked as ABCDEFIC attached with the application.<\/p>\n
The head-note also records that the land in question adjoins plot plot<\/p>\n
Nos.417, 418, 426, 430 and 431.        The statement of the petitioner      in<\/p>\n
depicting the ownership of the petitioner in respect of plot Nos.417, 418 and<\/p>\n
426 etc. is, therefore, wholly misconceived as the petitioner’s eviction was<\/p>\n
not being sought from the aforesaid plots. In view of the factual position<\/p>\n
noticed   hereinabove, we find no merit even in the third contention<\/p>\n
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
            The fourth contention advanced by the learned counsel for the
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner was, that the land from which the petitioner’s eviction was sought<\/p>\n
was wrongly depicted in the notice issued to the petitioner by the Assistant<\/p>\n
Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, dated 27.8.2007 (Annexure P2). In this behalf,<\/p>\n
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
eviction has been ordered from land which was not mentioned in the notice<\/p>\n
issued to him and as such, there was no justification whatsoever for the<\/p>\n
revenue authorities to pass the impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n
             Although the fourth contention advanced by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner seems to be attractive on first blush, we are of the<\/p>\n
view that the petitioner has very cleverly raised the instant plea so as to<\/p>\n
defeat a fully justified claim raised against him seeking his eviction from<\/p>\n
the land owned by the Gram Panchayat, of which he is in unauthorised<\/p>\n
possession. The real question to be determined while adjudicating upon the<\/p>\n
instant plea raised by the petitioner is; whether the petitioner was factually<\/p>\n
aware about the dimensions and particulars of the land wherefrom his<\/p>\n
eviction was sought in the application filed by Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and<\/p>\n
Birbal. This position becomes abudantly clear from the title of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
application which has already been extracted hereinabove. The land over<\/p>\n
which the petitioner was allegedly in unauthorised possession was depicted<\/p>\n
in the site plan appended to the application filed under section 7 of the Act<\/p>\n
by Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal in red colour. The same was also<\/p>\n
marked as ABCDFEIC.          There could,      therefore,   be no     confusion<\/p>\n
whatsoever in so far as the land from which the eviction of the petitioner<\/p>\n
was sought. The fact that the aforesaid application in which the land in the<\/p>\n
unauthorised possession of the petitioner was sought, was demarcated,<\/p>\n
during the course of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector Ist
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
Grade, Hisar. Additionally, the defence of the petitioner stands noticed in<\/p>\n
the following paragraph of the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist<\/p>\n
Grade, Hisar, dated 11.4.2008:-\n<\/p>\n
            ”       Respondent No.1 Mange Ram came present on
\n            07.09.2007 and he was given copy of the application.
\n            Respondent No.1 on that very day submitted his reply to the
\n            notice under Rule 20 and got recorded his statement.
\n            Respondent No.1 in his reply submitted that the present
\n            application has been filed against him by stating wrong facts
\n            and further submitted that he is not in unauthorised possession
\n            of the panchayat land. Further that he is in possession of the
\n            land owned by him and no notice was given to him regarding
\n            the demarcation. He further submitted that Sukhlal etc. may get
\n            the plot demarcated and notice be given to him, and if he is
\n            found to be in unauthorised possession he would vacate the
\n            same.      Apart from    this respondent No.1 in his evidence
\n            submitted that the reply submitted by him be read as a part of
\n            his evidence and he does not want to lead any other evidence
\n            and accordingly close my evidence”.\n<\/p>\n
It is, therefore, apparent that a copy of the application filed under section 7<\/p>\n
of the Act by Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal, was handed over to the<\/p>\n
petitioner on 7.9.2007 when the petitioner appeared before the Assistant<\/p>\n
Collector Ist Grade, Hisar. The petitioner chose not to file any reply thereto.<\/p>\n
The land in question was also demarcated during the course of the<\/p>\n
proceedings of eviction, without any protest at the hands of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
The petitioner must therefore, be held blameworthy for his aforesaid lapse,<\/p>\n
firstly, in not filing any reply to the ejectment application (wherein the land<\/p>\n
was properly demarcated), and secondly,         for not participating in the<\/p>\n
proceedings being conducted against him. The          Assistant Collector Ist
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
Grade, Hisar, by his order dated 11.4.2008 directed the Block Development<\/p>\n
and Panchayat Officer, Uklana to demarcate the land in question and to<\/p>\n
submit his report after inspection. The report dated 7.4.2008 submitted by<\/p>\n
the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, is available on the record of<\/p>\n
this case as Annexure P4. The report expressly notices the unauthorised<\/p>\n
possession of Mange Ram was over land reserved for “chargah”. The site<\/p>\n
plan appended to the report of the Block Development and Panchayat<\/p>\n
Officer clearly depicts that the land in question over which he was found to<\/p>\n
be in unauthorised possession was the same as the one depicted in the<\/p>\n
ejectment application filed under section 7 of the Act by Sukh Lal, Ram<\/p>\n
Kishan and Birbal. Besides the aforesaid, three witnesses appeared before<\/p>\n
the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on behalf of the applicants who had<\/p>\n
preferred the ejectment application against Mange Ram. Their statements<\/p>\n
were placed on the record of this case as Annexures C,D and E through civil<\/p>\n
miscellaneous application No.20930-31 of 2008. In the statements of the<\/p>\n
three witnesses who appeared on behalf of the applicants the land in<\/p>\n
unauthorised possession of the petitioner was described as under:-<\/p>\n
            “…The land in dispute is adjoining plots No.417, 418, 426, 430
\n            and 431 towards village site which has been shown in the
\n            estimated site plan (Ex.A-1) with marks ABCDEFIC. This land
\n            is at the end of Gali No.425 and the same is owned by Gram
\n            Panchayat Chamar Khera. This place is used for the common
\n            benefit and is the land of Shamilat Deh and Chargha, but …..”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept that there was any confusion at<\/p>\n
the hands of the petitioner in so far as the particulars of the land from which<\/p>\n
his eviction was sought. The petitioner did not lead any evidence before the<\/p>\n
Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, to repudiate the allegations levelled
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
against him.       The petitioner had himself made an offer that the applicants<\/p>\n
should have the land demarcated, and that, if he is found to be in<\/p>\n
unauthorised possession he would hand over vacant possession to the<\/p>\n
Gram Panchayat. There is overwhelming evidence available on the record<\/p>\n
of this case that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of the land<\/p>\n
depicted in the application filed by Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal under<\/p>\n
section 7 of the Act. In the absence of any confusion on the issue, we are of<\/p>\n
the view that the instant plea           raised by the petitioner is wholly<\/p>\n
misconceived and is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
               It would be unfair on our part if while disposing of the fourth<\/p>\n
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not<\/p>\n
take into consideration the decision rendered by this Court in Albel Singh<\/p>\n
V. Gram Panchayat of<\/a> village Rampura, 1984 PLJ 88 relied upon by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the factual<\/p>\n
position noticed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the aforesaid judgment, which are<\/p>\n
being extracted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
               ”      It has been argued by the learned counsel for the
\n               petitioner that in the notice, copy of which is appended as
\n               Annexure P.2 to this writ petition, it was mentioned that the
\n               petitioner had encroached upon an area of 50’x2′ of the public
\n               street by constructing a chaunkari (slightly raised platform).
\n               There is no mention in this notice regarding any encroachment
\n               by the petitioner by building a Chhapar on any public
\n               premises. He further contended that it has been admitted by the
\n               Gram Panchayat in the written statement in para No.1 that the
\n               Chaunkari in question has already been demolished. He argued
\n               that the order of eviction regarding the Chhapar is wholly
\n               without jurisdiction because this is not in consonance with
\n               notice Annexure P2. The petitioner had not been given any
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
            opportunity to meet this case. He had not been required to
\n            prove that he was not in unauthorised occupation of the land
\n            over which the disputed Chhapar had been set up. The
\n            averments in the return filed by the Gram Panchayat respondent
\n            No.1 bear out the contention of the learned counsel. It has been
\n            very candidly admitted therein that due to an oversight the
\n            Collector did not include the encroachment made by the
\n            petitioner by constructing a Chhapar on the Panchayat land in
\n            the notice given to the petitioner.”\n<\/p>\n
            ”     It is thus established that the Collector had not issued a
\n            notice to the petitioner that he was in unauthorised occupation
\n            of the Panchayat land and had put up construction in the form
\n            of a Chappar and he should vacate the same. The Collector
\n            has, however, ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the
\n            land and the removal of the      Chhapar also. This is patently
\n            illegal. The orders of the Collector and also the Commissioner
\n            cannot be sustained. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed
\n            and the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner dated
\n            31.5.1976 and 26.10.1976 respectively are set aside. It shall,
\n            however, be open to the respondents to proceed in the matter
\n            regarding Chhapar, if so advised, in accordance with the
\n            provisions of law. No costs.”\n<\/p>\n
The pointed case projected by the petitioner in Albel Singh’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner<\/p>\n
therein was not given an opportunity to meet the case set up against him.<\/p>\n
This is not so in so far as the present controversy is concerned. When the<\/p>\n
petitioner Mange Ram appeared before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade,<\/p>\n
Hisar on 7.9.2007, he was furnished with a copy of the application filed by<\/p>\n
Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal. On the first date when he appeared<\/p>\n
before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, he became aware of the<\/p>\n
particulars of the land from which his ejectment was being sought. During
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
the course of proceedings before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar,<\/p>\n
the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Uklana, was directed by the<\/p>\n
Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar, to demarcate the land from which the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s ejectment was being sought and to submit a report. During the<\/p>\n
course of the aforesaid demarcation, the Block Development and Panchayat<\/p>\n
Officer, demarcated the land from which the petitioner’s eviction was being<\/p>\n
sought in consonance with the application filed by Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan<\/p>\n
and Birbal. Thereafter, three witnesses appeared on behalf of the applicants<\/p>\n
namely Sukh Lal as AW1, Ram Kishan as AW2 and Roshan as AW3. All<\/p>\n
the witnesses clearly described the particulars of the land from which the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s eviction was sought. Therefore, well before the onus fell on the<\/p>\n
shoulder of the petitioner to repudiate the claim of the applicants, he was<\/p>\n
repeatedly made aware of the particulars of the land from which his<\/p>\n
ejectment was sought. This is not a case wherein the petitioner can be<\/p>\n
described as a person who has not been afforded an opportunity to meet the<\/p>\n
case set up by the applicants. The petitioner himself chose not to file any<\/p>\n
reply to the ejectment application filed by Sukh Lal, Ram Kishan and Birbal<\/p>\n
(copy whereof was handed over to him on 7.9.2007). He also chose not to<\/p>\n
lead any evidence to repudiate the evidence produced by the applicants. He<\/p>\n
has also not contested or challenged the report submitted by the Block<\/p>\n
Development and Panchayat Officer dated 7.4.2008. For all the aforesaid<\/p>\n
reasons, we are of the view, that this is not a case which can be described as<\/p>\n
one wherein the aggrieved party had not been afforded an opportunity to<\/p>\n
meet the case set up against him. The petitioner is blameworthy for his own<\/p>\n
lapses and must suffer for the consequences thereof.<\/p>\n
            No other contention besides those noticed in in the aforemen-
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008                       16<\/span><\/p>\n
tioned paragraphs, was advanced on behalf of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
              Having examined the issues advanced by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner in their totality, we are satisfied that all the pleas raised on<\/p>\n
behalf of the petitioner were frivolous. The petitioner who chose<\/p>\n
unilaterally not to defend himself before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade<\/p>\n
Hisar, despite having appeared before him in response to the notice issued<\/p>\n
to him has continued to assail the ejectment order passed against him. This<\/p>\n
is a typical case wherein an individual has tried to misuse the process of law<\/p>\n
to defeat a valid and justifiable claim. In the peculiar facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the instant writ petition<\/p>\n
deserves to be dismissed with costs. The same is accordingly dismissed with<\/p>\n
costs quantified at Rs.50,000\/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the<\/p>\n
aforesaid costs with the Legal Services Authority, Haryana, within two<\/p>\n
months    from today. In case no such deposit is made within the time<\/p>\n
stipulated hereinabove, the Registry shall         re-list this case for motion<\/p>\n
hearing, so as to enable this Court to recover the costs imposed upon the<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
              Disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ( J.S.Khehar)
\n                                                            Judge<\/p>\n
                                                      (Nirmaljit Kaur)
\n                                                          Judge<\/p>\n
October 23, 2008
\nrk
\n CWP No.17997 of 2008   17<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Mange Ram vs The District Development And … on 23 October, 2008 CWP No.17997 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 17997 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.10.2008 Mange Ram ….Petitioner. vs. The District Development and Panchayat Officer and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON’BLE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMange Ram vs The District Development And ... on 23 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mange Ram vs The District Development And ... on 23 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-10T14:17:06+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mange Ram vs The District Development And … on 23 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-10T14:17:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4549,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Mange Ram vs The District Development And ... on 23 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-10T14:17:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mange Ram vs The District Development And … on 23 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mange Ram vs The District Development And ... on 23 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mange Ram vs The District Development And ... on 23 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-10T14:17:06+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mange Ram vs The District Development And … on 23 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-10T14:17:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008"},"wordCount":4549,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008","name":"Mange Ram vs The District Development And ... on 23 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-10T14:17:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mange-ram-vs-the-district-development-and-on-23-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mange Ram vs The District Development And … on 23 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136910","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=136910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}