{"id":137577,"date":"2010-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2"},"modified":"2015-04-14T23:41:22","modified_gmt":"2015-04-14T18:11:22","slug":"union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: ________________J.<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                I.A. NO. 47 AND 48\n                         IN\n           CIVIL APPEAL NO.2501   OF 2002\n\n\nUnion of India                              ... Appellant\n\n                              Vs.\n\nRaja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan        ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   These two I.A. Nos.47 and 48 of 2008 have been<\/p>\n
     filed on behalf of the Respondent in connection<\/p>\n
     with Contempt Petition No.87 of 2006 filed in<\/p>\n
     Civil Appeal No.2501 of 2002, inter alia, for a<\/p>\n
     direction   upon   the    Union   of    India,   and   the<\/p>\n
     Custodian of Enemy Property to release to the<\/p>\n
     Respondent a sum of Rs.1,77,38,828.11, being
\n                                                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
     held by the said Custodian on account of the<\/p>\n
     Estate of the Raja of Mahmudabad.\n<\/p>\n
2.   It     may   be   recalled        that     in      Writ    Petition<\/p>\n
     No.1524 of 1977 filed by the applicant herein,<\/p>\n
     Raja    Mohammed        Amir    Mohammad       Khan,      (Raja   MAM<\/p>\n
     Khan for short), the Bombay High Court, while<\/p>\n
     allowing the writ petition, had directed the<\/p>\n
     return       of   the     properties          of   the     Raja    of<\/p>\n
     Mahmudabad to the applicant. The decision of<\/p>\n
     the Bombay High Court was challenged by the<\/p>\n
     Union of India in this Court in Civil Appeal<\/p>\n
     No.2501      of   2002,        which    was     disposed     of    on<\/p>\n
     21.10.2005,       inter        alia,     with      the    following<\/p>\n
     directions :\n<\/p>\n
\n     “The High Court had refused to grant the
\n     mesne profits to the respondents, against
\n     the    aforesaid        finding    no    appeal      has    been
\n     filed by the respondent. Since no appeal has
\n     been filed, the appellants are not entitled
\n     to the mesne profits till the passing of the
\n     interim orders of status quo by this Court
\n                                                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
on     5.4.2002.        The       respondent         would      be
\nentitled       to    the    actual        mesne     profits      by
\nfiling     a    suit,      if      so     advised      for     this
\nperiod. However, whatever moneys have been
\ncollected by the appellants by way of rent
\nor     lease    etc.       after        5.4.2002,      till    the
\nhanding    over       of    the     possession         of     these
\nproperties           to         the           respondent        be
\ndeposited\/disbursed to the respondent within
\n8 weeks.\n<\/p>\n
       The appellants are directed to get the
\nbuildings       (residence         or       offices)     vacated
\nfrom     such        officers           and      handover      the
\npossession to the respondent within eight
\nweeks. Similarly, appellants are directed to
\nhandover the possession of other properties
\nas well. The officers who are in occupation
\nof the buildings for their residence or for
\ntheir      offices         are          also      directed      to
\nimmediately          vacate           and        handover       the
\nbuildings       or      the      properties             to     the
\nCustodian       to    enable       him      to    handover      the
\npossession to the respondent in terms of the
\ndirections given. Failure to comply with the
\ndirections to handover the possession within
\n8 weeks will constitute disobedience of this
\n                                                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
     order     and    the     appellants           would    be        in
\n     contempt of      this order. Respondent would be<\/p>\n
     at liberty to move an application in this
\n     Court     if    the     above    directions           are    not
\n     complied with for taking appropriate action
\n     against    the    appellants           or   their      agents.
\n     Since     the    appellants       have        retained       the
\n     possession of the properties illegally and
\n     in a high handed manner for 32 years the
\n     appeal    is    dismissed       with    costs       which    are
\n     assessed at Rs. 5 lacs.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   In I.A. No. 47 it has been stated that when the<\/p>\n
     properties were taken over by the Custodian,<\/p>\n
     the   amounts     due    and    payable        by   the     various<\/p>\n
     occupants were collected by the office of the<\/p>\n
     Custodian and credited to the account of the<\/p>\n
     Estate    of    Mahmudabad       in     the    Ledger       of    the<\/p>\n
     Custodian maintained in his office at Mumbai.<\/p>\n
     In view of the judgments of the Bombay High<\/p>\n
     Court and this Court, holding the applicant to
\n                                                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
     be the sole legal heir and successor of the<\/p>\n
     Late Raja of Mahmudabad, he had succeeded to<\/p>\n
     the properties belonging to the late Raja which<\/p>\n
     had been taken over by the Custodian of Enemy<\/p>\n
     Property    under      the    provisions        of   the   Enemy<\/p>\n
     Property     Act,      1968.    It        has   further     been<\/p>\n
     contended    that      it    could    not,      therefore,    be<\/p>\n
     disputed that the applicant is entitled to the<\/p>\n
     moneys standing to the credit of the Estate of<\/p>\n
     Mahmudabad in the Ledger Account maintained by<\/p>\n
     the Custodian of Enemy Property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   According to the applicant, after continuous<\/p>\n
     efforts,    a   copy    of     the    Ledger     Account     was<\/p>\n
     supplied to him in the month of December, 2007,<\/p>\n
     by   the    office     of     the    Custodian       of    Enemy<\/p>\n
     Property and on perusal of the same it was<\/p>\n
     discovered      that    a    sum     of    Rs.1,77,38,828.11<\/p>\n
     stood credited to the account of the applicant<\/p>\n
     as on 27.3.2002.             On coming to know of the
\n                                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
     above, the applicant requested the Custodian by<\/p>\n
     his    letter     dated     27.12.2007,         to   remit   the<\/p>\n
     amount which stood to his credit in the Ledger<\/p>\n
     maintained by the office of the Custodian.<\/p>\n
5.   As no response was received to the said letter,<\/p>\n
     another letter was issued to the Custodian on<\/p>\n
     6.2.2008, and in his reply the said Custodian<\/p>\n
     replied   that     there        was   no    provision   in   the<\/p>\n
     Enemy Property Act, 1968, to refund any amount<\/p>\n
     received from Enemy Property. In response it<\/p>\n
     was also indicated clearly that no amount was<\/p>\n
     admissible to the applicant by way of refund.<\/p>\n
6.   It is on account of such response from the<\/p>\n
     Custodian of Enemy Property that I.A.No.47 of<\/p>\n
     2008    was     filed     for    the       reliefs   which   are<\/p>\n
     indicated in the prayer.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
7.   Appearing for the applicant, Mr. P.V. Kapur,<\/p>\n
     learned Senior Advocate, submitted that after<\/p>\n
     the clear and unambiguous directions given by<\/p>\n
     this Court in its judgment dated 21.10.2005 in<\/p>\n
     Civil Appeal No.2501 of 2002, there could be no<\/p>\n
     justification           for        the    Custodian      of     Enemy<\/p>\n
     Property to object to making over of the moneys<\/p>\n
     collected       by    him     on     account     of     rents    and<\/p>\n
     profits to the applicant. Mr. Kapur submitted<\/p>\n
     that the intent of the order of this Court was<\/p>\n
     very clear that on being found to be the sole<\/p>\n
     legal    heir    of    the     Raja       of   Mahmudabad,       the<\/p>\n
     applicant was entitled to his entire estate,<\/p>\n
     which    included       all        amounts     which     had    been<\/p>\n
     collected from the properties of the Estate and<\/p>\n
     credited to the account of the Estate in the<\/p>\n
     Ledger    maintained          by         the   office     of      the<\/p>\n
     Custodian of Enemy Property.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
8.   As an alternate submission Mr. Kapur urged that<\/p>\n
     in    addition       to     the        directions       contained<\/p>\n
     regarding disbursement to the applicant of the<\/p>\n
     amount collected by the appellant by way of<\/p>\n
     rent or lease after 5.4.2002 till the handing<\/p>\n
     over of the possession of the properties to the<\/p>\n
     applicant     this       Court    had    also       directed      the<\/p>\n
     appellants to get the immovable properties of<\/p>\n
     the   Estate     vacated         and     to    hand    over      the<\/p>\n
     possession          of       the          same         to        the<\/p>\n
     respondent\/applicant             within        8     weeks.       The<\/p>\n
     appellants were also directed to handover the<\/p>\n
     possession     of    the    other       properties         as   well.<\/p>\n
     (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
9.   Mr.   Kapur    submitted         that    under       the    general<\/p>\n
     directions given by this Court in respect of<\/p>\n
     properties       belonging         to         the     Estate       of<\/p>\n
     Mahmudabad, which included the amount held by<\/p>\n
     the   Custodian      on    account       of    rents    collected
\n                                                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
      from the Estate of the Raja of Mahmudabad prior<\/p>\n
      to 5.4.2002, the said Custodian and the Union<\/p>\n
      of    India    were       bound    to     make     over      the     said<\/p>\n
      amount     collected         by     the      Custodian          to    the<\/p>\n
      applicant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   Resisting the application filed on behalf of<\/p>\n
      the    respondent          Mr.    MAM     Khan,        the      learned<\/p>\n
      Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Indira Jai<\/p>\n
      Singh submitted that in view of the categorical<\/p>\n
      direction      given       in     the   order      of     21.10.2005<\/p>\n
      passed by this Court, the question of making<\/p>\n
      payment       of    the    amount       in    question          to    the<\/p>\n
      respondent         did     not     arise.        Ms.      Jai        Singh<\/p>\n
      submitted that this Court had recorded the fact<\/p>\n
      that the High Court had refused to grant mesne<\/p>\n
      profits       to    the    appellant         and    against          that<\/p>\n
      decision      no     appeal       had   been       filed     by      him.<\/p>\n
      Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to<\/p>\n
      the    mesne       profits       till   the      passing        of    the
\n                                                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
interim order of status quo by this Court on<\/p>\n
5.4.2002.    In the said order this Court went on<\/p>\n
to say that the applicant would be entitled to<\/p>\n
the actual mesne profits for the period prior<\/p>\n
to the passing of the interim order of status<\/p>\n
quo by filing a suit.          However, whatever moneys<\/p>\n
that had been collected by the appellant by way<\/p>\n
of rents after 5.4.2002 till the handing over<\/p>\n
of   the   possession     of   the     properties      to   the<\/p>\n
applicant, should be deposited\/disbursed to the<\/p>\n
respondent    within      8    weeks.     Ms.    Jai     Singh<\/p>\n
submitted    that   the   rents      collected    from      the<\/p>\n
said properties after 5.4.2002 till the handing<\/p>\n
over of the possession of the properties to the<\/p>\n
applicant, had already been disbursed to him as<\/p>\n
directed.      However,        since     other    than      the<\/p>\n
directions for recovery of mesne profits for<\/p>\n
the period prior to 5.4.2002 no other direction<\/p>\n
had been given by this Court for disbursement<\/p>\n
of the rents and profits from the said Estate
\n                                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
      prior to 5.4.2002, the claim of the applicant<\/p>\n
      was misconcieved.          Ms. Jai Singh contended that<\/p>\n
      if it had been the intention of this Court that<\/p>\n
      the applicant would be entitled even to the<\/p>\n
      rents and profits prior to 5.4.2002, then it<\/p>\n
      would have given a clear direction for payment<\/p>\n
      of the entire amount to the applicant.<\/p>\n
11.   As to the alternate submission of Mr. Kapur,<\/p>\n
      the learned ASG urged that in view of what has<\/p>\n
      been stated hereinabove, it could not have been<\/p>\n
      the   intention      of    this   Court    to    release    the<\/p>\n
      entire   sum    of        Rs.1,77,38,828.11       being     the<\/p>\n
      amount of the rents and profits collected from<\/p>\n
      the Estate of the Raja prior to 5.4.2002. Ms.<\/p>\n
      Jai   Singh    submitted      that   the       claim   of   the<\/p>\n
      applicant     was    misconceived         in    view   of   the<\/p>\n
      directions contained in the Judgment of this<\/p>\n
      Court dated 21.10.2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
12.   In addition to her aforesaid submissions, Ms.<\/p>\n
      Jai Singh also urged that neither of the two<\/p>\n
      applications were maintainable since the appeal<\/p>\n
      and the contempt petition in which they have<\/p>\n
      been    filed      have     already      been     disposed    of<\/p>\n
      earlier. Ms. Jai Singh submitted that having<\/p>\n
      disposed      of    the        appeal    and    the     contempt<\/p>\n
      petition, this Court had become functus officio<\/p>\n
      and    was    bereft      of    jurisdiction      for   passing<\/p>\n
      orders on the said two applications which are<\/p>\n
      not    in    the   nature       of   consequential      reliefs<\/p>\n
      being claimed from the disposed of matters but<\/p>\n
      substantive        applications         raising    substantial<\/p>\n
      claims, de hors the reliefs prayed for in the<\/p>\n
      appeal and the contempt petition. Ms. Jai Singh<\/p>\n
      referred to various decisions on the question<\/p>\n
      of the maintainability of applications filed in<\/p>\n
      concluded proceedings, which we may refer to if<\/p>\n
      it becomes necessary to do so.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
13.   Replying to Ms. Jai Singh’s submissions, Mr.<\/p>\n
      Kapur submitted that the answer to the question<\/p>\n
      as to what is to be done in regard to the rents<\/p>\n
      and   profits   collected   prior   to   5.4.2002,    is<\/p>\n
      clearly provided in Section 18 of the Enemy<\/p>\n
      Property   Act,   1968,   which   provides   that    the<\/p>\n
      Central Government may by general or special<\/p>\n
      order, direct that any enemy property vested in<\/p>\n
      the Custodian under this Act and remaining with<\/p>\n
      him shall be divested from him and be returned,<\/p>\n
      in such manner as may be prescribed, to the<\/p>\n
      owner thereof or to such other person as may be<\/p>\n
      specified in the direction and thereupon such<\/p>\n
      property shall cease to vest in the Custodian<\/p>\n
      and shall revest in such owner or other person.<\/p>\n
      It was submitted that there was neither any<\/p>\n
      legal nor moral justification for the Custodian<\/p>\n
      to hold on the said amount lying to the credit<\/p>\n
      of the Estate of the Raja of Mahmudabad which
\n                                                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
     had devolved upon the applicant as held by the<\/p>\n
     Bombay High Court and confirmed by this Court.<\/p>\n
14. On a careful consideration of the submissions<\/p>\n
made on behalf of the respective parties, we are of<\/p>\n
the view that a conscious distinction with regard<\/p>\n
to the rents and profits collected from the Estate<\/p>\n
of   Raja   of    Mahmudabad      prior       to    5.4.2002     and<\/p>\n
thereafter,      had    been   made    by    this    Court     while<\/p>\n
disposing of Civil Appeal No.2501 of 2002 on 21st<\/p>\n
October, 2005.         It was clearly the intention of the<\/p>\n
Court   that     in     respect   of        rents   and   profits<\/p>\n
collected after the order of status-quo passed on<\/p>\n
5th April, 2002, the same were to be made over by<\/p>\n
the Custodian to the applicant, but as far as the<\/p>\n
rents and profits collected prior to that date were<\/p>\n
concerned, the applicant would be required to file<\/p>\n
a suit to recover the same.            We have been informed<\/p>\n
that, in fact, such a suit has been filed by the<\/p>\n
applicant and the same is pending decision.
\n                                                                         15<\/span><\/p>\n
15. Notwithstanding          the     use       of     the    expression<\/p>\n
“mesne profits” in the first pat of the directions<\/p>\n
given by this Court, what was intended was that all<\/p>\n
rents   and    profits     collected           in    respect       of   the<\/p>\n
Estate of Raja of Mahmudabad prior to the order of<\/p>\n
status-quo passed on 5th April, 2002, would have to<\/p>\n
be   treated    separately         and     not       with    the    other<\/p>\n
collections made from the estate.                     The use of the<\/p>\n
expression     “mesne      profits”,          in    our     view,   would<\/p>\n
cover all the monies received by the Custodian for<\/p>\n
the period prior to 5th April, 2002, and would,<\/p>\n
thereafter, be covered by the aforesaid order of<\/p>\n
this Court directing the appellant to release to<\/p>\n
the respondent the sum of Rs.1,77,38,828.11 held by<\/p>\n
the Custodian to the credit of the Estate of Raja<\/p>\n
of Mahmudabad.        The interpretation sought to be<\/p>\n
given   to    the   second    part       of    this       Court’s   order<\/p>\n
extracted above, will not include handing over of<\/p>\n
possession     of    the     rents       and       profits    prior      to
\n                                                                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
5.4.2002, which had been excluded in the previous<\/p>\n
paragraph of the judgment of this Court.                      In our<\/p>\n
view, the directions given to the appellants to<\/p>\n
hand    over    the    possession        of    other    properties,<\/p>\n
mentioned in the second part of the order extracted<\/p>\n
hereinabove, relates to the immovable properties of<\/p>\n
the    estate    and   not    to    the       rents    and    profits<\/p>\n
collected by the Custodian from the estate prior to<\/p>\n
5.4.2002.       The two sets of properties are dealt<\/p>\n
with separately and are on two different settings.<\/p>\n
Mr. Kapur’s attempt to include both the movable and<\/p>\n
immovable      properties     of    the       Estate   of    Raja   of<\/p>\n
Mahmudabad is misconceived and is not acceptable.<\/p>\n
Since the amount recorded in the Custodian’s ledger<\/p>\n
as     being    credited     to    the    Estate       of    Raja   of<\/p>\n
Mahmudabad represents the collections made from the<\/p>\n
estate prior to the order of status-quo passed on<\/p>\n
5th April, 2002, the Respondent has been given leave<\/p>\n
to recover the same by filing a suit.                   In view of<\/p>\n
the said order passed by this Court, it can no
\n                                                         17<\/span><\/p>\n
longer be argued that the directions to make over<\/p>\n
the possession of other properties to the applicant<\/p>\n
also included the rents and profits collected from<\/p>\n
the estate prior to 5.4.2002.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16. We are not, therefore, inclined to allow I.A.<\/p>\n
Nos.47 and 48, which are, accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n
The applicant will be free to pursue his claim for<\/p>\n
the   said   amount   of   Rs.1,77,38,828.11   before   the<\/p>\n
Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17. There will, however, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                      ________________J.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                                      ________________J.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
\nNew Delhi
\nDated: 19.01.2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010 Author: ________________J. Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NO. 47 AND 48 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2501 OF 2002 Union of India … Appellant Vs. Raja Mohammed Amir […]<\/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-137577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010 - 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\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-14T18:11:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-14T18:11:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":2371,\"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-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-14T18:11:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010 - 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\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-14T18:11:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-14T18:11:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2"},"wordCount":2371,"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-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2","name":"Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-14T18:11:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-anr-vs-raja-mohammed-amir-mohammad-khan-on-19-january-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Anr vs Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan on 19 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137577","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=137577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}