{"id":146676,"date":"2009-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-17T16:09:38","modified_gmt":"2018-03-17T10:39:38","slug":"rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n<pre>                                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                                 I.A. NO. 4 OF 2009\n\n                                           IN\n\n                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.   5761 OF 2009\n                [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6641 of 2007].\n\n\nRajendra Kumar Sharma and others                                      ...Appellant(s)\n\n                                          Versus\n\nState of Uttar Pradesh and others                                     ...Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n                                         O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>       Although, the case has been listed for consideration of the<br \/>\nI.A.   filed    by     the    petitioners       for     interim    relief,      learned<br \/>\ncounsel   for    the    parties     agreed       that    the   main      case   may    be<br \/>\ndisposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The appellants&#8217; land was acquired vide Notification dated<br \/>\n20.9.1990 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of<br \/>\nthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the 1894 Act&#8217;) for<br \/>\nconstruction of residential houses by the Moradabad Development<br \/>\nAuthority (for short, `the MDA&#8217;).                 After depositing 80% of the<br \/>\ncompensation      determined        by     the     Special        Land    Acquisition<br \/>\nCollector, the MDA took possession of the land on 22.6.1991.<br \/>\nThe    appellants      challenged        Notification      dated      20.9.1990       and<br \/>\nconsequential proceedings in Writ Petition No.44749\/1992.                         Shri<br \/>\nRam Singh, son of Shri Sunder Singh, who was then posted as<br \/>\nDeputy Collector-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad<br \/>\nis said to have suo moto filed an affidavit stating therein that<br \/>\nthe petition has become infructuous and that award was not made<br \/>\nbecause the MDA had sent letter dated 7.5.1993 to the Collector-<br \/>\ncum-Land Acquisition Officer that it does not propose to acquire<br \/>\nthe    land    and    the    estimated         compensation      deposited        by   it   be<br \/>\ntransferred to some other scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>       On 17.2.1999, Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the petitioners stated before the Court that as the petition<br \/>\nhas become infructuous, it shall not be pressed.                                  The writ<br \/>\npetition was accordingly dismissed as not pressed.\n<\/p>\n<p>       After about 3 years, the writ petitioners including the<br \/>\nappellants herein, filed two applications for recall of order<br \/>\ndated 17.2.1999.             One of the applications was registered as<br \/>\nCivil Misc. (Recall) Application No.178891\/2005 and the other<br \/>\nwas      registered          as        Civil      Misc.        (Recall)        Application<br \/>\nNo.175596\/2005.             In     Civil         Misc.         (Recall)        Application<br \/>\nNo.178891\/2005,        the Division            Bench of        the High       Court, after<br \/>\ntaking cognizance of the averments contained in paragraph 22 of<br \/>\nthe     counter      affidavit         filed    in     Civil    Misc.      Writ    Petition<br \/>\nNo.20434\/1994 (this petition was also filed by the appellants<br \/>\nherein for restraining the respondents from dispossessing them<br \/>\nand demolishing the construction made by them) that Shri Ram<br \/>\nSingh, Deputy Collector-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer,<br \/>\nMoradabad had not filed any counter affidavit, passed an order<br \/>\non 4.1.2006 and directed the standing counsel to file a detailed<br \/>\naffidavit as to under what circumstances counter affidavit was<br \/>\nfiled    in    this    petition         when    the    Court     had    not    issued       any<br \/>\ndirection to the State Government to do so.                          The Division Bench<br \/>\nalso    took    cognizance        of    the     fact   that     in   the    supplementary<br \/>\ncounter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.20434\/1994 on behalf<br \/>\nof the MDA, it was stated that possession of the acquired land<br \/>\nhad been taken on 22.6.1991; that award was made on 30.4.1994<br \/>\nand   that    reference    under   Section    18    was   also    decided.    On<br \/>\n23.2.2006,     the     Division    Bench    directed      District    Collector,<br \/>\nMoradabad to investigate into the matter and file his personal<br \/>\naffidavit explaining whether Shri Ram Singh had the authority to<br \/>\nfile affidavit and, if so, under what circumstances the said<br \/>\naffidavit had been filed.          Shri Ram Singh was suo moto impleaded<br \/>\nas party and was directed to file his affidavit.                    The District<br \/>\nCollector, Moradabad submitted its report dated 17.4.2006.                     By<br \/>\nan order dated 9.5.2006, Shri Ram Singh was directed to appear<br \/>\nin person and the standing counsel was directed to produce the<br \/>\nrelevant records.         After considering         all the      affidavits and<br \/>\nenquiry      report,    the   Division      Bench    dismissed       the   Recall<br \/>\nApplication      No.178891\/2005        by     recording       the      following<br \/>\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;The deponent of the said affidavit could not satisfy the<br \/>\n      Courts as under what circumstances, the said averments<br \/>\n      had been made in the counter affidavit.      He was also<br \/>\n      confronted with the narrative prepared by the D.G.C.<br \/>\n      (Civil) wherein in two paragraphs, i.e.8 and 29, it had<br \/>\n      been reiterated that possession of the land had already<br \/>\n      been taken on 20.6.1991 and handed it over to the<br \/>\n      Authority, they why the factum of dispossession had not<br \/>\n      been mentioned in the counter affidavit and once the land<br \/>\n      vested in the State free from all encumbrances, whether<br \/>\n      it could be divested for any reason, whatsoever.<br \/>\n      Generally, counter affidavit is not filed by the State<br \/>\n      without seeking several adjournments and many times after<br \/>\n      paying the cost. In the instant case, counter affidavit,<br \/>\n      merely stating something untenable in law, has been filed<br \/>\n      without even calling for the same. This kind of attitude<br \/>\n      seems to be quite collusive, unwarranted and uncalled<br \/>\n      for. There is nothing on record to show that the matter<br \/>\n      had ever been heard by the Court prior to its withdrawal.<br \/>\n      We fail to understand as how the counter affidavit to<br \/>\n      this effect had been filed and how the proceedings could<br \/>\n      become infructuous once the possession had been taken on<br \/>\n      20.6.1991. In such a fact situation, we do not see any<br \/>\n      ground to recall the order. As we doubt the bona fide of<br \/>\n      both the parties and a fraud seems to have been played,<br \/>\n      of which the applicant is the beneficiary, we are not<br \/>\n      inclined to allow this application.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>           More so, the counsel who had withdrawn the writ<br \/>\n      petition has not appeared before us nor he filed this<br \/>\n     application.    There is no reference in the Court&#8217;s<br \/>\n     proceedings that the petition was being withdrawn in view<br \/>\n     of the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition<br \/>\n     Officer. Had the learned counsel for the applicants, made<br \/>\n     such submission, the Court could have examined the<br \/>\n     contents of the counter affidavit and then perhaps could<br \/>\n     pass a different order in accordance with law.    We fail<br \/>\n     to understand how the land acquisition proceedings could<br \/>\n     be dropped merely by receiving a letter by the Land<br \/>\n     Acquisition Officer from the Development Authority, as<br \/>\n     the proceedings had been initiated by the State.     More<br \/>\n     so, the conduct of the said officer itself is so<br \/>\n     reprehensible that it does not inspire any confidence.<br \/>\n     The application is hereby rejected.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Civil Misc. (Recall) Application No.175596\/2005 was also<br \/>\nlisted on the same day before the Division Bench of the High<br \/>\nCourt and the same was dismissed as no one appeared on behalf<br \/>\nof petitioners.      Another application filed for recall of order<br \/>\ndated   27.7.2006    passed      in    Civil   Misc.    (Recall)   Application<br \/>\nNo.175596\/2005 was dismissed by the High Court on 10.8.2006 as<br \/>\nmisconceived.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In this appeal, the appellants have prayed for setting<br \/>\naside the orders dated 27.7.2006 and 10.8.2006 passed in Civil<br \/>\nMisc.   (Recall)     Application        No.175596\/2005     and     Civil   Misc.<br \/>\n(Recall) Application No.158574\/2006 by contending that the High<br \/>\nCourt was not justified in dismissing the two applications<br \/>\nignoring the fact that the writ petition was dismissed as not<br \/>\npressed in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the MDA and<br \/>\nthey had become victims of untenable and malicious actions of<br \/>\nthe respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the MDA, an<br \/>\nobjection has been raised to the maintainability of the appeal<br \/>\non the premise that the appellants have not challenged order<br \/>\ndated   27.7.2006    passed      in    Civil   Misc.    (Recall)   Application<br \/>\nNo.178891\/2005      and   also    on    the    ground   that     Special   Leave<br \/>\nPetition     (Civil)       No.16433\/2006          filed       against          that       order           in<br \/>\nwhich      the    appellants         herein       had     joined          as     parties               was<br \/>\nentertained by this Court only in respect of the property of<br \/>\nSmt. Usha Devi (respondent No.10) and was dismissed qua others.<br \/>\nIn the counter affidavit, it has been further averred that<br \/>\nCivil      Misc.      Writ      Petition         No.20434\/1994                filed         by         the<br \/>\npetitioners was dismissed on 4.10.1996 because none appeared on<br \/>\ntheir behalf.          Another plea taken on behalf of the MDA is that<br \/>\nafter taking over possession on 22.6.1991, illegal construction<br \/>\nmade by the appellants were demolished.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The    appellants        have       not    filed        rejoinder          affidavit                to<br \/>\ncontrovert the assertion made in the counter affidavit that the<br \/>\npossession       of    the    land    was       taken    on     22.6.1991;             that          Writ<br \/>\nPetition No.20434\/1994 filed by the appellants was dismissed<br \/>\nfor non-prosecution and that Special Leave Petition (Civil)<br \/>\nNo.16433\/2006 filed against order dated 27.7.2006 passed in<br \/>\nCivil Misc. (Recall) Application No.178891\/2005 was dismissed<br \/>\nby   this    Court     except     qua     the     property          of    respondent               No.10<br \/>\nherein.      This being the position, we do not find any valid<br \/>\nground to entertain the appellants&#8217; prayer for setting aside<br \/>\nthe impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the result, the appeal is dismissed.                                    However, the<br \/>\nparties are left to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>      So    far       as   I.A.      is   concerned,           we        do    not       find          any<br \/>\njustification         to     entertain      the    prayer        for          restraining              the<br \/>\nrespondents        from       dispossessing             the     appellants-applicants<br \/>\nbecause possession of the acquired land was taken by the MDA<br \/>\nalmost 18 years ago after 80% of the compensation had been<br \/>\ndeposited.       Accordingly, the I.A. is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                 (G.S. Singhvi)<\/p>\n<p>                                                  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..J.<\/p>\n<pre>\n                                                     (H.L. Dattu)\n\nNew Delhi\nAugust 18, 2009\n\n\n\n\nITEM NO.MM 7-A              COURT NO.7              SECTION XI\n\n            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F    I N D I A\n                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS\nI.A. No. IN\n<\/pre>\n<p>Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).6641\/2007<br \/>\n(From the judgement and order dated 27\/07\/2006 in CMRA No.<br \/>\n175596\/2005 in CMWP 44749\/92 and order dated 10.8.2006 in CMRA<br \/>\nNo. 158574\/2006 in CMWP 44749\/92 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE<br \/>\nAT ALLAHABAD)<br \/>\nRAJENDRA KR. SHARMA &amp; ORS.                        Petitioner(s)<br \/>\n                 VERSUS<br \/>\nSTATE OF U.P. &amp; ORS.                              Respondent(s)<br \/>\n(Appln(s) for interim Relief,c\/delay in filing SLP and office<br \/>\nreport)<br \/>\nDate: 18\/08\/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.\n<\/p>\n<p>CORAM :\n<\/p>\n<p>          HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI<br \/>\n          HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU<\/p>\n<p>For Petitioner(s)           Mr. Rajiv Mehta,Adv.\n<\/p>\n<pre>For Respondent(s)           Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv.\n                            Mr. G.V. Rao, Adv.\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following<br \/>\n                                  O R D E R<br \/>\n               Although,   the   case   has  been   listed   for<br \/>\n          consideration of the I.A. filed by the petitioners for<br \/>\n          interim relief, learned counsel for the parties agreed<br \/>\n          that the main case may be disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Delay in filing the special leave petition is<br \/>\n          condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>               The appeal is dismissed.     However, the parties<br \/>\n          are left to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>               I.A. No. 4 is             is also dismissed in terms of the<br \/>\n          signed order.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n             [ Charanjeet Kaur ]                  [ Pushap Lata Bhardwaj ]\n                  Court Master                           Court Master\n          [Signed order is placed on the file ]\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009 Bench: G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Dattu IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NO. 4 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5761 OF 2009 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6641 of 2007]. Rajendra Kumar [&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-146676","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009 - 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\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-17T10:39:38+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\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-17T10:39:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1588,\"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\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-17T10:39:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009 - 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\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-17T10:39:38+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\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-17T10:39:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009"},"wordCount":1588,"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\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009","name":"Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-17T10:39:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-kr-sharma-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-18-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajendra Kr. Sharma &amp; Ors vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors on 18 August, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/146676","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=146676"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146676\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146676"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146676"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146676"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}