{"id":147287,"date":"2009-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-22T08:43:15","modified_gmt":"2017-05-22T03:13:15","slug":"amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n\n\n          S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3912\/1996\n         (Amar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)\n\nDate of Order ::   18th February 2009.\n\n      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI\n\nMr. R.S. Chundawat,for the petitioners.\nMr. Hemant Choudhary, Government Counsel.\n                        ....\n\n\nBY THE COURT<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner No.1 Amar Singh son of Udai Singh was<\/p>\n
assessed for agricultural land ceiling under Chapter III-B of<\/p>\n
the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Act of 1955’) in respect<\/p>\n
of 186 bighas and 17 biswas of the agricultural land situated<\/p>\n
at Rajsamand. The Authorised Officer dealing with the said<\/p>\n
matter, by his order dated 19.06.1976, observed that as on<\/p>\n
25.02.1958, the assessee had 186 bighas and 17 biswas of<\/p>\n
the land of which, 34 bighas and 15 biswas had been<\/p>\n
transferred to the petitioner No.2 Jodh Singh son of Udai<\/p>\n
Singh (brother of the petitioner No.1); and, while recognizing<\/p>\n
such transfer under Section 30-DD of the Act of 1955, found<\/p>\n
only 25 bighas and 12 biswas of the land liable to be acquired.<\/p>\n
      After coming into force of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
1973, the ceiling proceedings were re-opened by the State<\/p>\n
Government under Section 15(2) thereof while observing that<\/p>\n
the Authorised Officer was not right in recognising such<\/p>\n
transfer of 34 bighas and 15 biswas of land. The re-opened<\/p>\n
proceedings were taken up for consideration under Ceiling<\/p>\n
Case No.5\/1985 and were decided by the Additional Collector,<\/p>\n
Rajsamand     by   the   impugned    order   dated    18.10.1995<\/p>\n
(Annex.6). The learned Additional Collector observed that the<\/p>\n
petitioner No.1 though alleged to have given 34 bighas and 15<\/p>\n
biswas of land to his brother Jodh Singh (petitioner No.2) in<\/p>\n
Svt. Year   2015 but then, as on 24.02.1958, the land was<\/p>\n
recorded only in the name of Amar Singh (petitioner No.1);<\/p>\n
that if at all the land was transferred to Jodh Singh in the year<\/p>\n
1958, necessary mutation would have been made in the<\/p>\n
revenue records but it were not so and, on the contrary, the<\/p>\n
Patwari and the Tehsildar reported as late as the year 1971<\/p>\n
that there were no entries in relation to the alleged transfer. It<\/p>\n
was further observed that when the land was recorded as on<\/p>\n
24.02.1958 in the name of Amar Singh, it was not shown as to<\/p>\n
how Jodh Singh had any right thereto; and that the story of<\/p>\n
any partition having been made and thereby the land having<\/p>\n
been given to Jodh Singh remained unacceptable because
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
partition could have been effected only between the co-<\/p>\n
sharers and Jodh Singh was not a co-sharer of the land in<\/p>\n
question and because the consent of the land holder was not<\/p>\n
obtained and the alleged partition    was not in accord with<\/p>\n
Section 53 of the Act of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned Additional Collector held that the alleged<\/p>\n
transfer was made under an unregistered document only for<\/p>\n
the purpose of avoiding the operation of the Ceiling Law and,<\/p>\n
while refusing to recognise the same, directed acquisition of<\/p>\n
the land beyond 30 standard acres.\n<\/p>\n
      The petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal against the<\/p>\n
aforesaid order dated 18.10.1995 before the Board of<\/p>\n
Revenue that came to be rejected by the impugned order<\/p>\n
dated 29.06.1996. The learned Member of the Board<\/p>\n
essentially endorsed the observations as made by the<\/p>\n
Additional Collector and found that the transfer in question<\/p>\n
could not be recognised. Aggrieved, the petitioners have<\/p>\n
preferred this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
      It has strenuously been contended by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners that the subordinate Revenue<\/p>\n
Authorities have acted illegally in refusing to recognise the<\/p>\n
partition as effected between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
No.2. Learned counsel submitted that indisputably, the land in<\/p>\n
question was an ancestral property of the petitioners but came<\/p>\n
to be recorded only in the name of the petitioner No.1 and,<\/p>\n
therefore, 34 bighas of land was given to the petitioner No.2 in<\/p>\n
family partition and    the   petitioner No.2 otherwise did not<\/p>\n
receive any land from his father’s property. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
contended that the sons have equal right over the ancestral<\/p>\n
property   coming      from    their   forefathers   and   in   the<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, when the entire land coming from<\/p>\n
the father got recorded only in the name of the petitioner No.1,<\/p>\n
the parties have bonafide carried out family partition and there<\/p>\n
was no reason that the same was not to be given due<\/p>\n
recognition. Learned counsel has referred to and relied upon a<\/p>\n
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
Digambar Adhar Patil Vs. Devram Girdhar Patil & Anr.: AIR<\/p>\n
1995 SC 1728 that for the purpose of a legal partition, it was<\/p>\n
not necessary that it should be effected only by a registered<\/p>\n
deed; and even a family arrangement is enough to effectuate<\/p>\n
the partition between coparceners. The learned Government<\/p>\n
Counsel has duly supported the orders passed by the<\/p>\n
Revenue Authorities.\n<\/p>\n
      Having   given     a    thoughtful   consideration   to   the
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
submissions as made by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the writ<\/p>\n
petition remains totally bereft of substance and deserves to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        It remains an undeniable position that as on<\/p>\n
24.02.1958, the land in question was recorded only in the<\/p>\n
name of petitioner No.1; and as late as the year 1971, the<\/p>\n
Patwari and the Tehsildar reported that the land was recorded<\/p>\n
only in the name of petitioner No.1. It appears that the story of<\/p>\n
the alleged partition was put forward only in order to avoid the<\/p>\n
agricultural land ceiling and else, when the parties were<\/p>\n
aware, way back in the year 1958 itself, that the land had been<\/p>\n
recorded only in the name of the       petitioner No.1, nothing<\/p>\n
prevented them from seeking appropriate declaration from a<\/p>\n
competent Court, if at all the petitioner No.2 had any right in<\/p>\n
the land in question. The story of partition having been made<\/p>\n
in the year 1958 (Svt. Year 2015) neither inspires confidence<\/p>\n
nor could be given any credence.\n<\/p>\n
      It has rightly been observed by the Revenue Authorities<\/p>\n
that there was no question of any partition having been<\/p>\n
effected between the petitioners for the simple reason that the<\/p>\n
partition could be brought out only between or amongst the co-
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
sharers. The petitioner No.2 who was never recorded as a<\/p>\n
tenant cannot be conceded a right to claim the land by way of<\/p>\n
partition unless his rights were adjudicated upon           and<\/p>\n
pronounced by a competent Court. Moreover, at the relevant<\/p>\n
time, the suggested partition of agricultural land holding could<\/p>\n
not have been brought about without the consent of the land<\/p>\n
holder; and in the present case, the petitioners have failed to<\/p>\n
show if such a consent was ever obtained from the Tehsildar<\/p>\n
concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      There is another weird suggestion available on record<\/p>\n
that is enough indicative of the attempt on the part of the<\/p>\n
petitioners to somehow avoid agricultural land ceiling and that<\/p>\n
is seen in the affidavits (Annexs.4&5) as allegedly filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioners before the Competent Authority      on 01.06.1971<\/p>\n
wherein, apart from alleging that 34 bighas and 16 biswas of<\/p>\n
land was given by the petitioner No.1 to the petitioner No.2, it<\/p>\n
was further alleged that the petitioner No.1 gave away another<\/p>\n
60 bighas of land to his uncle Khuman Singh! Though such<\/p>\n
an aspect relating to the uncle of the petitioners and any land<\/p>\n
having been given to him has not otherwise been pressed into<\/p>\n
service in the later proceedings but it appears that by making<\/p>\n
such suggestions, the petitioner No.1 wanted to assert before
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
the authorities that he was in possession of only 91 bighas<\/p>\n
and 15 biswas of land so as to altogether avoid the operation<\/p>\n
of the Ceiling Law.\n<\/p>\n
      Para 3 of the aforesaid affidavit as filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
No.1 (Annex.5) gives out a strange state of affairs and reads<\/p>\n
as under,-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “3.    \u092e \u0936\u092a\u0925 \u092a\u0930\u0915 \u0928 \u0930\u0926 \u0915\u0930\u0924 \u0939 \u0915\u0915 \u0909\u0915 \u092e\u0930
\n      \u0916 \u0924 \u0915 \u092d\u092e\u092e \u092e \u0938 \u091c \u092e\u0930 \u092a\u092a\u0924 \u0915 \u092e \u0938 \u092e\u0930 \u092e
\n      \u0926\u091c \u0939\u0908 \u091c\u091c\u0938\u092e \u0938 \u092e\u0930 \u0938\u0917 \u091b \u091f \u092d \u0908 \u0936’ \u091c \u0927\u092e\u0938\u0939\u091c’
\n      \u0915 \u0938\u0930\u0924 ) \u0968\u0966\u0967\u096b \u092e \u0906. . \u0968\u0967 \u0930\u0915\u092c \u0967\u096f\/\/\/) \u0967 \u0932\u0917 ‘
\n      \u096c\/\/) \u0930 \u0906. . \u096a \u0930\u0915\u092c \u0967\u096b) \u092c’\u0918 \u0932\u0917 ‘ \u096b\/\/ \u202b \ufb4d\u202c\u0930 \u092e\u0930
\n      \u0938\u0917 \u0915 \u0915 \u0938 \u0939\u092c \u0936’ \u0916\u092e \u0923\u092e\u0938\u0939\u091c’ \u092a\u092a\u0924 \u0930 \u0917\u092e\u0938\u0939\u091c’
\n      \u0930 \u091c\u092a\u0924 \u0928 . \u092c\u0927\u092a\u0930 \u0915 \u0939\u0939\u0938\u0938 \u092e \u0906\u0930 \u091c’ \u0916\u0938\u0930 \u0938\u09169
\n      \u0968\u096b\/\u0968 \u0930\u0915\u092c \u096a\u0966\/\/) \u0967 \u0932\u0917 ‘ \u0967\u0967\/ \u202b\ufb4d\u202c\uf020 \u0906. . \u0968\u0969 \u0930\u0915\u092c
\n      \u0967\u096f\/\/\/) \u0932\u0917 ‘ \u096c\/\/\/) \u0926; . \u0907\u0938 \u0924\u0930\u0939 \u092e\u0930 \u0916 \u0924 \u0915 \u091c\u092e’
\n      \u092e \u0938 \u0909\u0915 \u092d\u092e\u092e \u0928 \u0915\u0932 \u0917\u0908 \u0939= \u0914\u0930 \u0907\u0938 \u0924\u0930\u0939 \u092e\u0930 \u0916 \u0924
\n      \u0915 \u0915\u0932 \u092d\u092e\u092e \u0930\u0915\u092c \u0967\u096e\u096c\/\/\/) \u0968 \u092e \u0938 \u096f\u096b) \u0968 \u0928 \u0915\u0932 \u091a\u0915
\n      \u0939= \u0914\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u0932 \u096f\u0967\/\/\/) \u092d\u092e\u092e \u092e\u0930 \u0915\u092c\u091c \u0930 \u0905\u0927\u0927\u092a\u09249 \u092e
\n      \u0939= .”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      A bare look at such assertions makes it clear that the<\/p>\n
petitioners have not been acting bona fide and the only<\/p>\n
attempt had been to avoid the operation of Ceiling Law.<\/p>\n
      In any case, the learned Revenue Authorities have<\/p>\n
rightly considered the matter from all the relevant angles and<\/p>\n
the Additional Collector, Rajsamand has concluded the re-<\/p>\n
opened proceedings after taking note of the entire fact
\n                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
     situation of the case and while stating cogent reasons for not<\/p>\n
     recognising the alleged transfer. The impugned orders do not<\/p>\n
     disclose any error apparent on the face of the record so as to<\/p>\n
     call for interference by this Court in the extra-ordinary writ<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
            In the fact situation of this case and the questions<\/p>\n
     involved, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
     the case of Digambar Adhar Patil (supra) that under the Hindu<\/p>\n
     Law, it was not necessary that the partition should be effected<\/p>\n
     by registered partition deed and even a family arrangement<\/p>\n
     may    be       enough   to   effectuate   partition   between   the<\/p>\n
     coparceners, has hardly any bearing or relevance.<\/p>\n
            The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed; but<\/p>\n
     without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.\n<\/p>\n
s.soni
\nMohan\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3912\/1996 (Amar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 18th February 2009. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.S. Chundawat,for the petitioners. Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Government Counsel. […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nAmar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009 - 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\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-22T03:13:15+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T03:13:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1430,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T03:13:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009 - 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\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-22T03:13:15+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T03:13:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009"},"wordCount":1430,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009","name":"Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T03:13:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-ors-vs-state-ors-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amar Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 18 February, 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:\/\/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\/147287","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=147287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}