{"id":149565,"date":"2009-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-27T11:25:05","modified_gmt":"2017-02-27T05:55:05","slug":"smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M)                             [1]\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                 CHANDIGARH\n\n                     Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M)\n                     Date of Decision: 13.10.2009\n\n\n\nSmt. Bimla and others                                   ......... Appellants\n\n                              versus\n\nState of Haryana and others                             .......... Respondents<\/pre>\n
PRESENT:-          Shri Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the appellants.<\/p>\n
                   Shri Lokesh Sinhal, Additional AG, Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
\nHEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   The present appeal is directed against the award dated<\/p>\n
5.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, on a<\/p>\n
reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to<\/p>\n
be referred as “the Act”).\n<\/p>\n
             Vide notification dated 15.11.1994 under section 4 of the Act,<\/p>\n
the State Government notified that land measuring 1490 acres 3 Kanals and<\/p>\n
17 Marlas (correct area found to be 1490 acres 2 Kanals 6 Marlas) was<\/p>\n
likely to be needed for a public purpose. A notification under section 6 of<\/p>\n
the Act was issued on 10.11.1995 and the Land Acquisition Collector vide<\/p>\n
his award dated 3.4.1997 determined compensation at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.4,13,600\/- per acre.\n<\/p>\n
             Aggrieved against the said determination of award by the<\/p>\n
learned Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants sought reference under<\/p>\n
Section 18 of the Act. Apart from the reference by the appellants, there were
\n Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M)                           [2]<\/p>\n
163 other references which came to be decided by the learned Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge together on 5.3.2003 and the compensation awarded by the<\/p>\n
Land Acquisition Collector was maintained.\n<\/p>\n
             387 appeals arising out of the said award were decided by this<\/p>\n
Court on May 19, 2006. The amount of compensation has been determined<\/p>\n
as Rs. 15 lacs per acre.\n<\/p>\n
             The present appeal has been presented on 29.4.2008 along with<\/p>\n
CM No. 10979-CI of 2008 for condonation of delay of 1798 days in filing<\/p>\n
of the appeal. It has been pleaded that Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate, was<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants before the learned trial Court but the appellants<\/p>\n
was not informed about the decision of the reference filed by him. The<\/p>\n
appellants being rustic and illiterate villagers did not contact their counsel<\/p>\n
on every date of hearing as reference was consolidated with other<\/p>\n
references. The information about the decision of the appeal was received<\/p>\n
by the appellants only in the first week of June, 2006 from their co-villagers<\/p>\n
whose land was acquired and, thus, the present appeal was filed after<\/p>\n
obtaining certified copy of the short order of Reference Court.<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that<\/p>\n
the appellants had no knowledge of the decision of the Reference Court<\/p>\n
inasmuch as the appellants were not informed by the counsel representing<\/p>\n
the appellants before the Reference Court. The appellants were not<\/p>\n
appearing before the Reference Court as their references were part of large<\/p>\n
group of reference. It was also pointed out that since there was no<\/p>\n
enhancement by the Reference Court, the counsel for the appellants before<\/p>\n
the Reference Court did not inform the appellants. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellants has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court
\n Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M)                              [3]<\/p>\n
reported as Dilbagh Singh        vs. Collector Land Acquisition, Industries<\/p>\n
Department Punjab, Chandigarh and others<\/a>, 2002(2) All India Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition & Compensation Cases, and a Division Bench decision of<\/p>\n
Orissa High Court reported as N. Budhiama (through L.Rs.) vs. Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition Officer Ganjam and another, 2003(2) All India Acquisition<\/p>\n
& Compensation Cases, 208 to contend that the Court should condone the<\/p>\n
delay as there exists a sufficient cause.\n<\/p>\n
             The judgment in Dilbagh Singh’s case (supra) was considered<\/p>\n
by me in CM No. 4900-CI of 2000 in RFA No. 2143 of 2000 titled<\/p>\n
Bhushan Kumar & others vs.            State of Haryana and others, decided<\/p>\n
on 4.09.2003 when condonation of delay of about 858 days in filing of<\/p>\n
Regular First Appeal No. 2143 of 2000 was being considered. After<\/p>\n
considering the said and other judgments, it was concluded as under:-<\/p>\n
                    ” The proposition of law laid down in the judgments<\/p>\n
                    referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants is<\/p>\n
                    not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the provisions<\/p>\n
                    of limitation has to be construed liberally and in favour<\/p>\n
                    of the suitor, but where the principles laid down in the<\/p>\n
                    judgments referred to above are applicable. One of the<\/p>\n
                    principles which has been laid emphasis that ordinarily a<\/p>\n
                    litigant does not stand the benefit on account of delay.<\/p>\n
                    Herein the appellants have sought condonation of delay<\/p>\n
                    after the appeal was allowed in another case. The<\/p>\n
                    appellants     were     satisfied   with   the   amount    of<\/p>\n
                    compensation and have thought of filing appeal only<\/p>\n
                    when compensation was enhanced in the other cases.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M)                          [4]<\/p>\n
                 Still further the substantial justice is not qua the<\/p>\n
                 appellants alone but justice to the parties. It appears that<\/p>\n
                 the appellants have taken a conscious decision of not<\/p>\n
                 filing appeal being satisfied with the award enhanced by<\/p>\n
                 the learned Additional District Judge. The appellant<\/p>\n
                 could not be compelled to file an appeal and to claim<\/p>\n
                 compensation. A right vested with the appellants to seek<\/p>\n
                 enhanced compensation in appeal. However, no such<\/p>\n
                 right was exercised, therefore, after the decision of the<\/p>\n
                 appeal invocation of jurisdiction is mala fide.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                       In Balakrishanan case one of the guidelines is that<\/p>\n
                 when the courts condone the delay due to laches the<\/p>\n
                 court shall compensate the opposite party for its loss.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 How the opposite party can be compensated with the<\/p>\n
                 loss in Land Acquisition Cases. The claim of<\/p>\n
                 compensation is claim for money. If delay is condoned<\/p>\n
                 the appeal is bound to be allowed and the opposite party<\/p>\n
                 is liable to pay enhanced compensation with interest,<\/p>\n
                 even though the appellants have failed to invoke the<\/p>\n
                 jurisdiction of this court for a long period. The opposite<\/p>\n
                 party cannot be compensated for the loss if the<\/p>\n
                 application for condonation of delay is to be allowed. If<\/p>\n
                 the amount of compensation is to be enhanced the<\/p>\n
                 liability of the State is to pay interest on the enhanced<\/p>\n
                 amount of compensation from the date of taking over of<\/p>\n
                 the possession. By inaction or the conscious decision if
\n Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M)                            [5]<\/p>\n
                   the appellants have decided not to file appeal, the State<\/p>\n
                   cannot be burdened with the financial liability whereby<\/p>\n
                   the State is made to pay even interest for the delay of the<\/p>\n
                   appellant”.\n<\/p>\n
            The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment are<\/p>\n
applicable with full force in the present case. The appellant has sought to<\/p>\n
condone the delay in filing of appeal after the appeals in respect of same<\/p>\n
acquisitions were decided and the amount of compensation was increased<\/p>\n
substantially. For all these years, the appellant was satisfied with the amount<\/p>\n
of compensation awarded. The appellant has sought to dispute the amount<\/p>\n
of compensation only after the appeals of other land-owners was allowed by<\/p>\n
this Court. Thus, I am of the opinion that filing of appeal at this stage lacks<\/p>\n
bona fides. The appellant has not filed any affidavit of Shri S.K. Gupta,<\/p>\n
Advocate, to the effect that he has not communicated the decision of the<\/p>\n
Reference Court to the appellant. It is difficult to believe that 163 land<\/p>\n
references were decided by the Reference Court but the appellant came to<\/p>\n
know of the said decision only after the amount of compensation was<\/p>\n
enhanced by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
            The judgment of Orissa High Court in N. Budhiama’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) pertains to a case of a minor widow. It was the said fact which<\/p>\n
weighed with the Division Bench while condoning the delay in filing of<\/p>\n
appeal. I do not find that the said judgment is applicable to the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case.\n<\/p>\n
            Similar application to seek condonation of delay was dismissed<\/p>\n
by this Court earlier on November 3, 2006 (RFA No. 3970 of 2006 – Jangli<\/p>\n
v. State of Haryana and others).\n<\/p>\n
 Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M)                     [6]<\/p>\n
             In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the<\/p>\n
appellants have not made out any sufficient cause to seek condonation of<\/p>\n
delay of 1798 days in filing of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.10.2009                                     ( HEMANT GUPTA )\n ds                                                 JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 2009 Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular First Appeal No. 5198 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.10.2009 Smt. Bimla and others ……… Appellants versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149565","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 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\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-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=\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-27T05:55:05+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\\\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-27T05:55:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1294,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-27T05:55:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 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":"Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 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\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-27T05:55:05+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\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-27T05:55:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009"},"wordCount":1294,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009","name":"Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-27T05:55:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bimla-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Bimla And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 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\/149565","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=149565"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149565\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}