{"id":151036,"date":"2002-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002"},"modified":"2018-05-16T04:01:00","modified_gmt":"2018-05-15T22:31:00","slug":"smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 99 (2002) DLT 759<\/div>\n
Author: C Mahajan<\/div>\n
Bench: C Mahajan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
C.K. Mahajan, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. By way of this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the acquisition proceedings in respect of property comprised in Khasra No. 368 measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas in Village Misjid Moth, New Delhi as well as the notification dated 7th March 1962 issued by Delhi Administration and the LAC Case No. 72\/85 pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge. (Land Acquisition Court).\n<\/p>\n
2. Briefly the facts are, the property comprised of Khasra No. 368, measuring 5 bighas, 19 biswas was notified to be sold as a Government property  by  public auction on 21.6.1958.   The  late husband  of the petitioner being displaced person  bid for  the  same which was accepted as the highest  bid. Ministry  of Rehabilitation, Government of India  vide letter   dated   31.10.1960   directed   delivery   of  provisional  possession  of   the  aforesaid  property subject  to terms of the Indemnity Bond.  No title was given.  The husband of the petitioner died on 6th June 1970,   A  sum  of  Rs. 14,992\/- was  demanded  by  the Ministry  of  Rehabilitation,  Govt.   of” India  vide letter   dated   16.6.1980    towards   balance   sale consideration  which was deposited by the  petitioner. Certificate  of  Sale  dated 22.8.1980 was  issued  in favor  of the petitioner which was duly registered on 15.7.1981.    Title  of  the   said  roperty   stood transferred in favor of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
3. However, one Mr. Chhugani, a friend of the petitioner, received a notice in LAC Case No. 72\/85 which was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner inspected the records and learnt that the land acquisition proceedings were taken in respect of the said land and pursuant thereto the land was acquired. Notification under Section 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in 1962 followed by an award No. 1351 dated 30.6.1982.\n<\/p>\n
4. As the petitioner’s possession was sought to be  disturbed,  she filed a suit for injunction  being Suit  No. 526 of 1992 in the Subordinate Court and  the Subordinate Court granted ad interim injunction.\n<\/p>\n
5. Aggrieved by the acquisition of the said property by the notification dated 7th March 1962, the petitioner has filed the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner contends that on the date of the Issue of the Section 4 notification, the title of the land had not yet passed in favor, of the petitioner. The land belonged to the Government being evacuee land and as such the same could not have been acquired. Provisional possession of the land was given to the late husband of the petitioner subject to final adjustment of compensation. Balance sale consideration of Rs. 14,992\/- was demanded vide letter dated June 16, 1980. In the circumstances, the land continued to vest in the Government being evacuee land and ownership passed only on payment of full price where after Sale Certificate was issued and registered on 15.7.1981. The acquisition was thus bad and non-est.\n<\/p>\n
6. The respondent DDA has opposed the petition. It Is stated that the present petition suffers from delay and laches Inasmuch as the notification was issued on 7.3.1962 and the award was given on 30.6.1962 whereas the present petition was filed on 30.7.1993. It is further stated that the land in question has already been acquired by award dated 30.6.1962. The physical vacant possession of the land was taken by the Land & Building Deptt. of the Delhi Administration on 11.7.1962 and was placed at the disposal of respondent-DDA on 9.2.1981. It is admitted that the property  in question was conveyed to the petitioner on 22.8.1980 but she was declared purchaser of the said property w.e.f. 11.12.1960. It is  further submitted that the land in question ceased to  be  Government  land w .e. f.   11.12.1960  and  the rights of the petitioner in the land could be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and per used t he documents  on record.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  short questions involved in the present writ petition for consideration are :–\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether the land in question was an evacuee land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 7.3.1962?\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether the land, if it was an evacuee property, could have been acquired under the law?\n<\/p>\n
9. It has been observed by the Full Bench of this Court in  Roshanara Begum v. Union of India and Ors.  that in case the evacuee land has been excluded from notification under Section 4, there was no need to resort to Land  Acquisition Act for acquiring the land and any subsequent proceedings of acquisition taken in respect of the said land on the basis of the said notification were on the face of it illegal.\n<\/p>\n
10. Property in question is an open land measuring 5 bighass, 19 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 368, Village Maszid Moth vested in the, Central Government having been acquired under Section 12 of  the Displaced Persons & Compensation Act, 1954. The property formed part of the compensation pool under Section 14 of the said Act. The property was notified to  be  sold as Government property by way  of  public auction  on  21.6.1958.   The petitioner  bid  at  the auction  and vide letter dated 31.10.1960  provisional possession  was  delivered  to   the  husband  of  the petitioner.   Adjustment  of  claims took  time.   The petitioner vide letter dated 16.6.1980 was required to deposit  a  sum of Rs. 14,992\/- within 15 days  falling which  sale  would  be  cancelled and  earnest  money forfeited.   Balance sale consideration was deposited. Sale  certificate was issued on 22.8.1980 and the sale was  registered on 15.7.1981 .  The aforesaid facts are not  in dispute.  It was contended by the  respondents that  the  title  in the property was  vested  in  the petitioner  prior  to  notification under  Section  44 though  the  sale certificate was Issued w.e.f.   22nd August, 1980, thus, the notification was valid.\n<\/p>\n
11. The property belonged to the compensation pool. It was transferred under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons & Compensation Act, 1954. Procedure for sale is laid down in chapter XIV of the Displaced Persons & Compensation Rules, 1955. The Supreme Court in  Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram,<\/a> reported in AIR 1965 SC 1944 has held that the title passed in the case of auction sale of property in the compensation pool only when the full price was paid by the highest bidder. The observations of the Supreme Court are extracted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
  “It seems to us that the matter must  be considered on general principles. In this case the highest bid was of the respondent and he paid the full price before the sale in  his  favor was confirmed.   The  sale certificate,    though     issued   later, mentioned  the date of the confirmation of the  sale  in his favor .  The tenant  was asked  to attorn to the purchaser from the date  of  confirmation  of sale  and  thus possession was also delivered on that day. Title, therefore, was not in abeyance till the  certificate was Issued but passed  on the  confirmation sale.  The  intention behind  the rules appears to be that title shall pass when the full price is realized and this is now clear from the new form of the  certificate  reproduced  in Jaimal’s case, 68 Pun LR 99: (AIR 1964 Punj 99). No  doubt  till the price is paid in full there  is no claim to the property, but it seems  somewhat strange that a person  who has  paid  the price in full and in  whose favor  the sale is also confirmed and who is   placed  in   possession  should  only acquire  title  of the property  from  the date  on which a certificate is issued  to him.”\n<\/p>\n
The  relevant rules of the Displaced Persons (Compensation  &  Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 are  set out hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
“90.  Procedure for sale of property  by public auction-\n<\/p>\n
   (1) x     x     x     x     x \n(2) x     x     x     x     x \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
(3) Notice of the intended sale shall be given at least fifteen days before the proposed sale, the description of the property to be sold, its location and boundaries where possible, the terms and conditions of the sale and any other particulars which the Settlement Commissioner or other officer considers material. One copy of the notice shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property to be sold. It shall be within the discretion of the Settlement Commissioner or other officer to advertise the sale in newspapers and in such other manner as he may deem fit.\n<\/p>\n
 x     x     x     x     x     x     x \n \n\n(5) Every auction of a property under these rules shall be subject to a reserve price fixed in respect of the property, but such reserve price may not be disclosed.\n x     x     x     x     x     x     x \nx     x     x     x     x     x     x \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
(8) The person declared to be the highest bidder for the property at the public auction shall pay in cash or by a cheque drawn on a scheduled bank and endorsed “good for payment up to six months” or in such other form as may be required by the Settlement Commissioner, immediately on the fall of the hammer a deposit not exceeding 10 per cent of the amount of his bid to the officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit the property may be resold.\n<\/p>\n
(9) The Initial deposit shall be refunded if the net compensation exceeds the purchase price.\n<\/p>\n
(10) The bid in respect of which the initial deposit has been accepted shall be subject to the approval of the Settlement commissioner or the officer appointed by him for the purpose;\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no bid shall be approved until after the expiry of a period of seven days from the date of auction.\n<\/p>\n
(11) Intimation of the approval of a bid or Its rejection shall be given to the highest bidder (hereinafter refer red to as the auction purchaser) by registered post acknowledgement due and the auction purchaser shall where the bid has been accepted be required within 15 days of the issue of such intimation to send by registered post or to produce before the Settlement Commissioner or any other officer appointed by him for the purpose, a treasury cha11an in respect of the deposit of the balance of the purchase money.\n<\/p>\n
 x     x     x     x     x     x     x \nx     x     x     x     x     x     x \n \n\n(14) If the auction purchaser does not deposit the balance of the purchase money within the period specified in Sub-rule (11) ....., he sha11 not have any claim to the property.\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
(15) When the purchase price has been realised in full from the auction purchaser, the managing officer shall issue to him a Sale Certificate in the form specified in Appendix XXII or XXIII, as the case may be. A certificate copy of the sale certificate shall be sent by him to the Registering Officer within the 1ocal limits of whose jurisdiction, the whole or any part of the property to which the certificate relates is situated. If the auction purchaser is a displaced person and has associated with himself any other displaced person having a verified claim whose net compensation is to be adjusted in whole or in part against the purchase price, the sale certificate shall be made out jointly in the name of all such persons:\n<\/p>\n
 Provided that if it is agreed in writing by all concerned that the sale certificate may be made out in the name of the auction purchaser, the sale certificate may be made out in the name of auction purchaser.\n<\/p>\n
 x     x     x     x     x     x     x \nx     x     x     x     x     x     x \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
13.    From a perusal of the rules aforesaid, it is clear that the certificate was to issue only when full purchase  price  was paid.  If the price is not  paid, the  amount  of advance is forfeited and  the  auction purchaser has no claim to the property.\n<\/p>\n
14. This  Court in  Pt.  Haveli Ram v. Union of India  and Ors. (C.W.No. 1092\/67) decided on  30.3.1971 quashed the notification under Section 4 in similar circumstances and the only question was whether by reason of the sale certificate issued stating that it will take effect from 22.10.1959, it would have effect of vesting title from that date. The notification was quashed following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in  Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram<\/a> (supra). The judgment of this Court in  Dr. Bhargava & Co. and Anr. v. Sh. Shyam Sunder Seth<\/a> reported in A1R 1988 Delhi 349 is also to this effect.\n<\/p>\n
15. The plea of the respondents that the petition is belated and is without merit. The petitioner’s land was not covered by the notification being evacuee property and the notification was non-est and any proceeding taken for acquisition of land on the basis of such a notification issued under Section 4 would be void ab initio and without jurisdiction. I draw support from a decision of this Court in  Sham Sunder Khanna v. Union of India<\/a> reported in 1997 RLR 101 and in  Nanak Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
16. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon a decision of the Punjab High Court in  Dewan Jhangi Ram v. Union of India and Ors.  reported in  (63) 1961 Pun LR 610 and a decision of this  Court in  Mohd. Yusuf v. Union of India reported in (72) 1970 Pun LR 241. I have given careful thought to the aforesaid decisions and am of the opinion that the same are of no help to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
17.  In  view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold  that the land in question was evacuee on the date of the notification and the same could not have been acquired in law.\n<\/p>\n
18. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The notification dated 7th March 1962 under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act is quashed. Consequently the proceedings in LAC Case No. 72\/85 pending in the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge (Land Acquisition Court) are also quashed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002 Equivalent citations: 99 (2002) DLT 759 Author: C Mahajan Bench: C Mahajan JUDGMENT C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the acquisition proceedings in respect of property comprised in Khasra No. 368 measuring 5 […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151036","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002 - 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-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-15T22:31:00+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=\"11 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-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-15T22:31:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2130,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002\",\"name\":\"Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-15T22:31:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@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. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002 - 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-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-15T22:31:00+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-15T22:31:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002"},"wordCount":2130,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002","name":"Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-15T22:31:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswati-devi-vs-delhi-administration-and-ors-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Saraswati Devi vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 9 August, 2002"}]},{"@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\/151036","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=151036"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151036\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151036"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151036"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151036"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}