{"id":153841,"date":"2008-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-12-15T16:24:57","modified_gmt":"2015-12-15T10:54:57","slug":"gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008<\/div>\n
CWP No.2500 of 1984                                                 1\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                          CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                      CWP No.2500 of 1984\n                                      Date of Decision: 14.8.2008\n\nGutti                                            .....Petitioner\n\n                               Vs.\n\nState of Hareyana and others                     ....Respondents\n                               ....\n<\/pre>\n
CORAM :     HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA\n\n                               ****\n\n<\/pre>\n
Present :   Mr. Mani Ram Verma Advocate with Ms.Shiwani Verma,
\n            Advocate for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana for respondents
\n            no.1 to 4.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr.Hemant Sarin, Advocate for respondents no.6 and 7.<\/p>\n
                               …\n<\/p>\n
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)<\/p>\n
            The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of<\/p>\n
Certiorari, for quashing   the orders   dated 24.4.1984, 3.1.1984 and<\/p>\n
4.9.1961.\n<\/p>\n
            Girdhari Lal-Respondent no.5 was a big land owner. His<\/p>\n
surplus area case was decided on 4.9.1961 and 105.88 ordinary acres\/<\/p>\n
44.41 std. acres were declared surplus in Villages Darba Kalan,<\/p>\n
Nehranwali and Bir Hansi. The petitioner, alleges that he was the tenant<\/p>\n
of the big land owner on 15.4.1953, with respect to Killa No47\/\/16 (8K-<\/p>\n
0M), 17(8-0), 18(8-0),19(8-0), 20(7-2), 21(3-16), 22(8-0), 63\/\/1(8-0),<\/p>\n
10*8-0), 11(7-13), 64\/\/4min (2-0) measuring 76 kanals 11 marlas<\/p>\n
situated in Bir Hansi, Distt. Hisar and continues in possession as such.<\/p>\n
After the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings
\n CWP No.2500 of 1984                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Haryana Act’), the Collector<\/p>\n
sought to appropriate the land in       the petitioner’s possession    for<\/p>\n
allotment to the petitioner and the private respondents. 27 kanals of<\/p>\n
land was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal on<\/p>\n
11.9.1980, before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, praying that<\/p>\n
the order dated 4.9.1961 declaring surplus area be set aside, as it was<\/p>\n
passed without notice to the petitioner, a sitting tenant and without<\/p>\n
reserving tenant’s permissible area.        The learned Commissioner,<\/p>\n
dismissed the appeal, as being barred by limitation.<\/p>\n
            Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed<\/p>\n
a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The learned<\/p>\n
Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order             dated 12.4.1984,<\/p>\n
dismissed the revision by holding that on the relevant date i.e.<\/p>\n
15.4.1953, one Sudan, stated to be the petitioner’s cousin, was recorded<\/p>\n
as the tenant in the revenue record,and the petitioner’s assertion that<\/p>\n
prior to 15.4.1953 the petitioner’s father and thereafter the petitioner is<\/p>\n
recorded as a tenant, cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the petitioner submits that the question that<\/p>\n
arose for adjudication before the Financial Commissioner was, not<\/p>\n
necessarily whether the petitioner was the tenant on 15.4.1953 but<\/p>\n
whether the petitioner or any other tenant      was in possession. It is<\/p>\n
submitted that it is not denied by the State or by the private respondents<\/p>\n
that the land in dispute was in the possession of tenants on the<\/p>\n
appointed day. It is not denied that no notice was served upon any<\/p>\n
tenant, including the petitioner, prior to declaration of surplus area. The<\/p>\n
learned Financial Commissioner, should have therefore set aside the
\n CWP No.2500 of 1984                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
order dated 4.9.1961 and directed the Collector to redetermine the<\/p>\n
surplus area after issuing notices to all sitting tenants and also directed<\/p>\n
the Collector to decide whether the petitioner was in possession as a<\/p>\n
tenant. Reliance for the submission, that the identity of the tenant is<\/p>\n
irrelevant once the tenancy continues, is placed upon a Division Bench<\/p>\n
judgement of this Court reported as Nanak Chand V. The Financial<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Haryana and others<\/a>, 1981 PLJ 99 and subsequently<\/p>\n
followed by this Court in Makhan Singh V. The State of Haryana<\/p>\n
through the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa, 2005(3) PLR 123. It is<\/p>\n
submitted that as the petitioner and prior to him, his father was a tenant,<\/p>\n
the stray entry in the revenue record for the year 1953, should not have<\/p>\n
been relied by the Financial Commissioner, to non-suit the petitioner.<\/p>\n
             Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that              the<\/p>\n
petitioner was not a sitting tenant, on the relevant date i.e. 15.4.1953.<\/p>\n
He, therefore, has no right whether in law or in fact to the grant of a<\/p>\n
hearing or to claim reservation of tenant’s permissible area. It is further<\/p>\n
submitted that the surplus area was declared in the year 1961, whereas<\/p>\n
the petitioner filed an appeal in the year 1980. This unexplained delay<\/p>\n
for almost 20 years, as also the enactment of the Haryana Act, would<\/p>\n
not entitle the petitioner to any relief.\n<\/p>\n
             Counsel for the private respondents, who are allottees of a<\/p>\n
small part of the land in dispute submits that the petitioner has availed<\/p>\n
the benefit of allotment of 27 kanals and cannot, therefore, approbate<\/p>\n
and reprobate at the same        time.      The petitioner having drawn the<\/p>\n
benefit of an order of allotment, has no right, whether in law or in<\/p>\n
equity, to challenge the order passed in the year 1961. It is further
\n CWP No.2500 of 1984                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted that as the petitioner had failed to establish his tenancy on<\/p>\n
15.4.1953, the present writ petition be dismissed.<\/p>\n
             I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n
              A tenancy, by its very nature, confers tangible civil rights<\/p>\n
upon a tenant that may only be abridged save by and in accordance<\/p>\n
with   procedure established by law. The Punjab Security of Land<\/p>\n
Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the `1953 Act’) prescribes<\/p>\n
two types of permissible areas, one reserved by the landlord called the<\/p>\n
landlord’s permissible area and the other reserved by a tenant called the<\/p>\n
tenant’s permissible area. After reservation of the landlords and tenants<\/p>\n
permissible area, the balance land constitutes surplus area. The 1953<\/p>\n
Act, empowers a tenant to file a separate return for declaring the area in<\/p>\n
his occupation, as tenants permissible area. Rule 6 of       The Punjab<\/p>\n
Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 provides for the assessment of<\/p>\n
surplus area with landowners and tenants and          places a statutory<\/p>\n
obligation on the Collector, to serve a notice upon persons interested in<\/p>\n
the estate of big land owner, including sitting tenants. Any violation of<\/p>\n
this statutory mandate would render the order passed non-est A<\/p>\n
combined reading of the 1953 Act and the Rules framed thereunder<\/p>\n
makes it abundantly clear that surplus area proceedings, finalised<\/p>\n
without issuance of a notice to a sitting tenant, would be void, as<\/p>\n
regards the rights of a sitting tenant. The Collector was, therefore,<\/p>\n
required, before proceeding to determine the surplus area whether the<\/p>\n
land belonging to the big landowner was in occupation of a sitting<\/p>\n
tenant and if so, to issue notice to such a tenant.\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.2500 of 1984                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
                 It is apparent from the facts , that in the year 1953 land<\/p>\n
belonging to the big land owner,was admittedly in the possession of<\/p>\n
tenants. However while computing the holding of the big land owner<\/p>\n
for the purpose of determining his permissible and surplus area, no<\/p>\n
notice, whatsoever, was issued to or served upon the sitting tenants.<\/p>\n
The question, whether the petitioner was a tenant or his cousin Sudan<\/p>\n
was a tenant, is incidental as what is relevant is whether any tenant was<\/p>\n
in possession of the big landowners land. In Bahadur Ram and others<\/p>\n
V. State of Punjab and others, 1969 PLJ 372,while considering the<\/p>\n
rights of tenants it was held that the change of tenants will not affect the<\/p>\n
permissible area of the tenant if the land remained under one tenant or<\/p>\n
another from April 15, 1953 i.e. the date when the Act came to be<\/p>\n
enforced. The correctness of the aforementioned judgement was called<\/p>\n
into question and a reference was made to a Division Bench. The<\/p>\n
reference was answered in Nanak Chand’s case (supra), by affirming<\/p>\n
the judgement in Bahadur Ram’s case (supra) and               holding that<\/p>\n
change of tenants, provided the land remains the same and the tenancy<\/p>\n
does not come to an end is immaterial for determining tenant’s<\/p>\n
permissible area. In the case before the Division Bench, the learned<\/p>\n
Financial   Commissioner      modified     the   order   passed    by   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner to the extent that the Collector, Surplus Area, Hisar was<\/p>\n
directed to include, in the tenants permissible area all such land, which<\/p>\n
was comprised in the tenants permissible area on 15.4.1953 and which<\/p>\n
was under the occupation of the tenants irrespective of the change of<\/p>\n
tenants. The observations of the Division Bench would necessarily<\/p>\n
require reproduction.\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.2500 of 1984                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
                   “If the tenant had completely abandoned the tenancy<\/p>\n
                   and there was no tenant left at all, in that case<\/p>\n
                   different consequences may follow. But in the<\/p>\n
                   present case, the direction given by the learned<\/p>\n
                   Financial Commissioner to the Collector is quite<\/p>\n
                   clear, as the Collector has been directed to include in<\/p>\n
                   the tenant permissible area all such land which was<\/p>\n
                   comprised in the tenants permissible area on April<\/p>\n
                   15, 1953 and which continued to be so and was under<\/p>\n
                   the occupation of the tenants.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
It is, therefore, apparent that where tenants are in occupation of land<\/p>\n
sought to be assessed for determining the landowners permissible\/<\/p>\n
surplus area,the Collector cannot proceed to determine surplus area<\/p>\n
without issuing a notice to sitting tenants. Admittedly tenants were in<\/p>\n
possession of a part of the estate of the big land owner but no notice<\/p>\n
was issued or served upon them. The Financial Commissioner,therefore<\/p>\n
committed an error of jurisdiction in dismissing the revision petition,<\/p>\n
on the ground that the petitioner’s name did not appear in the revenue<\/p>\n
record as a tenant in possession on 15.4.1953. It would necessarily<\/p>\n
require notice that prior to the appointed day, the petitioner’s father is<\/p>\n
recorded in possession as a tenant.        After the appointed day, the<\/p>\n
petitioner is recorded in possession and on the relevant date i.e.<\/p>\n
15.4.1953, one Sudan, the petitioner’s cousin is recorded in possession,<\/p>\n
thus, establishing the fact that on the coming into force of the Act, a part
\n CWP No.2500 of 1984                                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
of the land comprising the big landowners estate was occupied by<\/p>\n
tenants. The above facts having been established the Collector was<\/p>\n
statutorily and mandatorily obliged to issue notices to the tenants and<\/p>\n
reserve a tenants permissible area whatsoever the identity of the tenant.<\/p>\n
The Financial Commissioner, therefore, committed an error in<\/p>\n
disregarding the law, as set out herein above and in failing to examine<\/p>\n
the matter with a greater degree of care and consideration.<\/p>\n
            In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ<\/p>\n
petition is allowed, the order dated 24.4.1984 is set aside and the matter<\/p>\n
is remitted to the Court of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, for<\/p>\n
adjudicating the petitioner’s revision afresh, in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
            The learned Financial Commissioner would be at liberty to<\/p>\n
take into consideration the effect of Section 12 (3) of the Haryana Act<\/p>\n
and to determine, whether in view thereof, surplus area determined in<\/p>\n
the year 1961, can be reopened at the behest of the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
Financial Commissioner would be at liberty to decide the controversy,<\/p>\n
without being influenced by any observations made herein before, as to<\/p>\n
the factual matrix of the instant controversy.\n<\/p>\n
            The learned Financial Commissioner shall make every<\/p>\n
endeavour, to dispose of the petitioner’s revision, within a period of six<\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear<\/p>\n
that in case the learned Financial Commissioner, decides to reopen the<\/p>\n
surplus area   case of the big land owner, any such order shall be<\/p>\n
confined to the land claimed by the petitioner as a sitting tenant in<\/p>\n
Village Bir Hansi.\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.2500 of 1984                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
              Parties are directed to appear before the Financial<\/p>\n
Commissioner on 29.9.2008. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
14.8.2008                                   (RAJIVE BHALLA)\nGS                                               JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008 CWP No.2500 of 1984 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.2500 of 1984 Date of Decision: 14.8.2008 Gutti …..Petitioner Vs. State of Hareyana and others ….Respondents …. CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present […]<\/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-153841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008 - 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\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-15T10:54:57+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-15T10:54:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1824,\"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\\\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-15T10:54:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008 - 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\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-15T10:54:57+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-15T10:54:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008"},"wordCount":1824,"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\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008","name":"Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-15T10:54:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gutti-vs-state-of-hareyana-and-others-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gutti vs State Of Hareyana And Others on 14 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/153841","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=153841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}