{"id":162299,"date":"2004-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004"},"modified":"2015-05-17T17:26:53","modified_gmt":"2015-05-17T11:56:53","slug":"haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"Haryana Urban Development &#8230; vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Haryana Urban Development &#8230; vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S N Variava<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.N. Variava, A.K. Mathur<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7553 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nHaryana Urban Development Authority\n\nRESPONDENT:\nManoj Kumar &amp; Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nS.N. VARIAVA &amp; A.K. MATHUR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>S. N. VARIAVA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBefore this Court a large number of Appeals have been filed by<br \/>\nthe Haryana Urban Development Authority and\/or the Ghaziabad<br \/>\nDevelopment Authority challenging Orders of the National Consumer<br \/>\nDisputes Redressal Commission, granting to Complainants, interest at<br \/>\nthe rate of 18% per annum irrespective of the fact of each case.  This<br \/>\nCourt has, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1682813\/\">Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir<br \/>\nSingh<\/a> reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65, deprecated this practice.  This<br \/>\nCourt has held that interest at the rate of 18% cannot be granted in all<br \/>\ncases irrespective of the facts of the case.  This Court has held that<br \/>\nthe Consumer Forums could grant damages\/compensation for mental<br \/>\nagony\/harassment where it finds misfeasance in public office.  This<br \/>\nCourt has held that such compensation is a recompense for the loss or<br \/>\ninjury and it necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury<br \/>\nand must co-relate with the amount of loss or injury.  This Court has<br \/>\nheld that the Forum or the Commission thus had to determine that<br \/>\nthere was deficiency in service and\/or misfeasance in public office and<br \/>\nthat it has resulted in loss or injury.  This Court has also laid down<br \/>\ncertain other guidelines which the Forum or the Commission has to<br \/>\nfollow in future cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Court is now taking up the cases before it for disposal as<br \/>\nper principles set out in earlier judgment.  On taking the cases we find<br \/>\nthat the copies of the Claim\/Petitions made by the<br \/>\nRespondents\/Complainants and the evidence, if any, led before the<br \/>\nDistrict Forum are not in the paper book. This Court has before it the<br \/>\nOrder of the District Forum.  The facts are thus taken from that Order.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this case, the Respondents were allotted a plot bearing No.<br \/>\nSSB-3, Old Court Area, Hisar.  The Respondents paid substantial<br \/>\namounts but the possession was not delivered.  The Respondent,<br \/>\ntherefore, filed a complaint.  On these facts, the District Forum<br \/>\nawarded interest @ 15% p.a. on the entire deposited amount from the<br \/>\ndate of deposit till offer of possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>The State Forum directed allotment of an alternate plot at the<br \/>\nrate payable for the old plot.  It also directed that interest at 15% per<br \/>\nannum will be payable after 2 years of date of deposit.  The Appellants<br \/>\nwent in Revision before the National Commission.  The National<br \/>\nCommission dismissed the Revision filed by the Appellants relying<br \/>\nupon its own decision in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/21817\/\">Haryana Urban Development<br \/>\nAuthority v. Darsh Kumar and<\/a> observing that interest @ 18% p.a.<br \/>\nwould be allowable after two years from the date of the respective<br \/>\ndeposits of amounts by the Respondent.  As has been stated in so<br \/>\nmany matters, the Order of the National Commission cannot be<br \/>\nsustained.  It cannot dispose of the matters by confirming award of<br \/>\ninterest in all matters irrespective of the facts of that case.  The<br \/>\nNational Commission must, if it is satisfied on facts of a particular<br \/>\ncase, award compensation\/damages under specific heads.  The Order<br \/>\nof the National Forum is accordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are informed that the Appellants have offered possession on<br \/>\n7th October 1997.  Counsel had no instructions whether Respondent<br \/>\nhad taken possession or not.  Undoubtedly the Respondent will be<br \/>\nentitled to take possession, if he has not already taken possession.<br \/>\nAppellants will deliver possession without demanding any further or<br \/>\nother amounts.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are informed that the Respondent has paid a sum of<br \/>\nRs.1,80,510.50.  We however find from the copy of the allotment<br \/>\nletter, filed in this Court along with the affidavit of the Estate Officer<br \/>\ndated 29th July, 2004, that only a sum of Rs.1,76,000\/- was payable.<br \/>\nAs per the affidavit interest in a sum of Rs.1,74,900\/- payable to the<br \/>\nRespondent, as per the Orders mentioned hereinabove, has been paid<br \/>\nto the Respondent on 16th October 1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>Counsel had no instructions and could not explain what were the<br \/>\namounts due from the Respondent.  As stated above Respondent has<br \/>\npaid more than what he was bound to pay.  Also neither before the<br \/>\nDistrict Forum or the State Forum or the National Commission and<br \/>\neven in the Appeal Memo before this Court is there a claim that<br \/>\nAppellants have to recover amounts from the Respondent.   When the<br \/>\ndispute has been subjudice, the Appellants are bound to put before the<br \/>\nCourt\/Forum not just their defence but also their claim\/counterclaim, if<br \/>\nany.  Without permission of Court the Appellants cannot set at naught<br \/>\nawards of the Forum by raising, outside Court, demands against the<br \/>\nRespondents.   It must be remembered that the Appellants were to<br \/>\ndeliver possession within a reasonable time.  They do not offer<br \/>\npossession till 7th October 1997.  As can be seen from the Order of the<br \/>\nDistrict Forum possession was not being offered because development<br \/>\nwork had not taken place.  As they were not in a position to deliver<br \/>\npossession they cannot expect parties like the Respondent i.e. allotees<br \/>\nto keep on paying installments to them. In such cases i.e. where<br \/>\nAppellants are not in position to deliver possession they cannot charge<br \/>\ninterest on delayed payments till after they offer possession.  Clause 5<br \/>\nof the letter of allotment also so provides.  It reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;5.\tThe balance amount i.e. Rs.1,32,000\/- of the above<br \/>\nprice of the plot\/building can be paid in lump sum without<br \/>\ninterest within 60 days from the date of issue of the<br \/>\nallotment letter or in ten half yearly equal instalments.<br \/>\nThe first instalment will fall due after the expiry of one<br \/>\nyear of the date of issue of this letter.   Each instalment<br \/>\nwould be recoverable together with interest on the balance<br \/>\nprice at 10% (ten percent) interest on the remaining<br \/>\namount.  The interest shall, however, accrue from the date<br \/>\nof offer of possession.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus, interest could only have been charged from date of offer of<br \/>\npossession.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs we are unable to understand and Counsel has no instructions<br \/>\nto be able to explain why extra payment has been collected and what<br \/>\nadjustments are purported to have been made, we direct that<br \/>\nAppellants shall now recalculate in the manner set out hereunder.  In<br \/>\nthis case, Appellants must pay interest at 15% from date of each<br \/>\ndeposit till date of payment.  They will not charge interest on delayed<br \/>\npayments prior to 7th October 1997.  If by that date the original price<br \/>\nof Rs.1,76,000\/- had been paid they will not be entitled to and will not<br \/>\ncharge any interest.  If anything extra is recovered they will repay that<br \/>\nback to the Respondent with interest thereon at 15% from the date of<br \/>\nsuch wrongful recovery till payment.  We, however, clarify that if<br \/>\nAppellants have a claim and feel that they have to recover such<br \/>\namounts from Respondent, they are at liberty to approach this Court<br \/>\nfor clarification\/modification of the Order and if on that application<br \/>\nthey are permitted to so recover they may.  But in the absence of any<br \/>\nsuch permission, they shall not recover anything extra\/over and above<br \/>\nthe allotment price of Rs.1,76,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFurther, if TDS amount is deducted they will now pay that over<br \/>\nto the Respondent with interest thereon at the rate of 15% from date<br \/>\nit was so deposited till payment.  Such recalculation to be made within<br \/>\n15 days from today and the amounts found due and payable to the<br \/>\nRespondent to be paid to him within 15 days thereafter.  A compliance<br \/>\nreport to be filed in this Court within one month from date.  A copy of<br \/>\nthe recalculation to be annexed to the compliance report.\n<\/p>\n<p>We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in<br \/>\nany other matter as the order is being passed taking into account<br \/>\nspecial features of the case.   The Forum\/Commission will follow the<br \/>\nprinciples laid down by this Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1682813\/\">Ghaziabad<br \/>\nDevelopment Authority vs. Balbir Singh<\/a> (supra) in future cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of with no<br \/>\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Haryana Urban Development &#8230; vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004 Author: S N Variava Bench: S.N. Variava, A.K. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7553 of 2002 PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority RESPONDENT: Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/09\/2004 BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA &amp; A.K. MATHUR JUDGMENT: J [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-162299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Haryana Urban Development ... vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Haryana Urban Development ... vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-17T11:56:53+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\\\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Haryana Urban Development &#8230; vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-17T11:56:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1353,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004\",\"name\":\"Haryana Urban Development ... vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-17T11:56:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Haryana Urban Development &#8230; vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Haryana Urban Development ... vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Haryana Urban Development ... vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-17T11:56:53+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\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Haryana Urban Development &#8230; vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-17T11:56:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004"},"wordCount":1353,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004","name":"Haryana Urban Development ... vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-17T11:56:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-urban-development-vs-manoj-kumar-anr-on-24-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Haryana Urban Development &#8230; vs Manoj Kumar &amp; Anr on 24 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/162299","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=162299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}