{"id":164476,"date":"2008-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008"},"modified":"2015-04-06T17:02:41","modified_gmt":"2015-04-06T11:32:41","slug":"anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & … on 3 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & … on 3 October, 2008<\/div>\n
 Civil Writ Petition No. 15672 of 2008                                      [1]\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH.\n\n\n                    Civil Writ Petition No.15672 of 2008\n\n                                          Date of decision: 3.10.2008\n\n\nAnup Chauhan\n                                                   ....Petitioner.\n\n                           Versus\n\nThe Financial Commissioner & Secretary and others.\n                                              ....Respondents.\n\n\nCORAM:       HONBLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH.\n             HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.\n\n\nPresent:     Mr.Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with\n             Mr.Parminder Singh Advocate for\n             the petitioner.\n                          ****\n\n\nDAYA CHAUDHARY, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of order dated<\/p>\n
13.6.2008 (Annexure P-16) passed by Financial Commissioner whereby the<\/p>\n
appeal filed by respondents against the order of Administrator, HUDA,<\/p>\n
Panchkula was allowed and order dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure P-11) passed<\/p>\n
by Estate Officer, HUDA, was upheld and further            for issuance of a<\/p>\n
direction to the respondents to deliver possession of plot No. 360, Industrial<\/p>\n
Area, Phase II, Panchkula.\n<\/p>\n
             Briefly the facts of the case, as taken from the writ petition,<\/p>\n
are that Industrial plot No. 360, Phase II, Panchkula, was allotted to<\/p>\n
petitioner on November 8, 1982. As per terms and conditions of the<\/p>\n
allotment letter, the petitioner was required to complete the construction
\n  Civil Writ Petition No. 15672 of 2008                                   [2]<\/p>\n
within two years from the date of offer of possession after getting plans<\/p>\n
approved from the competent authority in accordance with regulations<\/p>\n
governing the erection of buildings, but the petitioner failed to raise<\/p>\n
construction over the plot within the stipulated period. The Estate Officer<\/p>\n
resumed the plot vide order dated November 30, 2004 in view of the<\/p>\n
provisions mentioned under Section 17(3) and 17(4) of HUDA Act, 1977.<\/p>\n
The petitioner filed an appeal before Administrator, HUDA against the<\/p>\n
order of Estate Officer, which was allowed and order of resumption was set<\/p>\n
aside vide order dated November 13,2005. The respondents preferred a<\/p>\n
revision before the Financial Commissioner, which was allowed, and order<\/p>\n
dated November 30, 2004 passed by Estate Officer was upheld.              In<\/p>\n
compliance of the resumption order passed by respondent-authorities, the<\/p>\n
respondents served eviction notice under Section 18(1)(B) of the HUDA<\/p>\n
Act. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders by way of present<\/p>\n
writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr. Arun Palli, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, has<\/p>\n
argued that although the plot was allotted to the petitioner on November 8,<\/p>\n
1982, but possession thereof was not given and the same was given only on<\/p>\n
March 12,1991. He also argued that the petitioner raised construction up to<\/p>\n
25% of the total area of the plot in the year 2000 but the same was<\/p>\n
collapsed due to     storm in 2000 itself. It has further been argued that<\/p>\n
petitioner has already deposited the entire cost of the plot in time but<\/p>\n
construction thereof could not be completed within the specified period and<\/p>\n
for that, he had already deposited extension fee which was demanded by the<\/p>\n
respondent-authorities from time to time. Once the extension fee from<\/p>\n
petitioner w.e.f. 1995 to 2006 has been accepted by the         respondent-\n<\/p>\n
  Civil Writ Petition No. 15672 of 2008                                     [3]<\/p>\n
authorities, then it amounts to composition of offence for non-construction<\/p>\n
and the resumption order has wrongly been passed without taking into<\/p>\n
consideration the fact that he had deposited extension fee. The intention of<\/p>\n
the petitioner is also clear from his conduct that he has been serious in<\/p>\n
completing construction and, accordingly, extension fee was deposited.<\/p>\n
Mr. Palli further argued that the order of eviction Annexure P-18 has been<\/p>\n
passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of personal hearing<\/p>\n
and the same is violative of the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n
             Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings on<\/p>\n
record.\n<\/p>\n
             The plot in question was allotted to the petitioner in 1982 and<\/p>\n
the possession was also offered in 1989. It is also an admitted fact that<\/p>\n
building plan was got approved in the year 1995 and DPC certificate was<\/p>\n
also issued in 1997. The stand taken by learned counsel for petitioner that<\/p>\n
constructed area was collapsed due to storm, is not convincing as he was<\/p>\n
not in a position to point out any loss caused by the storm in the adjacent<\/p>\n
area. As per terms and conditions of allotment and HUDA Rules, the<\/p>\n
construction was to be completed within a period of 2 years from the date of<\/p>\n
offer of possession and construction was not completed in spite of the fact<\/p>\n
that possession was offered in December 1989 and actual physical<\/p>\n
possession of the plot was taken on March 15, 1991.               Not only the<\/p>\n
possession was taken but also the building plan was also got sanctioned on<\/p>\n
October 6, 1995 and DPC certificate was issued on January 7, 1997.<\/p>\n
             Even for the sake of argument that period of two years is<\/p>\n
counted from the date of issuance of DPC Certificate, then the period of two<\/p>\n
years was completed in the year 1999 but the resumption order was passed
\n  Civil Writ Petition No. 15672 of 2008                                        [4]<\/p>\n
15 years after the offer of possession and petitioner was afforded adequate<\/p>\n
opportunity. The reasons for non-construction of plot cannot be believed<\/p>\n
as the order of resumption was passed 22 years after allotment, 15 years<\/p>\n
after offer of possession and 7 years after issuance of DPC Certificate. The<\/p>\n
petitioner was never serious in executing the project and violated the terms<\/p>\n
and conditions of allotment. As per terms and conditions in allotment letter,<\/p>\n
the plot can be resumed in case of violation of any of these conditions. The<\/p>\n
terms and conditions at Serial No.18 of allotment letter, reads as under:<\/p>\n
                           “You will have to complete the construction within<\/p>\n
                           two years of the date of offer of possession, after<\/p>\n
                           getting the plans of the proposed building<\/p>\n
                           approved      from   the   competent   authority   in<\/p>\n
                           accordance with the regulations governing the<\/p>\n
                           erection of buildings. This time limit is extendable<\/p>\n
                           by the Estate Officer if he is satisfied that non<\/p>\n
                           construction of the building was due to reasons<\/p>\n
                           beyond your control, otherwise this plot is liable to<\/p>\n
                           be resumed, and the whole or part of the money<\/p>\n
                           paid, if any, in respect of it forfeited in accordance<\/p>\n
                           with the provisions of the said Act. You shall not<\/p>\n
                           erect any building or make any alteration\/addition<\/p>\n
                           without prior permission of the Estate Officer. No<\/p>\n
                           fragmentation of any land or building shall be<\/p>\n
                           permitted.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             It is clear from the above said condition that construction was
\n  Civil Writ Petition No. 15672 of 2008                                     [5]<\/p>\n
to be raised within a period of two years from the date of offer of possession<\/p>\n
and this period could be extendable by the Estate Officer only if he was<\/p>\n
satisfied that non-construction of plot was due to reasons beyond the control<\/p>\n
of the party but nowhere it is the case of the petitioner that the Estate<\/p>\n
Officer was satisfied with the reasons for not starting construction of the<\/p>\n
plot by the petitioner. Since petitioner has not started construction in spite<\/p>\n
of giving opportunity and passing of such a considerable long time, he is not<\/p>\n
entitled to the relief prayed.\n<\/p>\n
             In view of the observations made above and keeping in view<\/p>\n
the fact that the petitioner has made payment of all instalments and period<\/p>\n
was extended up to March 2006 for raising construction, the respondent<\/p>\n
authority shall consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgment<\/p>\n
of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in M.D.,H.S.I.D.C. and Ors. v. M\/s<\/p>\n
Hari Om Enterprises and<\/a> another JT 2008 (8) SC 184 subject to<\/p>\n
condition of depositing maximum penalty and interest permissible under<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n
             This petition is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(UMA NATH SINGH)                            (DAYA CHAUDHARY)\n     JUDGE                                       JUDGE\n\nOctober 3, 2008.\nraghav\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & … on 3 October, 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 15672 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.15672 of 2008 Date of decision: 3.10.2008 Anup Chauhan ….Petitioner. Versus The Financial Commissioner & Secretary and others. ….Respondents. […]<\/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-164476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & ... on 3 October, 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\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & ... on 3 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-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=\"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-06T11:32:41+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & … on 3 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-06T11:32:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1146,\"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\\\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & ... on 3 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-06T11:32:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & … on 3 October, 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":"Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & ... on 3 October, 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\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & ... on 3 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-06T11:32:41+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & … on 3 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-06T11:32:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008"},"wordCount":1146,"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\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008","name":"Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & ... on 3 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-06T11:32:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-chauhan-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-3-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anup Chauhan vs The Financial Commissioner & … on 3 October, 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\/164476","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=164476"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164476\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}