{"id":16640,"date":"2001-10-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-10-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001"},"modified":"2019-04-13T02:11:40","modified_gmt":"2019-04-12T20:41:40","slug":"jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001","title":{"rendered":"Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Shah<\/div>\n
Bench: M.B. Shah, R.P. Sethi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 7085-7088  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nJAGDIP SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAGIR CHAND AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/10\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nM.B. SHAH & R.P. SETHI\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Shah, J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Despite the legislative intent under the Motor Vehicles Act,
\n1988 to increase the number of buses on different routes for the
\nconvenience and benefit of travelling public, there is reluctance on the
\npart of the authorities to implement the same. Having reached at a
\nsaturation point wherein Permit Raj caused lot of inconvenience to the
\nbus operators as well as to the general public to a large extent, the
\nsame is sought to be continued.\t There cannot be any doubt that there
\ncan be certain restrictions on the bus operators for providing facilities
\nto the passengers, but when Legislature provides that permit should
\nnot, ordinarily, be refused and has brought about  a complete change
\nin the policy of granting permit, it would be unreasonable and unjust
\non the part of the State Authorities to continue their old practice.
\nFurther, in these days of liberalization in all fields, that too when we
\nare talking of globalization, it would be unjust to put fetter on the
\nexercise of fundamental rights of those persons who intend to carry on
\nthe business as transport operators.\n<\/p>\n
In these appeals, the order passed by the High Court of Punjab
\nand Haryana at Chandigarh setting aside the orders passed by the
\nState Transport Appellate Tribunal granting permits to operate mini
\nbuses on certain routes to the appellants, is challenged.  Orders passed
\nby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were not challenged by the
\nState Transport Undertaking or the State Government but were
\nchallenged by the Permit Holders who were running mini buses.  It is
\ntrue that those who are having permits to operate on certain routes
\nwould object to the grant of permit to other operators as it is likely to
\naffect their monopoly.\tThis is bound to be there in all fields of
\nindustry or business.  At the same time, grant or refusal of such
\npermits is required to be governed by the provisions of law.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe objects and reasons of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter
\nalia provides that to take care of:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) the fast increasing number of both commercial vehicles
\nand personal vehicles in the country; and<\/p>\n
(b) simplification of procedure and policy liberalizations
\nfor private sector operations in the road transport field;\n<\/p>\n
the provisions are made under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis legislative policy is reflected in Section 80 (2) of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which
\ninter alia provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall not
\nordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made
\nat any time under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs early as 1974, this Court in case of Hans Raj Kehar v. State
\nof U.P.<\/a> [(1975) 1 SCC 40] emphasised the need of having more and
\nmore buses for the public convenience and observed thus: –\n<\/p>\n
\t.The notification removes the bar created by
\nthe limit on the number of permits for buses which could
\nbe issued and facilitates the issue of such permits to fresh
\napplicants if they satisfy the requirement of eligibility.  It
\nhardly needs much argument to show that the larger
\nnumber of buses operating on different routes would be
\nfor the convenience and benefit of the travelling public
\nand as such would be in the public interest.  Any measure
\nwhich results in larger number of buses operating on
\nvarious routes would necessarily eliminate or in any case
\nminimise long hours of waiting at the bus stands.  It
\nwould also relieve congestion and provide for quick and
\nprompt transport service.  Good transport service is one
\nof the basic requirements of a progressive society.
\nPrompt and quick transport service being a great boon for
\nthose who travel, any measure which provides for such
\nan amenity is in the very nature of things in the public
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
Further in Mithilesh Garg and Others v. Union of India and
\nothers [(1992) 1 SCC 168], the existing bus operators challenged the
\nvalidity of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground
\nthat they were adversely affected in exercise of their right under
\nArticles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The Court negatived
\nthe said contention by holding that it is only the State which can
\nimpose reasonable restrictions within the ambit of Article 19(6) of the
\nConstitution of India on the guaranteed rights of every citizen whether
\nrich or poor, to take up and carry on, if he so wishes, the motor
\ntransport business.  Further, after considering the provisions of the
\nRepealed Act with regard to the grant of permit and sections 71, 72
\nand 80 of the new Act, the Court observed thus: –\n<\/p>\n
\t The scheme envisaged under Sections 47 and
\n57 of the old Act has been completely done away with
\nby the Act.  The right of existing operators to file
\nobjections and the provision to impose limit on the
\nnumber of permits have been taken away. There is no
\nsimilar provision to that of Sections 47 and 57 under the
\nAct.  The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act
\nshows that the purpose of brining in the Act was to
\nliberalise the grant of permits.  Section 71(1) of the Act
\nprovides that while considering an application for a
\nstage carriage permit, the Regional Transport Authority
\nshall have regard to the objects of the Act.  Section
\n80(2), which is the harbinger of liberalization, provides
\nthat a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily
\nrefuse to grant an application for permit of any kind
\nmade at any time under the Act.\t There is no provision
\nunder the Act like that of Section 47(3) of the old Act
\nand as such no limit for the grant of permits can be fixed
\nunder the Act.\tThere is, however, a provision under
\nSection 71(3)(a) of the Act under which a limit can be
\nfixed for the grant of permits in respect of the routes
\nwhich are within a town having population of more than
\nfive lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the respondent bus operators relied
\nupon the provisions of\tSection 99 of the Act and submitted that under
\nscheme framed by the State Government, the competent authority can
\nrestrict grant of permits to the bus operators and therefore, the
\nTransport Authority was justified in rejecting the application for grant
\nof permit to mini buses operators on a particular route.\n<\/p>\n
\tHence, the question iswhether the State Government has
\nframed any such scheme.\t It is true that under Chapter VI, there are
\nSpecial provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings.
\nSection 98 also provides that the provisions of Chapter VI and the
\nrules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding
\nanything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter V which
\nincludes Section 80. Thereafter sub-section (1) of Section 99 reads as
\nunder: –\n<\/p>\n
\t99.  Preparation and publication of proposal
\nregarding road transport service of a State Transport
\nUndertaking.(1) Where any State Government is of
\nopinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient,
\nadequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road
\ntransport service, it is necessary in the public interest that
\nroad transport services in general or any particular class
\nof such service in relation to any area or route or portion
\nthereof should be run and operated by the State Transport
\nUndertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or
\npartial, of other persons or otherwise, the State
\nGovernment may formulate a proposal regarding a
\nscheme giving particulars of the nature of the services
\nproposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be
\ncovered and other relevant particulars respecting thereto
\nand shall publish such proposal in the Official Gazette of
\nthe State formulating such proposal and in not less than
\none newspaper in the regional language circulating in the
\narea or route proposed to be covered by such scheme and
\nalso in such other manner as the State Government
\nformulating such proposal deem fit.\n<\/p>\n
From the aforesaid section, it is apparent that before framing the
\nscheme, the State Government should arrive at a conclusion that: –\n<\/p>\n
(1) for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate,
\neconomical and properly co-ordinated road transport
\nservice;\n<\/p>\n
(2) it is necessary in the public interest;\n<\/p>\n
(3) that the road transport services in general or in
\nparticular class of such service in relation to any area or
\nroute or portion thereof should be run and operated by
\nthe State Transport Undertaking;\n<\/p>\n
(4) to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or
\notherwise;\n<\/p>\n
(5) the State Government is required to formulate a
\nproposal regarding the scheme giving particulars<\/p>\n
(a) nature of services proposed to be rendered,<\/p>\n
(b) the area or route proposed to be covered and;\n<\/p>\n
(c) other relevant particulars respecting thereto.\n<\/p>\n
(6) and the State shall publish such proposal<\/p>\n
(a) in the Official Gazette of the State
\nformulating such proposal;\n<\/p>\n
(b) in not less than one newspaper in the
\nregional language circulating in the area or
\nroute proposed to be covered by such
\nscheme; and<\/p>\n
(c) in such other manner as the State
\nGovernment formulating such proposal
\ndeem fit.\n<\/p>\n
\tMain purpose of the aforesaid section is to have some
\nroutes\/area reserved for the State Transport Undertaking, that too, for
\nthe purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and
\nproperly coordinated Road Transport service.  Further, such scheme
\nmust be in public interest, that is to say, larger number of buses
\noperating on different routes for the convenience and benefit of
\ntravelling public at a cheaper rate.  In such a scheme, some routes can
\nbe reserved exclusively or partially for the State Transport
\nUndertakings.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the rejoinder affidavit it has been pointed out that in the State
\nof Punjab, the State Transport Undertakings are not running mini
\nbuses linking one village with another\tand as the State Transport
\nUndertaking is not running any mini bus linking the villages, the
\nRegional Transport Authority is bound by the provisions of Section 80
\nto grant permit.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt this stage we would refer to the alleged scheme upon which
\nreliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondents.\tAs such,
\nthe State Government or the bus operators have not produced on
\nrecord properly modified scheme, but they have referred to the
\nNotification dated 21st October, 1997 which seeks to modify the
\nprevious Scheme which was framed on 9th August, 1990 by
\nsubstituting some clauses.  The relevant parts of the said clauses are as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
(2). All Inter-state routes shall be operated by the State
\nTransport Undertakings and operations or private
\noperators whose permits were valid for a period of three
\nyears from the date of the publication of the scheme,
\nshall remain unaffected.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the route operated by a private
\noperator, which became Inter-state route as a result of
\nreorganization of the State of Punjab in the year 1966,
\nshall not be affected by the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that the operations of any State
\nother than State of Punjab or any Union Territory
\nincluding their private operators operating on any route
\nby virtue or the reciprocal agreement or permits granted
\nby such other states and countersigned by the State
\nTransport Authority or by the Regional Transport
\nAuthority concerned as the case may be, shall remain
\nunaffected.\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that a permit may be granted to a
\nprivate operator for operations of Air-conditioned buses
\nfrom the District Headquarter and important towns in the
\nState of Punjab to the Union Territory, Chandigarh.\n<\/p>\n
(4). All future operations on monopoly routes shall be
\noperated by the State Transport Undertakings:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that a private operator may be allowed to
\noperated on a portion of twenty per cent of the monopoly
\nroute or up to the distance of fifteen kilometers of the
\nsaid route, whichever is less, where it is necessary or is in
\npublic interest to do so:\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that the permits granted by the
\nRegional Transport Authority before coming into force of
\nthe scheme to the private operators for operating on
\nmonopoly routes, wholly or on portion thereof or on the
\nroutes in which the monopoly routes fall, shall remain
\nunaffected.\n<\/p>\n
(7-A)  While granting permits for operations on routes,
\nlinking one village with another village without any city
\nor a town or municipality, in between the aforesaid two
\nvillages, or a route linking a village with the block
\nheadquarter or a municipality or city the use of the mini
\nbuses may be allowed on the basis of passenger road
\ntransport needs as assessed by the State Transport
\nCommissioner, Punjab from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that: –\n<\/p>\n
(e )\tThe total length of each such route does not exceed
\n25 kilometers and the total operation per bus, does
\nnot exceed 250 kilometers per day.\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tNot more than half of the total routes length runs
\nacross a National Highway or State Highways.\n<\/p>\n
(g) At least one of the terminal of the route shall be a
\nvillage and shall not include more than one
\nmunicipality except on a local route falling within
\nthe municipal limits of a town, municipality or city
\nwherein both the starting and the terminating
\npoints may be the same or may fall within the
\nsame town, municipality or city, as the case may
\nbe, and<\/p>\n
(h)\tIt shall be ensured that the interest of the State
\nTransport Undertakings are not affected adversely
\non such routes.\n<\/p>\n
For the purpose of these appeals, clauses 2 and 4 are not at all
\nrelevant. Clause (2) provides for all Inter-state routes and clause (4)
\nprovides for future operators on monopoly routes which are to be
\noperated by the State Undertakings. Relevant clause is clause (7-A)
\nand it nowhere reveals that it is in conformity with Section 99 of the
\nAct.  Under Section 99 of the Act if the State Transport Undertaking
\nis to operate on a particular route, then only the scheme could be made
\napplicable.  The aforesaid Scheme does not provide that the routes
\nmentioned in Clause 7(a) are to be covered and operated completely
\nor partially by the State Transport Undertaking.  In such cases,
\nSection 80(2) would be applicable  as under Section 99, the State
\nGovernment is not empowered to provide that only few private
\noperators would operate on a particular route\/routes and Regional
\nTransport Authority or other prescribed authority cannot ordinarily
\nrefuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time
\nunder the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is to be stated that in the present case, the order passed by the
\nAppellate Tribunal was not challenged by the State Government or by
\nthe State Transport Undertaking, but was only challenged by the
\nprivate bus operators.\tHowever, in these appeals, it is not necessary
\nto consider whether they were having any locus standi to file petitions
\nbefore the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, the appeals are allowed.\t Impugned orders passed
\nby the High Court are set aside.  Orders passed by the Presiding
\nOfficer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab are restored.
\nThere shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tJ.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(M.B. Shah)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tJ.\n<\/p>\n
October 10, 2001.\t\t\t(R.P. Sethi)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001 Author: Shah Bench: M.B. Shah, R.P. Sethi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7085-7088 of 2001 PETITIONER: JAGDIP SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: JAGIR CHAND AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/10\/2001 BENCH: M.B. SHAH & R.P. SETHI JUDGMENT: Shah, J. Leave granted. Despite the […]<\/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-16640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001 - 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\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-12T20:41:40+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-12T20:41:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2454,\"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\\\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001\",\"name\":\"Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-12T20:41:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001 - 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\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-12T20:41:40+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001","datePublished":"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-12T20:41:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001"},"wordCount":2454,"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\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001","name":"Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-12T20:41:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdip-singh-vs-jagir-chand-and-another-on-10-october-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagdip Singh vs Jagir Chand And Another on 10 October, 2001"}]},{"@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\/16640","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=16640"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16640\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}