{"id":169043,"date":"2002-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002"},"modified":"2017-02-21T12:10:07","modified_gmt":"2017-02-21T06:40:07","slug":"dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 65, 97 (2002) DLT 538<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M A Khan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M A Khan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Mahmood Ali Khan, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of<br \/>\nthe Code of Civil Procedure has been filed assailing the<br \/>\norder of an Additional District Judge (Land Acquisition<br \/>\nCourt) dated 18.9.1997 by which he had dismissed the<br \/>\napplication of the petitioner and had allowed the<br \/>\napplication of the respondents No. 2 to 6 for their<br \/>\nsubstitution in place of their deceased mother<br \/>\nSmt. Khazani Devi in a proceeding under Section 18 of the<br \/>\nLand Acquisition Act pending before him.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The facts leading to this revision petition,<br \/>\nbriefly stated, are that Mr. Jagdish, father of the<br \/>\npetitioner and respondents No. 2 to 6, was the owner of<br \/>\ncertain agricultural land in village Rithala which was<br \/>\nacquired by respondent No. 1. Union of India. Mr. Jagdish<br \/>\nwas aggrieved with the compensation awarded by the Land<br \/>\nAcquisition Collector so he preferred the reference<br \/>\nunder Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is<br \/>\npending before the learned Additional District Judge.<br \/>\nOn the death of Sh. Jagdish, the petitioner, respondents<br \/>\nNo. 2 to 6 and his widow Smt. Khazani Devi were brought on<br \/>\nrecord as his legal representatives. Mr. Jagdish had<br \/>\nmarried twice. The petitioner is the son of his first<br \/>\nwife Smt. Bhagwani Devi. After the death of Smt. Bhagwani<br \/>\nDevi he married her real sister Smt. Khazani Devi.<br \/>\nRespondents No. 2 to 6 were born to Smt. Khazani Devi in<br \/>\nher marriage with late Mr. Jagdish. Respondents 2 to 6<br \/>\nare all married and are settled in their respective<br \/>\nmatrimonial home. Smt. Khazani Devi dies on 6.5.1996.<br \/>\nThe petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 6 filed two<br \/>\nseparate applications for their substitution in place of<br \/>\ndeceased Smt. Khazani Devi.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The petitioner in his application alleged that<br \/>\nSmt. Khazani Devi had been living with him and she had<br \/>\nall the love and affection for him as a son. She<br \/>\nexecuted a relinquishement deed dated 12.4.1996<br \/>\nrelinquishing her right to receive 1\/7th share in<br \/>\ncompensation in respect of the lands of her husband. He<br \/>\nprayed that he has become entitled to receive her share<br \/>\nin the compensation, therefore, he should be substituted<br \/>\nas her legal representative also. The defendants No. 2<br \/>\nto 6, on the other hand, wanted their substitution in<br \/>\nplace of Smt. Khazani Devi as her class-I heir of the<br \/>\ndeceased. The Additional District Judge by the impugned<br \/>\norder rejected the application of the petitioner but had<br \/>\nallowed the application of the respondents 2 to 6 and<br \/>\nhad substituted them as legal heirs of deceased<br \/>\nSmt. Khazani Devi. The petitioner is aggrieved and has<br \/>\nfiled the present revision petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The arguments of the counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nare that learned Additional District Judge has<br \/>\nerroneously held that the registered reliquishement<br \/>\ndeed was unreliable since it was registered after the<br \/>\ndeath of Smt. Khazani Devi and further that there was<br \/>\nsome interpolation in the recitation made in the deed.<br \/>\nHe has referred to the provisions of Section 23 of the<br \/>\nRegistration Act which provided that no document other<br \/>\nthan a will shall be accepted for registration unless it<br \/>\nwas presented within four months from the date of the<br \/>\nexecution. He also drew attention to Section 36, 47 and<br \/>\n60 of the Registration Act. Section 36 laid down that<br \/>\nif a person who had presented the document for<br \/>\nregistration, desires the appearance of any person whose<br \/>\npresence or testimony is necessary for the registration<br \/>\nof such document, the registering in his<br \/>\ndiscretion may get the summons issued to such a person<br \/>\nby an officer\/court to appear before him. Section 47<br \/>\nlaid down the time from which the registered document<br \/>\nwould operate. According to this provision the<br \/>\nregistered document would operate from the time from<br \/>\nwhich it would have commenced to operate if no<br \/>\nregistration of the said document had been required or<br \/>\nmade, and not from the time of its registration.<br \/>\nSection 60 on the other hand require the registering<br \/>\nofficer to make an endorsement on the certificate<br \/>\ncontaining the word &#8220;registered&#8221; together with the<br \/>\nnumber and page of the book in which the document has<br \/>\nbeen copied. Such certificate shall be signed, sealed<br \/>\nand dated by the registering officer and it will become<br \/>\nadmissible for the purpose of proving that the document<br \/>\nhas been duly registered  in the manner provided in the<br \/>\nAct and the facts mentioned in the endorsements referred<br \/>\nto in Section 59 had occurred as therein mentioned.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. His argument is that in accordance with the<br \/>\nprovision of Registration Act a document can be<br \/>\npresented for registration even after the death of the<br \/>\nexecutor i.e. Smt. Khazani Devi and that endorsement of a<br \/>\ncertificate by the Registrar on the document was a proof<br \/>\nof due presentation and registration of a document in<br \/>\naccordance with the above provisions. Therefore, the<br \/>\nlearned Additional District Judge was in error in<br \/>\nholding that the genuineness of the document had become<br \/>\ndoubtful since it was registered after the death of the<br \/>\nexecutor of the document. He has further submitted that<br \/>\nthe learned Additional District Judge has also wrongly<br \/>\nobserved that there was tampering of the document since<br \/>\nthe names of &#8220;Smt. Bhagwani Devi&#8221; has been typed over the<br \/>\nname of &#8220;Smt. Khazani Devi&#8221; in one of the paragraph of<br \/>\nthe document since this recitation was of not any<br \/>\nmaterial consequence. It was further submitted that the<br \/>\nphotocopy of the relinquishment deed had already been<br \/>\nfiled along with the application and the original<br \/>\nrelinquishment deed was also produced after taking<br \/>\nopportunity on one date. He therefore, submitted that<br \/>\nthe learned Additional District Judge had wrongly made<br \/>\nan observation that the original relinquishment deed<br \/>\nhad not been produced by the petitioner despite availing<br \/>\nof the opportunities and on the date of hearing he had<br \/>\nproduced a certified copy of the relinquishement deed.<br \/>\nLastly it was argued that the learned Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge has not given opportunity to the<br \/>\npetitioner for production evidence and substantiate his<br \/>\nallegations. He has relied upon the judgments in<br \/>\nKanwarani Madna Vati and Anr. v. Raghunath Singh<br \/>\nand Ors. ; Ramdayal and Ors. v.\n<\/p>\n<p>Bhanwarlal and Ors.  and Shiv<br \/>\nDass and Ors. v. Smt. Devki and Ors. AIR 1978<br \/>\nPunjab &amp; Haryana 285 in support of his arguments.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. On the other hand the counsel for respondents 2<br \/>\nto 6 has stated that these respondents were real<br \/>\ndaughters and class-I heir of the deceased Smt. Khazani<br \/>\nDevi, and there was no reason for Smt. Khazani Devi to<br \/>\nrelinguish her right in the compensation amount in<br \/>\nfavor of the petitioner who was her step son and<br \/>\ndeprive her own daughters of the inheritance in the<br \/>\ncompensation money. It was further stated that there<br \/>\nwas apparent interpolation in the recital of the<br \/>\nrelinquishement deed and that the relinqishement deed<br \/>\nwas presented for registration after the death of the<br \/>\ndeceased and all these facts were taken into<br \/>\nconsideration by the learned Additional District Judge<br \/>\nand that cogent reasons were given by him for<br \/>\ndisbelieving the case of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. I have given careful consideration to the<br \/>\nsubmissions made at the bar and I have perused the<br \/>\nrecord. The relinquishement deed relied upon by the<br \/>\npetitioner is a registered document. Endorsement<br \/>\n\/certificate of the Sub-Registrar on the deed give rise<br \/>\nto prima facie due presentation and registration of this<br \/>\ndocument. Still the question whether the document was,<br \/>\nin fact, executed by the deceased Mrs. Khazani Devi and<br \/>\nthe document is genuine can be decided only after an<br \/>\nopportunity was granted to the petitioner for proving<br \/>\nit. Same is about the allegation of overtyping\/<br \/>\ninterpolation in the document allegedly done after the<br \/>\ndocument was executed. It can be decided upon<br \/>\nconsideration of the evidence adduced by the parties.<br \/>\nThe learned Additional District Judge has decided the<br \/>\napplication raised could not have been decided without<br \/>\nproviding the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence.<br \/>\nThe petitioner on the one hand and the respondents 2<br \/>\nto 6 on the other hand were claiming right to receive<br \/>\ncompensation which was awardable to Smt. Khazani Devi in<br \/>\nthe proceedings pending before the Land Acquisition<br \/>\nCourt. It is not disputed that the copy of the<br \/>\nrelinquishment deed had been filed by the petitioner<br \/>\nalong with the application. It has been disputed that<br \/>\nthe original document was produced by the petitioner<br \/>\nbefore the court but the learned Additional District<br \/>\nJudge has, at least, noted in his order that the<br \/>\ncertified copy of this deed was produced before him by<br \/>\nthe petitioner. Anyhow the court ought to have granted<br \/>\nan opportunity to the petitioner to prove the<br \/>\nrelinquishement deed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. From the aforesaid discussion it is held that the<br \/>\nlearned Additional District Judge committed error of<br \/>\njurisdiction, illegality and material irregularity in<br \/>\nexercise of jurisdiction which warranted interference  by<br \/>\nthis court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The<br \/>\nimpugned order dated 18.9.1997 passed by the Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge is set aside an the case is remanded<br \/>\nback to the Additional District Judge for deciding the<br \/>\napplication of the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 6<br \/>\nafresh after giving them an opportunity to produce<br \/>\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. The parties shall appear before the learned<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge on 18.3.2002. The trial court<br \/>\nrecord shall be sent back immediately.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 65, 97 (2002) DLT 538 Author: M A Khan Bench: M A Khan JUDGMENT Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002 - 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\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-21T06:40:07+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-21T06:40:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1517,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-21T06:40:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002 - 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\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-21T06:40:07+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-21T06:40:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002"},"wordCount":1517,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002","name":"Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-21T06:40:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169043","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=169043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169043\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}