{"id":170507,"date":"2011-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011"},"modified":"2018-07-28T20:37:25","modified_gmt":"2018-07-28T15:07:25","slug":"ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Indermeet Kaur<\/div>\n
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                   Judgment Reserved on: 28.01.2011\n                   Judgment Delivered on: 01.02.2011\n\n\n+             RSA No.54\/1989\n\n\nRAMESH CHAND JAIN                               ...........Appellant\n            Through:            Mr.Sudhir Nandarajog with Mr.Vinay\n                                Gupta, Advocates\n\n                    Versus\n\nUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS                 ..........Respondent\n              Through: Mr.Sanjay   Podar,   Advocate  for\n                       respondent no.1.\n                       Ms.Sangita Jain, Advocate for the\n                       respondents no.4 to7 Advocates\n\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR\n\n      1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to\n         see the judgment?\n\n      2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes\n\n      3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n                                                           Yes\n\nINDERMEET KAUR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1       This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
01.04.1989 which had reversed the findings of the trial Judge dated<\/p>\n
25.05.1980. Vide judgment and decree dated 25.05.1980, the suit<\/p>\n
filed by the plaintiff Ramesh Chand Jain seeking a decree of<\/p>\n
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from acting upon<\/p>\n
the impugned award No. 1658 or taking possession of the suit land<\/p>\n
in pursuance of the award was decreed. Vide the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment, the suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed.<\/p>\n
2       The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)     The plaintiffs are the owners of the land measuring 7 bighas<\/p>\n
10 biswas in Khasra Nos. 554 & 555, Village Gandhi Piran in Delhi<\/p>\n
RSA No.54\/1989                                             Page 1 of 10<\/span>
\n District. They had become owners vide registered sale deed dated<\/p>\n
16.07.1959.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)    On 13.11.1959, the Government had issued a notification<\/p>\n
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as the \u201eLAC\u201f) in respect of land measuring 34070 acres<\/p>\n
of land.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)   On 08.04.1963, notification under Section 6 of the LAC Act<\/p>\n
followed.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)    The plaintiff gave notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the \u201eCode\u201f) calling upon the<\/p>\n
defendants not to acquire the said land in pursuance of the said<\/p>\n
notifications which were bad. Defendants did not acceded to this<\/p>\n
request.\n<\/p>\n
(v)     Present suit was filed.\n\n(vi)    Written statement was filed wherein certain preliminary\n\n<\/pre>\n
objections were raised. It was stated that the suit is barred by<\/p>\n
limitation; the plaintiffs are not the owners; no cause of action had<\/p>\n
arisen. On merits, it was contended that the notification under<\/p>\n
Section 4 and the subsequent notification under Section 6 were<\/p>\n
valid notifications. The land stood acquired and possession of the<\/p>\n
same had taken over on 17.03.1964. The suit property not being in<\/p>\n
possession of the plaintiffs, prayer for injunction does not arise.<\/p>\n
(vii)   On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on<\/p>\n
03.02.1966. They read as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        1. Whether there is any notification under Section 4 of the
\n           Land Acquisition Act in respect of the suit land?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2. Whether the acquisition award in question is illegal on
\n           grounds as alleged in the plaint?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
RSA No.54\/1989                                                 Page 2 of 10<\/span><\/p>\n
        3. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, whether
\n          notification under Section 6 mentioned in para 4 of the
\n          plaint is valid? (objected to)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       4. Whether the suit is time barred?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       5. Whether plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land on
\n          the day of institution of the same?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       6. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7. Whether the suit is infructuous?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       8. Whether notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon
\n          defendants No. 2 & 3. If not to what effect?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(viii) Additional issues were again framed on 23.09.1969. They<\/p>\n
inter-alia read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       1. Whether the collector did not cause public notice of the
\n          substance of notification u\/s 4? (onus objected to)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2. Whether the declaration u\/s 6 was unreasonable and
\n          unduly delayed after Sec No. 4 notification? If so its
\n          effect?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3. Whether the Collector did not comply with the conditions
\n          precedent to the making of impugned declaration? (onus
\n          objected to).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(ix)   Again on 02.05.1970, following issues were framed for the<\/p>\n
third time:-\n<\/p>\n
       1. Whether father of plaintiffs made an application under
\n          Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and as such
\n          plaintiffs are estopped from beginning the suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2. Relief.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(x)    Oral and documentary evidence was led which included 8<\/p>\n
witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and 5 witnesses on behalf of the<\/p>\n
defendants.\n<\/p>\n
(xi)   Trial Judge held that the plaintiff was in possession of the<\/p>\n
suit property; mutation of the same had been effected in his favour;<\/p>\n
the notification under Section 4 was bad as there was no evidence<\/p>\n
led by the defendants to establish that the same had either been<\/p>\n
published or notified to the non-applicant. The plaintiff was entitled
\nRSA No.54\/1989                                               Page 3 of 10<\/span>
\n to a decree.\n<\/p>\n
(xii)   The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. It was<\/p>\n
held that the evidence had established that after the notifications<\/p>\n
under Sections 4 & 6 of the LAC Act, possession had been taken<\/p>\n
over by the Government Vide Ex. D-1 on 17.03.1964. In view<\/p>\n
thereof, it was clear that on the date of institution of the suit,<\/p>\n
possession of the suit land was not with the plaintiff. Suit was even<\/p>\n
otherwise not maintainable as it was barred by time having been<\/p>\n
filed two years after the possession was taken. It was dismissed.<\/p>\n
3.      This is a second appeal. After its admission on 23.01.1992,<\/p>\n
the following three substantial questions of law were formulated.<\/p>\n
They read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        “1.   Whether non-inclusion of khasra numbers and their
\nrespective area purported to be acquired in the notification under
\nSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act does not vitiate the
\nacquisition of land or the notification?\n<\/p>\n
        2.    Whether there has been compliance of Section 4 (1) or
\nSection 5 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case?\n<\/p>\n
        3.    Whether there is a belated notification under section 6
\nof the Act beyond three years after Section 4 notification? If so, is
\nit valid and effectual in law?”\n<\/p>\n
4       Thereafter on a subsequent date i.e. 28.01.2011,            the<\/p>\n
following additional substantial question of law was framed. It<\/p>\n
reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Whether the suit in the present form was not maintainable?
\nIf so, its effect?”\n<\/p>\n
5       Record had been perused. On behalf of the appellant, it has<\/p>\n
been urged that the finding in the impugned judgment is perverse.<\/p>\n
It is pointed out that the notification dated 13.11.1959 issued<\/p>\n
under Section 4 of the LAC Act was bad; admittedly there was no<\/p>\n
RSA No.54\/1989                                             Page 4 of 10<\/span>
\n evidence before the Court to hold that a publication of the said<\/p>\n
notification had been made in the two newspapers as is the<\/p>\n
mandate of Section 4; there was also no evidence to show that<\/p>\n
pasting of the said notification had been done on any conspicuous<\/p>\n
part of the locality to enable the concerned party to file his<\/p>\n
objections under Section 5 (a) of the LAC Act. It is pointed out that<\/p>\n
the proceedings under the LAC Act have to be strictly construed as<\/p>\n
a valuable right of a person is lost when his land is sought to be<\/p>\n
compulsory       acquired   by   the   Government;   “a    substantial<\/p>\n
compliance” as has been noted in the impugned judgment is not a<\/p>\n
sufficient compliance; the compliance has to be strict. Attention<\/p>\n
has been drawn to the notification dated 13.11.1959 under Section<\/p>\n
4. It is submitted that the map which was appended as Annexure 1<\/p>\n
was not a part of this publication; Annexure-2 which contains the<\/p>\n
disputed land in Block-G has made a reference to “imaginary<\/p>\n
lines”; it was incumbent upon the Government to have defined the<\/p>\n
proposed acquisition of land correctly either by way of Khasra<\/p>\n
number or its municipal number or by evidencing it in the map.<\/p>\n
None of these has been done; it could in no manner have been left<\/p>\n
to the imagination of the concerned person. For this reason,<\/p>\n
objections Section 5 (a) of the Act also could not be filed. The<\/p>\n
whole exercise being bad; it was liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
6     Arguments have been countered. It is pointed out that the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Supreme Court in         (1995) 4 SCC 229 State of<\/p>\n
Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar & Others followed by the Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court in 2009 (7) AD (Delhi) 265 Delhi Development<\/p>\n
Authority Vs. R.S. Kathuria has clearly held that the proceedings<\/p>\n
under the LAC Act which are meant to be serve the public, by<\/p>\n
RSA No.54\/1989                                              Page 5 of 10<\/span>
\n necessary implication ousts the powers of the Civil Courts. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that the notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the LAC<\/p>\n
Act cannot be the subject matter of challenge before a Civil Court ;<\/p>\n
at best proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n
in the form of a writ are maintainable. It is submitted that in this<\/p>\n
case admittedly the possession of the land had been taken over on<\/p>\n
17.03.1964 vide Ex. D-1; this has not been challenged as no cross-<\/p>\n
examination of the concerned witness had been effected on this<\/p>\n
score; the Government having become the absolute owner of the<\/p>\n
land; this notification cannot now be the subject matter of<\/p>\n
challenge. For this proposition reliance has been placed upon 2001<\/p>\n
(89) DLT 495 Ajit Singh Vs. Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
7     Record has been perused. The substantial question of law<\/p>\n
formulated on 28.01.2011 shall be answered first. The Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Dhirendra Kumar (Supra) while dealing with<\/p>\n
the objections to the notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the LAC<\/p>\n
Act had inter-alia held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Thus, it could be seen that the Act is a complete code in
\nitself and it meant to serve public purpose.       We are, therefore,
\ninclined to think, as presently advised, that by necessary
\nimplication the power of the civil court to take cognizance of the
\ncase under Section 9 of CPC stand excluded, and a civil court has
\nno jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity or legality of
\nthe notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6,
\nexcept by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution. So, the civil suit itself was not maintainable. When
\nsuch is the situation, the finding of the trial court that there is a
\nprima facie triable issue is unsustainable.      Moreover, possession
\nwas already taken and handed over to the Housing Board. So, the
\norder of injunction was without jurisdiction.”<\/p>\n
8     In the subsequent judgment of Swaroop (Supra), the High<\/p>\n
RSA No.54\/1989                                              Page 6 of 10<\/span>
\n Court relying upon the aforenoted judgment of Dhirendra Kumar<\/p>\n
had returned a finding as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       “The question is whether a civil suit is maintainable and
\nwhether ad interim injunction could be issued where proceedings
\nunder the Land Acquisition Act was taken pursuant to the notice
\nissued under Section 9 of the Act and delivered to the
\nbeneficiary………..   We are, therefore, inclined to think, as
\npresently advised, that by necessary implication the power of the
\ncivil court to take cognizance of the case under Section 9 of CPC
\nstands excluded, and a civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the
\nquestion of the validity or legality of the notification under Section
\n4 and declaration under Section6, except by the High Court in a
\nproceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. So, the civil suit
\nitself was not maintainable. When such is the situation, the finding
\nof the trial court that there is a prima facie triable issue is
\nunsustainable.       Moreover, possession was already taken and
\nhanded over to Housing Board.         So, the order of injunction was
\nwithout jurisdiction.”\n<\/p>\n
\n9      In the present case, Ex. D-1 is the possession memo which<\/p>\n
had evidenced that the possession of the suit land had been taken<\/p>\n
over on 17.03.1964. This is the version of DW-1 on oath. It has<\/p>\n
been reaffirmed by DW-4. No cross examination had been effected<\/p>\n
either of DW-1 or DW-4 that this possession had not been taken<\/p>\n
over by the Government on the said date. The second fact finding<\/p>\n
Court i.e. the first appellate court in the impugned judgment had<\/p>\n
returned a finding that it had been established that the possession<\/p>\n
of the suit land on 17.03.1964 had vested with the Government.<\/p>\n
The suit was filed in March, 1966 on which date the possession was<\/p>\n
not with the plaintiff; it had already stood transferred to the<\/p>\n
defendants.\n<\/p>\n
10     In view of the ratio of the aforenoted judgments that the<\/p>\n
RSA No.54\/1989                                             Page 7 of 10<\/span>
\n powers of the Civil Court by necessary implication to take<\/p>\n
cognizance of such a suit under Section 9 of the Code is excluded,<\/p>\n
it is clear that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into the<\/p>\n
question of validity or legality of the notification issued under<\/p>\n
Section 4 of the LAC Act. At best proceedings under Article 226 of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India could be maintained.<\/p>\n
11    It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
that the law pronounced by the Supreme Court in this regard was<\/p>\n
in the year 1995 which was much later in time then when the suit<\/p>\n
had been filed, the suit had been filed by the plaintiff in the year<\/p>\n
1966; the judgment of the trial Judge was rendered on 25.05.1980<\/p>\n
and the impugned judgment had followed on 01.04.1989. All these<\/p>\n
dates are prior in time when this law was declared by the Apex<\/p>\n
Court in the judgment of Dhirendra Kumar. It is pointed out that it<\/p>\n
would be inequitable if a person is non-suited on a legal<\/p>\n
proposition which has been enunciated later in time. This judgment<\/p>\n
has a prospective effect and could not be applied retrospectively.<\/p>\n
12    This argument has to be noted only to be rejected. The law<\/p>\n
i.e. the provisions of Section 4 of the LAC Act were promulgated by<\/p>\n
the Legislature in 1894. They were only expounded and dealt with<\/p>\n
in the judgment of the Dhirendra Kumar in 1995. It is not as if the<\/p>\n
legislation had come into effect later on. The Supreme Court had<\/p>\n
only enunciated the proposition that the LAC Act is a complete<\/p>\n
Code itself and by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
Civil Court to take cognizance on the question of the validity of the<\/p>\n
notification under Section 4 was ousted.\n<\/p>\n
13    The substantial question of law formulated on 28.01.2011 is<\/p>\n
answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.<\/p>\n
RSA No.54\/1989                                            Page 8 of 10<\/span>
\n Suit was not maintainable in the present form.\n<\/p>\n
14    The additional argument urged by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant on the substantial questions of law formulated on<\/p>\n
23.01.1992 need not be answered in view of this finding given by<\/p>\n
this Court on the substantial question of law as noted hereinabove.<\/p>\n
It would, however, be relevant to state that 1996 (61) DLT 206<\/p>\n
Roshnara Begum Vs. Union of India, a Bench of this Court had the<\/p>\n
occasion to examine these very notifications i.e. notification dated<\/p>\n
13.11.1959 issued under Section 4 of the LAC Act and the<\/p>\n
subsequent notification dated 08.04.1963 under Section 6 of the<\/p>\n
said Act. The said notifications had been up held. It had been noted<\/p>\n
that the analogy of Sections 4 & 6 cannot be made applicable to<\/p>\n
the further proceedings of acquisition for making awards. Sections<\/p>\n
4, 5 (a) and 6 stand on different footings from other provisions of<\/p>\n
the Statute. After a declaration under Section 6 has been issued in<\/p>\n
respect of particular land, it is evident that the land which is<\/p>\n
particularized under Section 6 may comprise of various khasras of<\/p>\n
various revenue estates; Section 8 requires the Collector to mark<\/p>\n
out the land and get it measured and prepared the plans of the<\/p>\n
land which have been notified under Section 6 of the declaration.<\/p>\n
In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned for the<\/p>\n
appellant that the land had not been described sufficiently in the<\/p>\n
notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the LAC is of little relevance.<\/p>\n
The appeal against this judgment of the High Court had been<\/p>\n
dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1997 (1) SCC 15 Murari Vs.<\/p>\n
Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
15    Even otherwise, the petitioner had also been compensated as<\/p>\n
is evident from para 4 of the written statement to which there was<\/p>\n
RSA No.54\/1989                                            Page 9 of 10<\/span>
\n no denial. It is thus clear that the possession of the defendants<\/p>\n
having been established on 17.03.1964, all proceedings filed<\/p>\n
thereafter challenging the notifications either under Section 4 or<\/p>\n
under Section 6 of the Act would not be maintainable. Admittedly<\/p>\n
the suit had been filed in March, 1966 after possession of the land<\/p>\n
had stood transferred and vested with the Government.       In view<\/p>\n
thereof, no further discussion is required on the substantial<\/p>\n
questions of law which were formulated on 23.01.1992.<\/p>\n
      The appeal has no merit. Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        INDERMEET KAUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
FEBRUARY 01, 2011
\na<\/p>\n
RSA No.54\/1989                                           Page 10 of 10<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011 Author: Indermeet Kaur * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 28.01.2011 Judgment Delivered on: 01.02.2011 + RSA No.54\/1989 RAMESH CHAND JAIN ………..Appellant Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandarajog with Mr.Vinay Gupta, Advocates Versus UNION OF […]<\/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-170507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011 - 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\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-28T15:07:25+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T15:07:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2541,\"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\\\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T15:07:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011 - 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\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-28T15:07:25+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T15:07:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011"},"wordCount":2541,"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\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011","name":"Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T15:07:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-jain-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Chand Jain vs Union Of India & Others on 1 February, 2011"}]},{"@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\/170507","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=170507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170507\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}