{"id":171823,"date":"2008-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-20T14:29:23","modified_gmt":"2016-10-20T08:59:23","slug":"jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: T Chatterjee<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Aftab Alam<\/div>\n
                                                       REPORTABLE\n\n\n         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n         CIVIL APPEAL NO...................OF 2008\n     (Arising out of SLP)No.13648 of 2007)\n\nJeewan Dhar Jain (Dead) through\nLrs. & Ors.                                    ..Appellants\n\nVERSUS\n\nState of Haryana & Ors.                       ..Respondents\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    This    appeal         is    directed    against       the<\/p>\n
judgment and order dated 18th of October, 2005,<\/p>\n
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana<\/p>\n
at    Chandigarh       in    Review      Application    No.86-<\/p>\n
CII\/2002 in Civil Revision No.3273\/2001, Review<\/p>\n
Application No. 87-CII\/2002 in CR No.3275\/2001,<\/p>\n
Review       Application           No.     88-CII\/2002        in<\/p>\n
CR.No.3276\/2001,             Review       Application        No.<\/p>\n
89-CII\/2002       in        CR    No.    3277\/2001,     Review<\/p>\n
                                                         1<\/span>
\nApplication No. 90-CII\/2002 in CR No.3278\/2001,<\/p>\n
Review      Application           No.    91-CII\/2002          in    CR<\/p>\n
No.3280\/2001, Review Application No.92-CII\/2002<\/p>\n
in CR No.3281\/2001 and Review Application No.<\/p>\n
93-CII\/2002      in       CR    No.3282\/2001         by    which   the<\/p>\n
bunch     of    review         applications        filed     at    the<\/p>\n
instance of claimants-landowners-appellants in<\/p>\n
the     connected         civil    revision        petitions       was<\/p>\n
disposed       of.    A    bunch    of       13   civil     revision<\/p>\n
petitions      was     decided      by   the      learned     Single<\/p>\n
Judge    vide        judgment      dated      25th    of    October,<\/p>\n
2001. All the revision petitions were filed by<\/p>\n
the     Haryana        Urban       Development            Authority,<\/p>\n
Gurgaon, for whose benefit the land belonging<\/p>\n
to    the      claimants-landowners               was      acquired.<\/p>\n
Similarly,       a     bunch       of    15       civil     revision<\/p>\n
petitions was decided by another learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge of the High Court which was filed by the<\/p>\n
Food Corporation of India, for whose benefit<\/p>\n
the   land     was     acquired.        In    these       cases,   the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge of the High Court followed<\/p>\n
the proposition of law laid down in judgment<\/p>\n
                                                               2<\/span>
\ndated 25th of October, 2001 passed in Review<\/p>\n
Application           No.        113-CII\/2002        in      CR          No.<\/p>\n
2842\/2002.       Vide       an    order     dated    20th      of       May,<\/p>\n
2001,      the        Executing        Court        allowed              the<\/p>\n
application        of       the     claimants-appellants                  in<\/p>\n
Review Application No. 113-CII\/2002 in CR No.<\/p>\n
2842\/2002 holding that she was entitled to get<\/p>\n
interest on the solatium and to appropriate the<\/p>\n
amount already paid or deposited in the court<\/p>\n
firstly towards costs, then towards interest<\/p>\n
and   then   towards             solatium    and     in     the         last<\/p>\n
towards principal amount. The order dated 10th<\/p>\n
of May, 2001 passed by the Executing Court was<\/p>\n
challenged       by     the      Haryana     Urban     Development<\/p>\n
Authority        before       the    High     Court         in      Civil<\/p>\n
Revision     Petition            No.2842     of     2001.        Similar<\/p>\n
revision     petitions              were     filed        in        other<\/p>\n
connected matters. One of the questions that<\/p>\n
arose before the learned Single Judge of the<\/p>\n
High Court for adjudication was as follows:-<\/p>\n
           “Whether claimants\/landowners do
\n      have the right to appropriate the
\n      amount    deposited   by   the   Land<\/p>\n
                                                                    3<\/span>
\n       Acquisition Collector as per their
\n       own discretion or the same has to be
\n       paid in view of the Scheme of the
\n       Act?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.     The learned Single Judge of the High Court<\/p>\n
relying upon the law laid down by this court in<\/p>\n
the    case   of    Prem    Nath      Kapoor    and   Anr.       Vs.<\/p>\n
National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd.<\/p>\n
and & Ors. [JT 1995 (9) SC 23] held that the<\/p>\n
claimants were not entitled to appropriate the<\/p>\n
amount    deposited        by   the    Collector      at    their<\/p>\n
discretion and appropriation and payment shall<\/p>\n
be made strictly in accordance with the law<\/p>\n
laid down by this Court in Prem Nath Kapoor’s<\/p>\n
case     (supra).       Accordingly,           the    aforesaid<\/p>\n
question      was     answered        in     favour    of        the<\/p>\n
acquiring          authorities         and      against          the<\/p>\n
claimants. The present review applications were<\/p>\n
filed by the claimants-appellants praying for<\/p>\n
review of the aforesaid decision of the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge qua the aforesaid question. While<\/p>\n
deciding      the    review     applications,         the       High<\/p>\n
                                                            4<\/span>
\nCourt in the impugned order made the following<\/p>\n
observations –\n<\/p>\n
          “In   view   of   the    aforesaid
\n     observations made by the Apex Court
\n     in Prem Nath Kapoor’s case (supra)
\n     and also having noticed the same in
\n     M\/s.     Industrial     Credit      and
\n     Development Syndicate, we are not
\n     inclined to take any different view
\n     than the one taken by the learned
\n     Single Judge. As a matter of fact,
\n     the learned Single Judge has placed
\n     specific reliance upon Prem Nath
\n     Kapoor’s case and as per law laid
\n     down by the Apex Court, no exception
\n     to the view expressed by the learned
\n     Single    Judge    can     be    taken.\n<\/p>\n
     Consequently, we hold that in the
\n     land acquisition proceedings, the
\n     claimants   cannot   be    allowed   to
\n     appropriate the amount deposited by
\n     the Collector at their discretion
\n     and appropriation and payment has to
\n     be made strictly in accordance with
\n     the law laid down by this Court in
\n     Prem Nath Kapoor’s case (supra).
\n     Holding as above, the review cases
\n     were dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   Feeling      aggrieved,       the      claimants-<\/p>\n
appellants moved this Court and notices were<\/p>\n
issued. Subsequently, similar issue which was<\/p>\n
decided   in   Prem   Nath   Kapoor’s    case,   namely,<\/p>\n
Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, SLP)No.8408<\/p>\n
of<\/a> 2003 was referred to Constitution Bench of<\/p>\n
                                                  5<\/span>
\nthis Court by a three-Judge and finally the<\/p>\n
question referred before the Constitution Bench<\/p>\n
was   decided     in    Gurpreet       Singh     vs.     Union     of<\/p>\n
India<\/a> reported in 2006 (8) SCC 457. After the<\/p>\n
above question was decided by the Constitution<\/p>\n
Bench, the matter has now come up for hearing<\/p>\n
before   us.      Mr.Ghosh      learned         senior     counsel<\/p>\n
appearing    for       the   appellants         had    drawn       our<\/p>\n
attention    at    paragraph          36   of    the     aforesaid<\/p>\n
Constitution       Bench      decision          at     page       478,<\/p>\n
particularly the portion, namely, “but if there<\/p>\n
is any shortfall at any stage, the claimant or<\/p>\n
decree-holder can seek to apply the rule of<\/p>\n
appropriation in respect of that amount, first<\/p>\n
towards interest and costs and then towards the<\/p>\n
principal,        unless        the        decree        otherwise<\/p>\n
directs.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    Relying     on     this     observation,            Mr.Ghosh<\/p>\n
submitted that the ratio in Prem Nath Kapoor’s<\/p>\n
case on appropriation being at different stages<\/p>\n
was justified though if at a particular stage<\/p>\n
                                                              6<\/span>
\nthere       was   a    shortfall,     the        awardee-decree<\/p>\n
holder      would     be   entitled   to    appropriate        the<\/p>\n
same on the general principle of appropriation,<\/p>\n
first towards interest then towards costs and<\/p>\n
then towards the principal, unless, of course,<\/p>\n
the     deposit       is    indicated       to     be   towards<\/p>\n
specified heads by the judgment debtor while<\/p>\n
making the deposit intimating the decree holder<\/p>\n
of his intention. Relying on this observation<\/p>\n
of this Court made in the Constitution Bench,<\/p>\n
Mr.Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the appellants submitted that this aspect of<\/p>\n
the matter not having been considered by the<\/p>\n
High Court either in the civil revision case or<\/p>\n
in the review petitions, it would be fit and<\/p>\n
proper for this Court to send the cases back to<\/p>\n
the Executing Court for disposal in the light<\/p>\n
of    the    aforesaid      observations     of     this   Court<\/p>\n
made    in    the     Constitution    Bench        decision     as<\/p>\n
referred to herein above. This submission of<\/p>\n
Mr.Ghosh was contested by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of the respondents and he<\/p>\n
                                                           7<\/span>
\nsubmitted that although the Constitution Bench<\/p>\n
decision had approved the Prem Nath Kapoor’s<\/p>\n
case, but in addition to that had also made the<\/p>\n
observation it would be fit and proper that the<\/p>\n
matter may be remitted back to the High Court<\/p>\n
for decision in the light of the observations<\/p>\n
made     by      this      Court      in     the       aforesaid<\/p>\n
Constitution      Bench     without        sending     the       same<\/p>\n
before the Executing Court, as the execution<\/p>\n
cases    have    already     been    disposed        of    by     the<\/p>\n
Executing       Court.      However,        at   the      time     of<\/p>\n
consideration, the High Court shall also take<\/p>\n
into consideration the observations made by the<\/p>\n
Constitution      Bench     as     noted    herein     above       be<\/p>\n
applicable to the present cases.<\/p>\n
6.     Having heard the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
parties and after noticing the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Constitution             Bench        particularly                the<\/p>\n
observations on which reliance was placed by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the parties, we are of<\/p>\n
the view that the impugned order be set aside<\/p>\n
                                                             8<\/span>
\nand the matters may be remitted back to the<\/p>\n
High Court for decision in the light of the<\/p>\n
observations        of     this        Court    made        in       the<\/p>\n
Constitution       Bench     decision          as   referred          to<\/p>\n
herein above. Accordingly, the impugned orders<\/p>\n
of   the     High        Court     rejecting          the    review<\/p>\n
petitions    are     set     aside      and     the    appeal        is<\/p>\n
allowed to the extent indicated above. The High<\/p>\n
Court   is    requested           to    decide        the    review<\/p>\n
petitions     as    early        as     possible       preferably<\/p>\n
within six months from the date of supply of<\/p>\n
the copy of this order. It is needless to say<\/p>\n
that in the event the High Court feels that<\/p>\n
while deciding the review petitions, it would<\/p>\n
be appropriate for it to take up the civil<\/p>\n
revision cases as well, it will be open to the<\/p>\n
High Court to take up the review petitions also<\/p>\n
along with the civil revision cases treating<\/p>\n
the orders passed by the High Court in revision<\/p>\n
as set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
7.    For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside<\/p>\n
the impugned orders and the appeal is allowed<\/p>\n
to the extent indicated above.                             We make it<\/p>\n
clear that we have not gone into the arguments<\/p>\n
advanced by the parties on the question whether<\/p>\n
the    Constitution      Bench       decision                   would                be<\/p>\n
applicable in the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
the   case   and   it    is   kept     to         be        taken              into<\/p>\n
consideration by the High Court in the manner<\/p>\n
indicated above.        The appeal is thus allowed to<\/p>\n
the extent indicated above.                 There will be no<\/p>\n
order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     …………………………………………J.
\n                                     [TARUN CHATTERJEE]<\/p>\n
New Delhi;                           …………………………………………J.
\nJuly 14, 2008.                       [AFTAB ALAM]<\/p>\n
                                                                         10<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008 Author: T Chatterjee Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Aftab Alam REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO……………….OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP)No.13648 of 2007) Jeewan Dhar Jain (Dead) through […]<\/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-171823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-20T08:59:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-20T08:59:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1475,\"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\\\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-20T08:59:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-20T08:59:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-20T08:59:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008"},"wordCount":1475,"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\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008","name":"Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-20T08:59:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeewan-dhar-jain-d-th-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jeewan Dhar Jain (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171823","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=171823"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171823\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}