{"id":192419,"date":"2011-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-02-08T18:09:28","modified_gmt":"2018-02-08T12:39:28","slug":"delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: ……………………..J.<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                       Reportable\n\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n\n              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n             CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8526 OF 2011\n\n    (Arising out of  S. L. P. (C) No. 34168 of 2009)\n\n                             \n\nDelhi Administration through its Secretary        ...... \n\nAppellant\n\n\n\n                         Versus\n\n\n\nUmrao Singh                               ...... \n\nRespondent\n\n\n\n                         WITH\n\n\n             CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8527 OF 2011\n\n   (Arising out of  S. L. P. (C) No. 35196 OF 2009)\n\n                             \n\nDelhi Administration through its Secretary        ...... \n\nAppellant\n\n\n\n                         Versus\n\n\n\nRamesh Kumari                             ...... \n\nRespondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                      O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
A. K. PATNAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
            Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.          These are appeals against  the  common  judgment <\/p>\n
and order dated 15.12.2008 of the Division Bench of the <\/p>\n
High   Court   of   Delhi   in   Civil   Writ   Petition   Nos.2147   of <\/p>\n
1992  and 2148 of 1992 (for short the `impugned order’).\n<\/p>\n
3.          The   facts   very   briefly   are   that   in   the   year   1959, <\/p>\n
the   Government   of   India,   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs,   set <\/p>\n
up   a   Committee   to   study   the   problems   of   introducing <\/p>\n
measures of control on land values and stabilizing land <\/p>\n
prices   in   the   urban   areas   of   Delhi   and   this   Committee <\/p>\n
submitted   its   report   recommending   some   measures.\n<\/p>\n
The           Government             of              India         considered         the <\/p>\n
recommendations and conveyed its decision to the Chief <\/p>\n
Commissioner,   Delhi,   by   its   letter   dated   02.05.1961 <\/p>\n
regarding acquisition, development and disposal of land <\/p>\n
(hereinafter called `the 1961 Scheme’).The 1961 Scheme <\/p>\n
inter alia contemplated that land may be allotted at pre-\n<\/p>\n
determined rates, namely, at the cost of acquisition and <\/p>\n
development   plus   the   additional   charges   mentioned   in <\/p>\n
                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
the   Scheme,     to   individuals   whose   land   has   been <\/p>\n
acquired   as   a   result   of   the   Chief   Commissioner’s <\/p>\n
notifications dated 17.07.1959, 03.09.1957, 13.11.1959 <\/p>\n
and 10.11.1960 or other such notifications with a view <\/p>\n
to  rehabilitate  such individuals.   Pursuant  to the  1961 <\/p>\n
Scheme, land-owners, whose land was acquired, applied <\/p>\n
for   allotment   of   alternative   plots   pursuant   to <\/p>\n
advertisements   inviting   applications   and   after   the <\/p>\n
necessary   requirements   as   stipulated   in   the   1961 <\/p>\n
Scheme   were   complied   with,   plots   were   allotted   to   the <\/p>\n
persons who were the recorded owners prior to the issue  <\/p>\n
of   notification   under   Section   4   of   the   Land   Acquisition <\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.   By an Officer Order dated 03.04.1986 issued by the  <\/p>\n
Delhi   Administration,                 Delhi,   Land   and   Building <\/p>\n
Department,   the   1961   Scheme   was   amended.     The <\/p>\n
Office         Order         dated              03.04.1986         is         extracted <\/p>\n
hereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “DELHI ADMINISTATION, DELHI<\/p>\n
                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
         LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT<\/p>\n
               VIKAS MINAR, NEW DELHI.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
37(32)\/1\/12                                    Dated: 3rd April' 86\n\n\n\n                         Office Order\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    In supersession of and previous order issued on <\/p>\n
    the   subject,   the   Administrator   Delhi   is   pleased <\/p>\n
    to order that following norms should be followed <\/p>\n
    in respect of allotment of alternative plots in lieu <\/p>\n
    of the land acquired for Planned Development of <\/p>\n
    Delhi under the scope of large scale Acquisition, <\/p>\n
    Development and Disposal of land in Delhi of the <\/p>\n
    Government   of   India   contained   in   their   letter <\/p>\n
    dated 2.5.1961.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
       1. In   order   to   make   applicant   eligible   for   all <\/p>\n
          allotment     of     alternative     plot,     the <\/p>\n
          minimum   land     acquired   for   Planned <\/p>\n
          Development   of   Delhi   will   be   one   bigha <\/p>\n
          instead   of   150   sq.   yds.   which   was   being <\/p>\n
          followed earlier.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
       2. In   case   the   applicant   has   purchased   the <\/p>\n
          requisite   land   of   1   bigha   he   should   have <\/p>\n
          purchased   the   same   5   years   earlier   than <\/p>\n
          the date  of  notification under Section 4 of <\/p>\n
          the Delhi  Land Acquisition Act in order to <\/p>\n
          make   him   eligible   for   allotment   of <\/p>\n
          alternative plot.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
       3. Condition     No.   2   will,   however,   not   be <\/p>\n
          applicable in respect of ancestral cases.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       4. Minimum size of the plot will be restricted <\/p>\n
          to   250   sq.   yards   where     land   acquired   is <\/p>\n
          more than 10 bighas.   Cases   where   land <\/p>\n
          acquired is more than 5  bighas  but  upto <\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
             10   bighas plot size of 150 sq. yds. will be <\/p>\n
             recommended   and   in   respect   of   the   cases <\/p>\n
             where the land acquired ranges between 1 <\/p>\n
             bigha  to 5  bighas, the  size  of  the  plot  will <\/p>\n
             be restricted to 80 sq. yrds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
          5. The   plot   will   be   allotted   by   DDA   on   pre-<\/p>\n
             determined   rates   fixed   by   the   Competent <\/p>\n
             Authority from time to time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      It   is   also   clarified   that   these   orders   shall   also <\/p>\n
      apply to all pending applications.  <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                 (P.S. Bhatnagar)<\/p>\n
                                                      SECRETARY<\/p>\n
                                       (LAND AND BUILDING)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
It was, thus, stipulated in the amended Scheme that in <\/p>\n
case   the   applicant  has   purchased   the   requisite   land   of <\/p>\n
one   bigha,   he   should   have   purchased   the   same   five <\/p>\n
years earlier than the date of notification under Section <\/p>\n
4   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act   in   order   to   make   him <\/p>\n
eligible for allotment of alternative plot.\n<\/p>\n
5.           On   27.01.1984,   a   notification   was   issued   under <\/p>\n
Section  4 of the  Land Acquisition  Act for acquisition  of <\/p>\n
3787   bighas   and   12   biswas   of   land   situated   in   Village <\/p>\n
Andheria   for   the   public   purpose   of   Planned <\/p>\n
                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
Development   of   Delhi,   which   included   the   lands   of   the <\/p>\n
respondents,   and   the   respondents   were   paid <\/p>\n
compensation   in   accordance   with   the   Awards.     The <\/p>\n
Government thereafter invited applications for allotment <\/p>\n
of   alternative   plots   under   the   1961   Scheme   and   the <\/p>\n
respondents applied for allotment of alternative plots in <\/p>\n
their   applications   dated   07.11.1986.                As   the <\/p>\n
applications   submitted   by   the   respondents   lacked <\/p>\n
material particulars and were not accompanied with the <\/p>\n
relevant documents, the  respondents were intimated to <\/p>\n
furnish material particulars and the relevant documents <\/p>\n
including   the   sale   deeds  by  which   they  had   purchased <\/p>\n
the   land.     The   respondents   furnished   the   particulars <\/p>\n
and  documents and  on  scrutiny, it was  found  that  the <\/p>\n
respondents had purchased the land in the years 1982 <\/p>\n
and   1983.     The   applications   of   the   respondents   were <\/p>\n
rejected   by   communications   dated   30.09.1991   as   they <\/p>\n
had purchased the lands within five years of the date of  <\/p>\n
the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition <\/p>\n
Act, i.e. 22.01.1984.\n<\/p>\n
                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
6.     Aggrieved, the respondents filed Civil Writ Petition <\/p>\n
Nos.2147   of   1992   and   2148   of   1992   in   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
and   contended   that   the   1961   Scheme   had   been <\/p>\n
incorporated   in   the   Delhi   Development   Authority <\/p>\n
(Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (for short <\/p>\n
`the Nazul Land Rules’), which are statutory in character <\/p>\n
and   these   rules         could   not   be   amended   by   an <\/p>\n
administrative order dated 03.04.1986.   The High Court <\/p>\n
accepted the contention of the petitioner and held in the <\/p>\n
impugned   order   that   Nazul   Land   Rules   had   been   made <\/p>\n
by   the   Central   Government   under   clause   (j)   of   sub-\n<\/p>\n
section   (2)   of   Section   56   read   with   sub-section   (3)   of <\/p>\n
Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short <\/p>\n
`the   Act’)   and   could   be   amended   only   in   the   manner <\/p>\n
prescribed under Section 56 read with Section 22 of the  <\/p>\n
Act   and   by   an   administrative   order   a   further   condition <\/p>\n
could not be stipulated under  Rule 6 of the Nazul Land <\/p>\n
Rules.     The   High   Court   accordingly   set   aside   the  <\/p>\n
communications            dated        30.09.1991   rejecting   the <\/p>\n
applications   of   the     respondents     for     alternative   plots <\/p>\n
                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
and remitted the matter to the appellants to consider the <\/p>\n
request of the respondents   in the light of the provisions  <\/p>\n
contained in the Nazul Land Rules and made it clear that <\/p>\n
the   appellants   would   be   permitted   to   take   into <\/p>\n
consideration   the   nature   of   the   policy   as   well   as   the <\/p>\n
condition stipulated in the 1961 Scheme as explained in <\/p>\n
the Full Bench judgment of the High Court in Ramanand  <\/p>\n
v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 1994 Delhi 29].\n<\/p>\n
7.       The only contention raised by the learned counsel  <\/p>\n
for the appellant before us is that the view taken by the <\/p>\n
High Court that the 1961 Scheme could not have been <\/p>\n
amended by the administrative order dated 03.04.1986 <\/p>\n
was  not  correct.     Learned  counsel for  the  respondents, <\/p>\n
on the other hand, supported the impugned order of the <\/p>\n
High Court.\n<\/p>\n
8.     Rules 4 and 6 of the Nazul Land Rules, which are <\/p>\n
relevant for deciding the issue raised in this appeal, are  <\/p>\n
extracted hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n
       “4.  Persons   to   whom   Nazul   land   may   be <\/p>\n
       allotted.-(1)   The   Authority   may,   in   conformity <\/p>\n
       with   the   plans,   and   subject   to   the   other <\/p>\n
                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
provisions   of   these   rules,   allot   Nazul   land   to <\/p>\n
individuals,           [body             of          persons,               firms, <\/p>\n
companies],   public   and   private   institutions, <\/p>\n
co-operative house building societies, other co-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
operative   societies   of   individuals,   cooperative <\/p>\n
societies   of   industrialists   and   to   the <\/p>\n
departments   of   the   Central   Government,   State <\/p>\n
Governments and the Union territories.\n<\/p>\n
(2)     The     Authority     shall,   in   conformity   with <\/p>\n
plans   and   subject   to   the   provisions   of   these <\/p>\n
rules, dispose the Nazul land by  auction to the <\/p>\n
following institutions :\n<\/p>\n
(a) hospitals;\n<\/p>\n
(b) dispensaries;\n<\/p>\n
(c) nursing homes;\n<\/p>\n
(d) higher or technical education institutions;\n<\/p>\n
(e) community halls;\n<\/p>\n
(f) clubs;\n<\/p>\n
(g) schools:\n<\/p>\n
Provided   that   nothing     in     this   sub-rule   shall <\/p>\n
affect   the   allotment   of   land   to   the   Central <\/p>\n
Government,                   State   Government,   Union <\/p>\n
territory,   local   body,   autonomous   bodies   or <\/p>\n
organisations               owned              by          the         Central <\/p>\n
Government.”\n<\/p>\n
“6.     Allotment   of   Nazul   land   at   pre-\n<\/p>\n
determined   rates.–   Subject   to   the   other <\/p>\n
provisions   of   these   rules,   the   Authority     shall <\/p>\n
allot  Nazul land at the pre-determined rates in <\/p>\n
the following cases, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) to individuals whose land has been acquired <\/p>\n
for  planned  development of  Delhi  after   the  1st <\/p>\n
day of January,1961, and which  forms part of <\/p>\n
Nazul land:\n<\/p>\n
                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
Provided that if an individual is to be allotted a <\/p>\n
residential   plot,   the   size   of   such   plot   may   be <\/p>\n
determined   by   the   Administrator   after   taking <\/p>\n
into consideration the area and the value of the <\/p>\n
land   acquired   from   him   and   the   location   and <\/p>\n
the value of the plot to be allotted;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   to   individuals   in   the   low   income   group   or <\/p>\n
the   middle   income   group   other   than   specified <\/p>\n
in clause (i) —\n<\/p>\n
      (a) who are tenants in a building in any <\/p>\n
      area   in   respect   of   which   a   slum <\/p>\n
      clearance   order   is   made   under   the <\/p>\n
      Slum Areas Act;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (b) who, in any slum area or the other <\/p>\n
      congested   area,   own   any   plot   of   land <\/p>\n
      measuring less  than  67 square metres <\/p>\n
      or   own   any   building   in   any   slum   area <\/p>\n
      or other congested area;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
(iii) to individuals, other than those specified in <\/p>\n
clauses   (i)   and   (ii),   who   are   in   the   low   income <\/p>\n
group or  the  middle  income  group, by draw of <\/p>\n
lots   to   be   conducted   under   the   supervision   of <\/p>\n
the Land Allotment Advisory Committee;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)   to   individuals   belonging   to   Scheduled <\/p>\n
Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   or   who   are <\/p>\n
widows of defence personnel killed in action, or <\/p>\n
ex-servicemen,              physically          handicapped <\/p>\n
individuals subject to the provisions of rule 13;\n<\/p>\n
(v) to industrialists or owners and occupiers of <\/p>\n
warehouses     who   are   required   to   shift   their <\/p>\n
industries   and   warehouses   from   non-\n<\/p>\n
conforming areas to conforming area under the <\/p>\n
                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
       Master   Plan,   or   whose   land   is     acquired   or   is <\/p>\n
       proposed to be acquired under the Act:\n<\/p>\n
       Provided   that   the size of such industrial plot <\/p>\n
       shall   be   determined   with   reference   to   the <\/p>\n
       requirement of the industry or warehouses set <\/p>\n
       up   or   to   be   set   up   in   accordance   with   the <\/p>\n
       plants   and   such   industrialists   and   owners   of <\/p>\n
       warehouses have the capacity to establish and <\/p>\n
       run  such industries or warehouses and on the <\/p>\n
       condition   that   the   land   allotted   at   pre-\n<\/p>\n
       determined rates shall not, in any case, exceed <\/p>\n
       the   size   of   the   land   which   has   been,   if   any, <\/p>\n
       acquired from such industrialist or owners and <\/p>\n
       occupiers   of   warehouses   and   which   form   part <\/p>\n
       of Nazul land:\n<\/p>\n
       Provided   further   that   in   making   such <\/p>\n
       allotment, the Authority shall be advised by the <\/p>\n
       Land Allotment Advisory Committee;\n<\/p>\n
       (vi) to co-operative group housing societies, co-\n<\/p>\n
       operative   housing   societies,   consumer   co-\n<\/p>\n
       operative societies and co-operative societies of <\/p>\n
       industrialists on “first come first served basis.”\n<\/p>\n
9.     It  will   be   clear  from  sub-rule   (1)  of  Rule   4   of  the <\/p>\n
Nazul Land Rules that the Authority may, in conformity <\/p>\n
with   the   plans,   and   subject   to   the   other   provisions   of <\/p>\n
these   rules,   allot   Nazul   land   to   individuals   and   other <\/p>\n
categories   of   persons.     Sub-rule   (2)   of   Rule   4   further <\/p>\n
provides   that   the   Authority   shall   in   conformity   with <\/p>\n
                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
plans   and   subject   to   the   rules   dispose   the   Nazul   Land <\/p>\n
by   auction   to   the   categories   of   institutions   named   in <\/p>\n
clauses (a) to (g) in sub-rule 2 of Rule 4.  The Full Bench <\/p>\n
of the High Court has held in the case of  Ramanand  v.\n<\/p>\n
Union   of   India   &   Ors.   (supra)   that   Rule   4   requires   that <\/p>\n
the  allotment  of land  shall  be  made  in conformity with <\/p>\n
the   plans   and   `plans’   means   the   Master   Plan   and   the <\/p>\n
Zonal   Development   Plan   for   a   zone.     Thus,   there   is <\/p>\n
nothing   in   Rule   4   which   envisages   allotment   of   Nazul <\/p>\n
land to different category of persons to indicate that the <\/p>\n
1961 Scheme has been incorporated in       Rule 4.   The  <\/p>\n
Full   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   also   held   in   the <\/p>\n
aforesaid decision that the word `may’ in sub-rule (1) of <\/p>\n
Rule 4 cannot be construed as `shall’ and discretion has <\/p>\n
been   vested   in   the   Authority   to   allot   land   to   the <\/p>\n
categories of persons mentioned in the sub-rule.\n<\/p>\n
10.     Rule   6   is   titled   “Allotment   of   Nazul   land   at   pre-\n<\/p>\n
determined   rates”   and   it   provides   that   subject   to   the <\/p>\n
other   provisions   of   the   rules,   the   Authority   shall   allot <\/p>\n
Nazul   land   at   the   pre-determined   rates   in   the   cases <\/p>\n
                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv) and clause (i) of Rule 6 <\/p>\n
covers   cases   of   individuals   whose   land   has   been <\/p>\n
acquired for planned development of Delhi after the 1st <\/p>\n
day   of   January,   1961   and   which   forms   part   of   Nazul <\/p>\n
land.     Sub-Rule   (1)   of   Rule   6,   therefore,   only   provides <\/p>\n
that   when   the   Authority   decides   to   allot   land   to   any <\/p>\n
individual  under  the  1961 Scheme, it  shall allot   at the <\/p>\n
predetermined rates.\n<\/p>\n
11.    This  is  the  view that  the  Full  Bench  of  the  Delhi <\/p>\n
High Court has taken in  Ramanand v. Union of India &  <\/p>\n
Ors.   (supra).   The   relevant   portion   of   the   Full   Bench <\/p>\n
judgment is quoted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
        “Rule   6,   in   reality,   controls   the   rates   of <\/p>\n
        premium   chargeable   only   in   those   cases <\/p>\n
        where   land   is   allotted   to   the   persons <\/p>\n
        mentioned therein.  In other cases, the rules <\/p>\n
        provide for sale of land at the  market price <\/p>\n
        determined   by   the   highest   bid   on   public <\/p>\n
        auction of land.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Thus, according to the Full Bench of the High Court in  <\/p>\n
Ramanand   v.   Union   of   India   &   Ors.   (supra)   Rule   6 <\/p>\n
controls the  rates of premium chargeable only in those <\/p>\n
                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
cases   where   land   is   allotted   to   the   persons   mentioned <\/p>\n
therein and in other cases, the rules provide for sale of  <\/p>\n
land at the market price determined by the highest bid <\/p>\n
on public auction of land.\n<\/p>\n
12.   We are therefore of the considered opinion that Rule <\/p>\n
6(1)   of   the   Nazul   Land   Rules   is   not   really   a   rule   which <\/p>\n
incorporates the 1961 Scheme, but it only provides that <\/p>\n
if   the   Authority   decides   to   allot   Nazul   land   to   the <\/p>\n
individuals  eligible   under   the   1961   Scheme,  then   Nazul <\/p>\n
land shall be allotted at pre-determined rates and not at <\/p>\n
the   rates   determined   in   a   public   auction.     The   High <\/p>\n
Court   has   taken   an   erroneous   view   in   the   impugned <\/p>\n
order that Rule 6 of the Nazul Land Rules, which was  a <\/p>\n
statutory rule,  laid down conditions for allotment of land <\/p>\n
under the 1961 Scheme  and the conditions for allotment <\/p>\n
of   land   under   the   1961   Scheme   could   therefore   be <\/p>\n
amended by only statutory  rules under  Section  56 read <\/p>\n
with   Section   22   of   the   Act.     In   our   considered   opinion,  <\/p>\n
Rule   6   of   the   Nazul   Law   Rules   did   not   stipulate   the <\/p>\n
                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
conditions for allotment under the 1961 Scheme and the <\/p>\n
1961   Scheme   being   an   administrative   scheme   could   be <\/p>\n
amended     without   a   statutory   rule   made   under   Section <\/p>\n
56 read with Section 22 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
13.      In   the   result,   the   appeals   are   allowed   and   the <\/p>\n
impugned order is set aside.  There shall be no order as <\/p>\n
to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ……………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   (R. V.\n<\/p>\n
Raveendran)<\/p>\n
                                                ……………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   (A. K.\n<\/p>\n
Patnaik)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
October 11, 2011.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 2011 Author: ……………………..J. Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8526 OF 2011 (Arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 34168 of 2009) Delhi Administration through its Secretary …… Appellant […]<\/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-192419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 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\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-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=\"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-08T12:39:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-08T12:39:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2337,\"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\\\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-08T12:39:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 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":"Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 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\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-08T12:39:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-08T12:39:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011"},"wordCount":2337,"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\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011","name":"Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-08T12:39:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-administration-tr-sec-vs-umrao-singh-on-11-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Administration Tr.Sec vs Umrao Singh on 11 October, 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\/192419","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=192419"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192419\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}