{"id":193915,"date":"2004-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004"},"modified":"2017-04-02T06:03:47","modified_gmt":"2017-04-02T00:33:47","slug":"hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land &#8230; on 10 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land &#8230; on 10 December, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Srikrishna<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, (B.N. Srikrishna<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2504 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nHans Raj Sharma (Dead) by Lrs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCollector Land Acquisition,Tehsil &amp; District Doda\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/12\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nShivaraj V. Patil &amp; (B.N. Srikrishna\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>Srikrishna, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant whose land was acquired is aggrieved by the<br \/>\ndismissal of his claim for increased compensation by the Division<br \/>\nBench of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant owned land measuring 137 Kanals and 19 marlas<br \/>\nin Khasra  No.804 (77 Kanals and 7 marlas) and Khasra  No.805 (60<br \/>\nKanals and 12 marlas) situated in Barshalla Tehsil, Doda (Jammu) in<br \/>\nthe State of Jammu &amp; Kashmir. This land was acquired  by a<br \/>\nNotification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;) issued by the State Government<br \/>\nfor the purpose of establishing a base camp of Sheep Breeding Farm,<br \/>\nThathri. The declaration under section 6 of the Act and a direction<br \/>\nunder section 7 of the Act were issued on 10.12.1976 and possession<br \/>\nof the land was taken on 16.1.1977. The petitioner claimed<br \/>\ncompensation at the rate of Rs.12,000\/- per Kanal for the land and<br \/>\ncompensation for trees separately.  The land acquisition collector<br \/>\nmade an award in respect of the land bearing Khasra  nos. 804 and<br \/>\n805 and fixed compensation for the land at the rate of Rs.800 per<br \/>\nKanal for land in Khasra  no. 804 and Rs.250\/- per Kanal for land in<br \/>\nKhasra  no.805.  He also awarded certain compensation for trees on<br \/>\nthe land. The petitioner accepted it under protest and sought a<br \/>\nreference for increase in the compensation.  On 27.4.1985 the<br \/>\npetitioner made a written application before the land acquisition<br \/>\ncollector claiming  that the market value of the land was not less than<br \/>\nRs.12,000\/- per Kanal.  He also specifically claimed that there were<br \/>\n350 trees standing on that land and claimed increased compensation in<br \/>\nrespect of the said trees also.\n<\/p>\n<p>Upon a reference under Section 18, the reference court after<br \/>\nrecording evidence came to the conclusion that the comparable<br \/>\ninstances of sale cited by the appellant were in respect of very small<br \/>\npieces of land while the acquired  land was a big chunk measuring<br \/>\nabout 137 Kanals.  Consequently, the reference court was of the view<br \/>\nthat the instances cited could not be taken as comparable instances of<br \/>\nsale of land. The reference court assessed the market value at Rs.800\/-<br \/>\nper Kanal in respect of land in Khasra  no. 804 and increased the<br \/>\ncompensation only in respect of Khasra  no.805 from Rs.250\/- per<br \/>\nKanal to Rs.720\/- per Kanal.  The reference court also directed 4% per<br \/>\nannum interest to be paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBeing aggrieved  by the decision of the reference court, the<br \/>\npetitioner moved an appeal under section 54 of the Act before the<br \/>\nHigh Court. The learned single Judge enhanced the compensation for<br \/>\nland in Khasra  no. 804 to Rs.1000\/- per Kanal and the compensation<br \/>\nfor land in Khasra  no.805 to Rs.900\/- per Kanal.  The single Judge<br \/>\nalso increased the rate of interest to 6% per annum instead of 4% as<br \/>\ndirected by the District Judge.  The appellant still being dissatisfied<br \/>\nmoved a Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court claiming<br \/>\ncompensation @ Rs.8000\/- per Kanal in respect of land and<br \/>\nRs.75000\/- for trees. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court and<br \/>\nthus the appellant is in appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned counsel for the appellant urged that the High Court<br \/>\nand the District Judge have completely ignored the evidence, and that<br \/>\ntheir judgments were perverse and liable to be interfered with.  He<br \/>\ncontended that after the year 1971 there was no sale of land in the area<br \/>\nconcerned because of the coming into operation of the Agrarian<br \/>\nReforms Act, 1976.  Consequently, there were no instances of<br \/>\nregistered sale deeds, though sales unofficially took place during the<br \/>\nsaid period. Some of such sale deeds were actually registered after<br \/>\n1981.\n<\/p>\n<p>In respect of one such sale deed, it was claimed  by witness<br \/>\nGirdhari Lal that he had sold three marlas of land in the year 1975 at<br \/>\nthe rate of Rs.500\/- per marla, though the sale deed was registered in<br \/>\n1981 because of ban on sale of land in the interregnum. Another<br \/>\nwitness  Tej  Ram stated that he had also purchased land @ Rs.500<br \/>\nper marla in the year 1975.  Witness Om Prakash, Assistant Engineer,<br \/>\nNHIS sub Division Thethri stated in his evidence that 1 Kanal 3<br \/>\nmarlas was acquired from one Shukar Din for Rs.15,870\/- and the<br \/>\nland was 1-1\/4 kilometer away from Thathri on the National Highway.<br \/>\nThis rate comes to Rs.14,000 per Kanal.  Patwari Ghandarb Singh has<br \/>\nstated that the average market rate was about Rs.500\/- per marla but<br \/>\nwas not able to cite an instance where any equivalent chunk of land<br \/>\nwas sold.  Daya Krishan has stated that he had sold  land measuring 4-<br \/>\n1\/2 marlas at the rate of Rs.12,000\/- per Kanal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned District Judge was of the opinion that the instances<br \/>\ncited were of small pieces of land and it was not safe to rely on them<br \/>\nbecause the land acquired was a large chunk of land admeasuring<br \/>\nabout 137 Kanals and 19 marlas.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned single judge took the view that it was not the fault<br \/>\nof the claimant that there was no sale of big chunk of land during the<br \/>\nrelevant period. He further was of the view that Rs.800\/- per Kanal<br \/>\nwas an    unreasonably low amount of compensation as it would not<br \/>\neven fetch a quintal of wheat . According to the learned single Judge,<br \/>\nthough comparable instances of sale of land were not available, the<br \/>\nReference Court should have gone on the average yield, in which<br \/>\nevent the market value of the land would have been fixed at a much<br \/>\nhigher price.  Although the Reference Court had rejected an instance<br \/>\nof sale of land which is about 400 to 500 yards away from the land<br \/>\nacquired across the river @ Rs.1000\/- per Kanal on the ground that it<br \/>\nwas across the river and adjacent to the National Highway, the single<br \/>\nJudge was of the view that since the said piece of land had been<br \/>\nacquired by the State Government itself, and inasmuch as the acquired<br \/>\nland was hardly 400-500 yards away from the land for which<br \/>\nRs.1000\/- per Kanal has been paid as compensation, no compensation<br \/>\nless than Rs.1,000\/- would be fair and just. The learned single Judge<br \/>\ntook the view that there was no need to go into other evidence in the<br \/>\nlight of the admission made by the State authorities that compensation<br \/>\nof Rs.1000 has been paid for the land which was only 400-500  yards<br \/>\naway from the land acquired.  Since some of the land was partially<br \/>\nearmarked and the other was not earmarked, the learned single Judge<br \/>\nwas of the view that the land in Khasra  No.804 would have market<br \/>\nvalue of Rs.1000 per Kanal and the market value in respect of land in<br \/>\nKhasra  No.805 should be fixed at Rs.900\/- per Kanal.  The learned<br \/>\nsingle Judge awarded interest @ 6% per annum but made no reference<br \/>\nwhatsoever to the compensation in respect of the trees.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned<br \/>\nsingle Judge in respect of the compensation and interest.  It also<br \/>\nrejected  the claim in respect of compensation for trees on the ground<br \/>\nthat the judgment of the single Judge did not mention anything about<br \/>\ncompensation for trees which suggested that the said claim has not<br \/>\nbeen argued before the single Judge.  The Division Bench was of the<br \/>\nview that the appropriate course would have been to approach the<br \/>\nsingle Judge and draw his attention to the omission and it was not<br \/>\nopen to the Division Bench in appeal to deal with the question for the<br \/>\nfirst time. In this view of the matter the Division Bench dismissed the<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThough the learned counsel for the appellant cited a number of<br \/>\njudgments, it appears to us that it is unnecessary to burden the record<br \/>\nby reference to all the judgments.  It would suffice to refer to two<br \/>\nrecent judgments which have taken notice of all the earlier judgments.<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1716456\/\">In Kasturi and others v. State of Haryana<\/a> (2003) 1 SCC 354 a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this Court to which one of us (Shivaraj V. Patil,J.)<br \/>\nwas a party, surveyed the authorities on the point and came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that generally instances of sale of small tracks of land<br \/>\ncould not form acceptable basis for determining the market value of<br \/>\nlarge tracks of land, unless suitable deduction was made in respect of<br \/>\nthe  developmental charges and land to be set apart.  However, it was<br \/>\npointed out that the nature of the land acquired would be<br \/>\ndeterminative of the issue as to how much of deductions are to be<br \/>\nmade in respect of developmental charges and other related expenses.<br \/>\nThis would of course depend on the nature of the land, its topography<br \/>\nand special features, if any, and the state of its development so as to<br \/>\nmake it suitable for being adapted for immediate use.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn Ravinder Narain and another v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC<br \/>\n481 it was held  that where a large chunk of land is the subject-matter<br \/>\nof acquisition, the  rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to<br \/>\nbe a safe criterion. Nevertheless, the Court was of the view &#8220;it cannot,<br \/>\nhowever, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed<br \/>\nfor the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For<br \/>\nexample, where there is no other material, it may, in appropriate<br \/>\ncases, be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the<br \/>\nprices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary<br \/>\ndeductions\/adjustments have to be made while determining the<br \/>\nprices&#8221;.\tIt was recognized that although fixing of the market<br \/>\nvalue involves a certain amount of intelligent guess work on the part<br \/>\nof the court, the element of speculation could be reduced to minimum<br \/>\nif the following principles are kept in mind with reference to<br \/>\ncomparable sales:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tThe sale is within a reasonable time of the date of<br \/>\nnotification under Section 4(1);\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tIt should be a bona fide transaction ;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)  It should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent<br \/>\nto the land acquired; and<\/p>\n<p>(iv)\tit should possess similar advantages.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that although<br \/>\ninstances of sale of smaller chunks of land could not be always relied upon,<br \/>\nthere was no reason why the instance of acquisition by the State<br \/>\nGovernment within a distance of about 500 yards from the present land for<br \/>\nthe purpose of  setting up Sheep Breeding Farm could not be considered.<br \/>\nIn the instant case the land was situated across the river on Thethri on the<br \/>\nright side and its market value was fixed at Rs.1000 per kanal. The High<br \/>\nCourt was, therefore, justified in taking this as reasonable comparable<br \/>\ninstance of sale and fixing the market value of the acquired land based<br \/>\nthereupon.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTurning to the other question as to the valuation of trees, it appears<br \/>\nthat there has been an omission on the part of the Reference Court in<br \/>\nrejecting the claim on the ground that there was no specific reference<br \/>\nmade. It must be remembered that the Reference made under Section 18<br \/>\nwas for determination of the amount of compensation payable to the<br \/>\nappellant for the &#8220;land&#8221; acquired.  The expression &#8216;land&#8217; as defined in<br \/>\nSection 3(a) of the Act is inclusive of benefits to arise out of the land and<br \/>\nthings attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to<br \/>\nthe earth.  As a matter of fact, the land acquisition officer had worked out<br \/>\nthe compensation for 261 trees in Khasra  No.804  determined as<br \/>\nRs.17,315\/- and the cost of 96 trees in Khasra  No.805 determined as<br \/>\nRs.6207\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIssue no.2 raised by the Reference Court was &#8220;whether the value of<br \/>\ntrees worth Rs.300\/- per tree, has not been included in the award&#8221;.  While<br \/>\nanswering this issue, the Reference Court has taken the view that the<br \/>\nReference Court has no jurisdiction to determine the controversy as it has<br \/>\nnot been referred by the Collector.  This, in our view, is erroneous.  The<br \/>\nReference Court ought to have adjudicated the claim of the appellant for<br \/>\nhigher compensation in respect of trees. On account of the unduly<br \/>\nrestrictive view taken of its own jurisdiction, the Reference Court fell into<br \/>\nerror.   The single Judge and the Division Bench also fell into the same<br \/>\nerror in totally rejecting this claim as beyond jurisdiction.<br \/>\nIn our opinion, the appellant is entitled to have his claim in respect<br \/>\nof the trees on the land acquired adjudicated by the Reference Court.<br \/>\n\tIn the result, we uphold the determination of market value of land in<br \/>\nKhasra  No.804 at Rs.1000\/- per Kanal and in respect of land falling in<br \/>\nKhasra  No.805 at Rs.900\/- per Kanal, as determined by the High Court.<br \/>\nThe Reference is remitted to the District Judge, Doda only for the purpose<br \/>\nof adjudicating the claim for higher compensation in respect of trees<br \/>\nstanding on the acquired land.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appeal is accordingly partly allowed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land &#8230; on 10 December, 2004 Author: Srikrishna Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, (B.N. Srikrishna CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2504 of 1999 PETITIONER: Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) by Lrs. RESPONDENT: Collector Land Acquisition,Tehsil &amp; District Doda DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/12\/2004 BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-193915","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land ... on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land ... on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-02T00:33:47+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land &#8230; on 10 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-02T00:33:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2178,\"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\\\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004\",\"name\":\"Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land ... on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-02T00:33:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land &#8230; on 10 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land ... on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land ... on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-02T00:33:47+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land &#8230; on 10 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-02T00:33:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004"},"wordCount":2178,"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\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004","name":"Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land ... on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-02T00:33:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hans-raj-sharma-dead-by-lrs-vs-collector-land-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Collector Land &#8230; on 10 December, 2004"}]},{"@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\/193915","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=193915"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193915\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}