{"id":198748,"date":"1974-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974"},"modified":"2015-11-27T14:30:44","modified_gmt":"2015-11-27T09:00:44","slug":"gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974","title":{"rendered":"Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1791, \t\t 1974 SCR (3) 896<\/div>\n
Author: K K Mathew<\/div>\n
Bench: Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGURDIT SINGH AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/04\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 1791\t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 896\n 1974 SCC  (2) 260\n\n\nACT:\nPepsu  Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955--As  amended\nby Act 16 of 1962 introducing Sec.  32--DD(b)--Retrospective\neffect\tof--Determination  of surplus  area--Previous  order\ndeclaring no surplus land on basis of judgment and decree of\nCivil  Court--Whether can be reviewed under Sec.  32-DD(b)--\nNatural justice.\nJudgment--Connotation of--Interpretation of statutes--Object\nof  provision  is  circumscribed  by  the  language  of\t the\nsection.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe lands in question were bequeathed to appellants 2 and 3,\nsons  of the first appellant, by their\tgrandfather.   After\nthe death of the testator mutations in favour of  appellants\n2  and 3 were effected in the revenue records in 1939.\t The\nfirst  appellant managed to get the mutation of the land  in\nhis  name  in  1944 for the reason that\t he  wanted  to\t get\nlicence\t for a gun.  In 1955, when the Act came into  force,\nthe first appellant was shown to be the owner of the land in\nthe  revenue  records.\t On October 30,\t 1956  the  Act\t was\namended so as to impose a ceiling on the holding of land.\nAppellants  2  and 3 filed a suit in the civil court  for  a\ndeclaration  that the land belonged to them and\t that  there\nwas  no\t transfer of the land to the first  appellant.\t The\nlatter, who was the only defendant, did not contest the suit\nand  it\t was decreed on February 14,  1961.  rhereafter,  in\nproceedings under the Act, by order dated March 28, 1961 the\nCollector  declared on the basis of the judgment and  decree\nof  the\t civil court that there was no surplus land  in\t the\nownership and possession of the first appellant.\nThe  'Act  was amended by Act 16 of 1962 and  S.  32-DD\t was\nintroduced  into  the  Act with\t retrospective\teffect\tfrom\nOctober\t 30, 1956, i.e. the date of the\t earlier  amendment.\nSection\t 32-DD provided inter alia that for the purposes  of\ndetermining  the surplus area of any person,  any  judgment,\ndecree\tor order of a Court obtained after the\tcommencement\nof  the\t amending  Act\tof 1956 and  having  the  effect  of\ndiminishing  the area of such person which could  have\tbeen\ndeclared  as  his  surplus  area  shall\t be  ignored.\t The\nCollector,  acting purportedly under Sec. 15 of\t the  Punjab\nLand  Revenue Code reviewed his order dated March 28,  1961.\nBy order dated May 20, 1963 he refused to give effect to the\njudgment and decree by ignoring them as enjoined by  section\n32-DD  and  included the land in the holding  of  the  first\nappellant.\nThe  appellants filed a writ petition in the High  Court  to\nquash this order.  The High Court overruled the\t contentions\nof the appellants and dismissed tile writ petition.   Before\nthis  Court,  the appellants raised  the  same\tcontentions,\nnamely\t:  (i)\tthat the Collector had\tno  jurisdiction  to\nreview\this order dated March 28. 1961; (ii) that the  order\nin  review was passed without notice to the appellants;\t and\n(iii)  that, in any event. the judgment of the\tcivil  court\nwas not of the nature contemplated by section 32-DD.\nAllowing the appeal,\nHELD:(1)  The  order of the Collector dated  March  28,\n1961, was in perfectly valid one when it was passed.  No one\nchallenged that order and it became final for all  purposes.\nThe  Collector could not have anticipated the  enactment  of\nthe  section with retrospective effect and passed the  order\nconforming  to its provisions.\tWe cannot subscribe  to\t the\nview  that  the order of the Collector passed on  March\t 28,\n1961, became null and void merely because he failed to\ttake\ninto account the provisions of Sec. 32-DD even if by  virtue\nof  the fiction it is to be assumed that the section was  on\nthe statute book when he passed it.  We do not\n897\nthink  that we can extend the ratio of the decision  in\t the\nAnisminic  case\t (infra)  to  a\t case  where  the  provision\noverlooked  during the course of the enquiry was not on\t the\nstatute\t book  but  was\t begotten  and\tbrought\t into  being\nsubsequently, though with retrospective vitality.  The order\nof the Collector dated March 28, 1961 cannot, therefore,  be\nregarded  as null and void.  There was no provision  in\t the\namending  Act which enabled the Collector to review it.\t  We\ncannot\tstretch the fiction of retrospectivity so far as  to\nmake the order null and void without further ado. [899 D-900\nB]\nAnisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1967]  3\nW.L.R. 382, distinguished.\n(II)we are also not satisfied that the Collector was acting\nin consonance with the principles of natural justice when he\npassed\tthe  order  dated  May\t20,  1963,  as\the  gave  no\nopportunity to appellants 2 and 3 of being heard.  The\tfact\nthat  the  first appellant was heard before that  order\t was\npassed is of no moment because the persons who were  vitally\nconcerned  in  reopening the case were appellants 2  and  3.\nAdmittedly, no notice of the proceedings to reopen the\tcase\nwas  given to them.  If notice had been given to them,\tthey\ncould  have  shown  the true nature  and  character  of\t the\njudgment of the civil court upon which they relied. [900  B-\nD]\n(III)Not are we satisfied that every judgment which has\nthe  apparent  effect of diminishing the area of land  of  a\nperson\twould  be  within the ambit of\tS.  32DD(b).  )\t The\njudgment of the civil court adjudicated on the rights of the\nparties as they existed before the suit and when it declared\nthat  the  mutation  was  effected  not\t with  the  idea  of\ntransferring  the  property to the first appellant  but\t for\nsome  other reason, the effect of the declaration  was\tthat\nthere was no real transfer of the property in favour of\t the\nfirst appellant and that the property remained always in the\nownership  of  appellants  2  and  3,  notwithstanding\t the\npurported transfer evidenced by the mutation in the  revenue\nrecords.   It  is impermissible to give\t the  wide  language\nemployed in clause (b) of Sec. 32DD an unconfined operation.\nIf  the effect of the judgment is only to declare  that\t the\nland  never belonged to the first appellant, it has not\t the\neffect\tof diminishing the area of land in  his\t possession.\nThe  object of this provision in an Act like the  one  under\nconsideration is to prevent circumvention of its  provisions\nby dubious and indirect methods.  But that is no reason\t why\nwe  should  put a construction upon the\t section  which\t its\nlanguage  can  hardly bear.  The High Court  went  wrong  in\nassuming  that the Collector was right when he\tignored\t the\njudgment by his order dated May 20, 1963 on the ground\tthat\nit had effect of diminishing the area of the first appellant\nwhich could have been declared as his surplus. [900 F 901 G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1897  of
\n1967.\n<\/p>\n
From the Judgment and Order dated the 27th September,  1966,
\nof  the\t Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in Civil  Writ\t No.
\n1371 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
S.   K.\t Mehta,\t K.  R. Nagaraja, M.  Qamaruddin  and  Vinod
\nDhawan, for the\t    appellants.\n<\/p>\n
V.   C.\t Mahajan, O. P. Sharma and R. N. Sachthey,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMATHEW, J. The first appellant is the father of appellants 2
\nand  3. The property in question belonged to the  father  of
\nfirst  appellant.  By a will executed by him, he  bequeathed
\nthe  property to appellants 2 and 3. After the death of\t the
\ntastator,  mutations  in favour of appellants 2 and  3\twere
\neffected  in  the  revenue records in  the  year  1996\tB.K.
\n(1939).\t The first appellant managed to get the mutation  of
\nthe land
\n898<\/span>
\nin  his\t name in 1944 for the reason that he wanted  to\t get
\nlicence\t for  a gun.  In 1955, when the\t Pepsu\tTanancy\t and
\nAgricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the\tAct)
\ncame  into  force, the first appellant was shown to  be\t the
\nowner  of the land in the revenue records.  Chapter IV-A  of
\nthe Act was inserted by Pepsu Act No. 15 of 1956 on  October
\n30,  1956 and by s. 32A of this chapter, ceiling was  placed
\non the holding of land.\n<\/p>\n
A  suit\t was filed by appellants 2 and 3 for  a\t declaration
\nthat  the land belonged to them, that, the mutation  of\t the
\nland  in  the  name of the first appellant  in\tthe  revenue
\nrecords was for the purpose of enabling him to obtain a\t gun
\nlicence and that there was no transfer of the land to  first
\nappellant.   The first appellant was the only  defendant  in
\nthe suit.  He did not contest the suit and it was decreed on
\nFebruary  14,  1961.  A few weeks later,  the  question\t of-
\ndeclaration of the surplus area of the (and in the hands  of
\nthe,  first appellant came up for consideration\t before\t the
\nCollector  of  Bhatinda.  On the basis of the  judgment\t and
\ndecree passed by the Civil Court that there was no  transfer
\nof  the land to the first appellant, the Collector,  by\t his
\norder  dated  March  28, 1961, declared that  there  was  no
\nsurplus\t land in the ownership and possession of  the  first
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
The  Act was amended by Act No. 16 of 1962 and s. 32-DD\t was
\nintroduced  into  the  Act with\t retrospective\teffect\tfrom
\nOctober 30, 1956.  That section reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “32-DD.  Future tenancies in surplus area\t and
\n\t      certain\tjudgments   etc.  to   be   ignored-
\n\t      Notwithstanding  anything\t contained  in\tthis
\n\t      Act, for the purposes of determining the\tsur-
\n\t      plus area of any person-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   a tenancy created after the commencement
\n\t      of  the Pepsu Tenancy and\t Agricultural  Lands
\n\t      (Second  Amendment) Act, 1956, in any area  of
\n\t      land  which  could have been declared  as\t the
\n\t      surplus area of such person; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   any judgment, decree or order of a court
\n\t      or   other  authority,  obtained\t after\t the
\n\t      commencement of that Act and having the effect
\n\t      of  diminishing the area of such person  which
\n\t      could  have been declared as his surplus\tarea
\n\t      shall be ignored.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Collector thereupon made a reference presumably under S.
\n15  of\tthe  Punjab Land Revenue Code for  sanction  to\t the
\nCommissioner of Patiala to review his order dated March\t 28,
\n1961,  as it omitted to include the land in question in\t the
\nholding of the first appellant on the basis of the  judgment
\nand decree.  The sanction was given, the Collector  reviewed
\nthe order and he refused to give effect to the judgment\t and
\ndecree\tby  ignoring  them  as\tenjoined  by  s.  32-DD\t and
\n;included the land in the holding of the first appellant.
\nThe  appellants filed a writ petition in the High  Court  of
\nPunjab\tto quash this order.  Before the High  Court,  three
\ncontentions were raised
\n899<\/span>
\nby   the   appellants  :(1)  that  the\tCollector   had\t  no
\njurisdiction  to review his order dated March 28, 1961;\t (2)
\nthat  the order in review was passed without notice  to\t the
\nappellants-, and (3) that, in any event, the judgment of the
\ncivilcourt only made a declaration as regards rights of\t the
\nparties on the date of the suit and it was not, therefore, a
\njudgment  of the nature contemplated by s. 32-DD.  The\tHigh
\nCourt overruled all the contentions and held that the  order
\nof the Collector was rendered null and void by virtue of the
\nprovisions of s. 32-DD and, therefore, the Collector had the
\npower  to  determine by his order dated May  29,  1963,\t the
\nsurplus\t area after ignoring the judgment and  decree.\t The
\nHigh Court said that since mandatory provisions of s.  32-DD
\nwhich  has  retrospective  operation  were  not\t taken\tinto
\nconsideration,\tthe order passed by the Collector  on  March
\n28, 1961 was non est as being one made without\tjurisdiction
\nand that, the order dated May 20, 1963, must be deemed to be
\nthe order determining the holding of the first appellant for
\nthe purpose of the Act as amended.\n<\/p>\n
We are not satisfied that this is a correct approach to\t the
\nquestion.  The Collector purported to act under s. 15 of the
\nLand  Revenue  Code, which, obviously, has  no\tapplication.
\nThe  High  Court did not rest its decision on s. 15  of\t the
\nPunjab\tLand  Revenue Code for holding\tthat  Collector\t had
\njurisdiction to pass the order dated May 20, 1963.  When the
\nCollector passed the order dated March, 28, 1961 determining
\nthe  surplus  area in the hands of the first  appellant,  he
\ntook  into consideration the effect of the judgment  of\t the
\ncivil  court declaring that the mutation of the name of\t the
\nfirst  appellant in the revenue record was effected only  to
\nenable him to obtain a gun licence.  That order of the\tCol-
\nlector\tdated March 28, 1961 was a perfectly valid one\twhen
\nit  was passed.\t No one challenged that order and it  became
\nfinal  for  all\t purposes.  It was only when  s.  32-DD\t was
\nincorporated  in  the  Act with\t retrospective\teffect\tfrom
\nOctober 30, 1956 that the question arose whether that  order
\nwas valid.  The Collector could not have anticipated the en-
\nactment of the section with retrospective effect and  passed
\nthe order conforming to its.provisions. It is rather curious
\nthat  the draftsman of the amending Act No. 16 of  1962\t did
\nnot  incorporate  a provision for reopening  orders  already
\npassed\tbefore s. 32-DD came to be enacted as  that  section
\nwas  made  retrospective.  We cannot subscribe to  the\tview
\nthat  the  order of the Collector passed on March  28,\t1961
\nbecame\tnull and void merely because be failed to take\tinto
\naccount the provisions of s. 32-DD even if by virtue of\t the
\nfiction\t it  is to be assumed that the section\twas  on\t the
\nstatute\t book  when  he passed it.  We\tare  aware  that  in
\nAnisminic  Ltd.\t v. Foreign Compensation  Commission(1)\t the
\nHouse  of  Lords  has  held that  even\tif  a  tribunal\t bad
\njurisdiction  to  enter upon an enquiry, the  fact  that  it
\noverlooked  an applicable mandatory provision in the  course
\nof  the enquiry Would denude it of its jurisdiction; but  we
\ndoubt  whether that principle has any application in a\tcase
\nwhen the provision overlooked was not in actual existence at
\nthe  time when the inquiry was conducted and the  order\t was
\npassed.\t In other words, we do not think that, we can extend
\nthe  ratio of the decision in that case to a case where\t the
\nprovision overlooked during the course of the inquiry
\n(1) (1967) 3 W.L.R. 382,
\n900<\/span>
\nwas  not  on the statute book but was begotten\tand  brought
\ninto being subsequently, though with retrospective vitality.
\nThe  imagination  sometimes  has  to  boggle  before   stark
\nreality.   The order of the Collector dated March 28,  1961,
\ncannot,\t therefore, be regarded as null and void.  It Was  a
\nvalid  order when it was passed, and there was no  provision
\nin  the amending Act which enabled the Collector  to  review
\nit.   We  cannot stretch the fiction so far as to  make\t the
\norder null and void without further ado.\n<\/p>\n
We  are also not satisfied that the Collector was acting  in
\nconsonance  with the principles of natural justice  when  he
\npassed\tthe  order  dated  May\t20,  1963,  as\the  gave  no
\nopportunity to appellants 2 and 3 of being heard.  The\tfact
\nthat  the  first appellant was heard before that  order\t was
\npassed is of no moment because the persons who were  vitally
\nconcerned  in  reopening the case were appellants 2  and  3.
\nAdmittedly, no notice of the proceedings to reopen the\tcase
\nwas  given  to\tthem.  It is not for us\t to  speculate\twhat
\ndefences  were\tavailable to them and whether  the  defences
\navailable would have materially affected the destiny of\t the
\ndecision.   We do not think it necessary, to decide in\tthis
\ncase  whether the failure to observe the rule  audi  alteram
\npartem\twould per se vitiate an order or whether it is\talso
\nnecessary to show prejudice to the person affected resulting
\nfrom  the  failure to observe the rule.\t Suffice it  to\t say
\nthat  in the present case we are of the view that if  notice
\nhad  been  given to appellants 2 and 3, they could,  at\t any
\nrate,  have  shown  the true nature  and  character  of\t the
\njudgment of the civil court upon which they relied.
\nIt  is.\t relevant to note that the judgment itself  was\t not
\nchallenged  as collusive by the respondents.  We  are  quite
\naware  that the defendant in the suit in which the  judgment
\nwas  obtained,\tnamely,\t the first appellant,  did  not\t put
\nforward any contention.\t But it would be rash to jump to the
\nconclusion  from  the  mere fact that  no  defence  was\t put
\nforward\t by the first appellant in the suit that the  decree
\nwas obtained collusively.  Under s. 43 of the Evidence\tAct,
\na  person who is not a party to a judgment can show that  it
\nwas  obtained  by fraud or collusion., No such\tattempt\t was
\nmade in this case.\n<\/p>\n
Nor  are  we  satisfied that every judgment  which  has\t the
\napparent effect of diminishing the area of land of a  person
\nwould  be  within  the\tambit  of  s.  32-DD(b).   Generally
\nspeaking,  a  judgment\tadjudicates on .the  rights  of\t the
\nparties\t as  they existed before the suit in  which  it\t was
\nobtained.\n<\/p>\n
A  judgment  is\t an  affirmation of  a\trelation  between  a
\nparticular predicate and a particular subject.\tSo, in\tlaw,
\nit  is the affirmation by the law of the legal\tconsequences
\nattending a proved or admitted state of facts.\tIt is always
\na  declaration\tthat a liability, recognised as\t within\t the
\njural  sphere, does or does not exist.\tA judgment,  as\t the
\nculmination  of\t the action, declares the existence  of\t the
\nright, recognizes the commission of the injury, or negatives
\nof the allegation of one or the other(1).\n<\/p>\n
A  judgment of a court is an affirmation, by the  authorised
\nsocietal agent of the state, speaking by warrant of law\t and
\nin the name of the
\n(1)  See Black on Judgments, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 1-2.\n<\/p>\n
901<\/span><\/p>\n
state,\tof  the\t legal consequences attending  a  proved  or
\nadmitted state of facts.  Its declaratory, determinative and
\nadjudicatory  function\tis its\tdistinctive  characteristic.
\nIts  recording\tgives an official certification\t to  a\tpre-
\nexisting  relation or establishes a new one on\tpre-existing
\ngrounds(1).\n<\/p>\n
The judgment of the civil court with which we are concerned,
\nadjudicated  on\t the rights of the parties as  they  existed
\nbefore\tthe suit and when it declared that the mutation\t was
\neffected  not with the idea of transferring the property  to
\nthe first appellant but for some other reason, the effect of
\nthe  declaration was that there was no real transfer of\t the
\nproperty  in  favour  of the first appellant  and  that\t the
\nproperty  remained always in the ownership of  appellants  2
\nand  3, notwithstanding the purported transfer evidenced  by
\nthe mutation in the revenue records.  It is impermissible to
\ngive the wide language employed in clause (b) of s. 32-DD an
\nunconfined  operation.\tWhen a transfer or mutation is\tmade
\non account of fraud or mistake and if a suit is filed for  a
\ndeclaration  that  the\ttransfer or  mutation  was  made  on
\naccount\t of  fraud  or\tmistake\t and  a\t judgment  obtained,
\ncertainly  the\tjudgment  would\t not  have  the\t effect\t  of
\ndiminishing  the  area\tof a person which  could  have\tbeen
\ndeclared  as a surplus area within the meaning of  S.  32-DD\n<\/p>\n
(b).   The legal effect of such a declaration would be\tthat
\nthe transferee or the person in whose name the mutation\t was
\neffected  had no right in the property.\t The land must\thave
\nbelonged  to  the first appellant prior to the\tjudgment  in
\norder that it might be postulated that the judgment has\t the
\neffect\tof diminishing the total area in his hands.  To\t put
\nit  differently, prior to the judgment, the land  must\thave
\nbelonged to him in order that it may be said that the effect
\nof the judgment is to diminish the area of his holding.\t  If
\nthe effect of the judgment is only to declare that the\tland
\nnever  belonged\t to  the  first appellant, it  has  not\t the
\neffect of diminishing the area of land in his possession. We
\nare  aware that the object of this provision in an Act\tlike
\nthe  one under consideration is to prevent circumvention  of
\nits provisions by dubious and indirect methods.\t But that is
\nno reason why we should put a construction upon the  section
\nwhich its language can hardly bear.  It would have been open
\nto the respondents to allege and prove that the judgment was
\nobtained  collusively.\tBut that could have been  done\tonly
\nafter notice to appellants 2 and 3 and after giving them  an
\nopportunity of being heard.  Therefore, to say, as the\tHigh
\nCourt has said, that no prejudice was caused to appellants 2
\nand 3 for want of an opportunity to them of being heard,  is
\nneither here nor there.\t We think the High Court went  wrong
\nin assuming that the Collector was right when he ignored the
\njudgment by, his order dated May 20, 1963 on the ground that
\nit  had\t the  effect of diminishing the area  of  the  first
\nappellant which could have been declared as his surplus.
\nWe,  therefore,\t set aside the order of the High  Court\t and
\nallow the appeal.  We ‘make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.B.W.\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  See Borchard, “Declaratory Judgments”, 2nd ed., pp.  8-\n<\/p>\n
10.
\n902<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1791, 1974 SCR (3) 896 Author: K K Mathew Bench: Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien PETITIONER: GURDIT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT10\/04\/1974 BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN BENCH: […]<\/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-198748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974 - 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\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-27T09:00:44+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-27T09:00:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974\"},\"wordCount\":2374,\"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\\\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974\",\"name\":\"Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-27T09:00:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974 - 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\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-27T09:00:44+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974","datePublished":"1974-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-27T09:00:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974"},"wordCount":2374,"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\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974","name":"Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-27T09:00:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdit-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-10-april-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurdit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 April, 1974"}]},{"@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\/198748","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=198748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}