{"id":200131,"date":"2008-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-15T21:53:41","modified_gmt":"2017-02-15T16:23:41","slug":"dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>RSA No.2394\/1986                                                 -1-\n\n    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND\n                     HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                       RSA No.2394\/1986\n                                       DATE OF DECISION: 21 .7.2008\nDr. Dhian Singh\n\n\n                                                          ....Appellant through\n                                                    Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate\n\n\n                                Versus\n\n\nState of Punjab and Another\n                                                        .....Respondent through<\/pre>\n<p>                                           Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab<\/p>\n<p>CORAM:       HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH<\/p>\n<p>1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the<br \/>\n   judgment?\n<\/p>\n<p>2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n<\/p>\n<p>                              .-.-.-.\n<\/p>\n<p>JASWANT SINGH, J<br \/>\n             Present Regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-<br \/>\nappellant against the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1986 passed by<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by him against<br \/>\nthe judgment and decree dated 18.9.1984 passed by Sub Judge, III Class,<br \/>\nPatiala dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Broadly, the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for<br \/>\ndeclaration to the effect that he is owner of property No.EP-381, situated at<br \/>\nSamana, District Patiala, the boundaries whereof are described in the head<br \/>\nnote of the plaint. It was further averred that conveyance deed (sale deed)<br \/>\nEx.P1\/A had been executed in favour of the plaintiff by the Rehabilitation<br \/>\nDepartment, Punjab and the boundaries have been wrongly mentioned in the<br \/>\nsaid conveyance deed. Plaintiff moved applications dated 23.7.1977 and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> RSA No.2394\/1986                                                        -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>18.8.1978 for correction of the boundaries in the said conveyance deed.<br \/>\nRehabilitation Authorities called the report of the Inspector regarding<br \/>\nproperty in dispute but the plaintiff was not satisfied with the appointment<br \/>\nof the Inspector and he applied to the Managing Officer for appointment of<br \/>\nTehsildar (Sales), Rehabilitation Department for the said purpose. In this<br \/>\nregard, further reminders were also issued but of no avail, therefore, present<br \/>\nsuit for declaration was filed to the effect that the boundaries in the said<br \/>\nconveyance deed have been wrongly mentioned as towards the East, open<br \/>\nspace has been mentioned whereas on the eastern side, there is property<br \/>\nNo.E.P. 380 of Partap Singh. Defendants despite due notice failed to appear<br \/>\nand were proceeded ex parte.\n<\/p>\n<p>             After hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and the law point<br \/>\nraised, the learned trial Court found that the present case pertained to the<br \/>\nrectification of the boundaries as originally mentioned in the conveyance<br \/>\ndeed and, therefore, the remedy of correction of the same was available to<br \/>\nhim under Section 25(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and<br \/>\nRehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as &#8220;1954 Act&#8221;).<br \/>\nLearned Trial Court further found that in view of Section 36 of 1954 Act,<br \/>\nthe jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit was barred and<br \/>\naccordingly, it was observed that the plaintiff should approach the<br \/>\nRehabilitation Department for rectification of the boundaries.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Aggrieved against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal<br \/>\nwas preferred before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala by the<br \/>\nplaintiff but the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated<br \/>\n10.2.1986.\n<\/p>\n<p>             It is, in these circumstances, that the present regular second<br \/>\nappeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Present appeal was admitted vide order dated 16.2.1987.<br \/>\nFollowing substantial questions of law have been framed in the present<br \/>\nregular second appeal:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              i)     As to whether the suit can be said to be barred by virtue of<br \/>\n                     Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and<br \/>\n                     Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 in the absence of remedy under<br \/>\n                     the said Act for the relief claimed in the suit?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              ii)    As to whether the Civil Court has failed to exercise the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> RSA No.2394\/1986                                                    -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                     jurisdiction vested in it?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              Iii)   As to whether the judgments and decree under appeal are<br \/>\n                     the result of misreading the relief prayed for in the suit and<br \/>\n                     further misinterpreting the provisions of the Act and being<br \/>\n                     so are thus unsustainable in law?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              iv)    As to whether the relief claimed in the suit can be granted<br \/>\n                     under the Displaced Persons ( Compensation and<br \/>\n                     Rehabilitation) Act, 1954?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>            Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant argued that in the<br \/>\nfacts of the present case, no remedy was available to the plaintiff under<br \/>\n1954 Act and therefore, Section 36 of 1954 Act was not applicable and<br \/>\nhence the suit was maintainable. To support his arguments, learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court<br \/>\nrendered in <a href=\"\/doc\/338927\/\">Tek Chand Chitkaria v. Union of India,<\/a> 1968, PLR, Volume<br \/>\nLXX, 2002, judgment, Vishnu Dass and another v. Smt Jaisi Bai Ude<br \/>\nBhan, AIR 1972, P &amp; H, 811.\n<\/p>\n<p>            On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has<br \/>\nargued that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff in open auction from<br \/>\nthe Rehabilitation Department and accordingly the conveyance deed had<br \/>\nbeen executed and since the primary and sole relief claimed is for correction<br \/>\nof the boundaries in the said conveyance deed, no suit is maintainable<br \/>\nbefore a Civil court in view of the bar provided under Section 36 of 1954<br \/>\nAct as there is a sufficient remedy available to the plaintiff under Section 25<br \/>\n(2) of 1954 Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>            I have heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Before adverting to the arguments, it is necessary to reproduce<br \/>\nSection 25 (2) and 36 of 1954 Act, which is as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              25.    Review and amendment of orders- (1) xxx<br \/>\n                          xxx<\/p>\n<p>                            xxx                   xxx                  xx<\/p>\n<p>              (2)    Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in order passed by an<br \/>\n              officer or authority under this Act or errors arising thereto from<br \/>\n              any accidental slip or omission may, at any time be corrected by<br \/>\n              such officer or authority or the successor-in-office of such officer<br \/>\n              or authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              36.    Bar of jurisdiction-         Save    as   otherwiseexpressly<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> RSA No.2394\/1986                                                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>              provided in this Act, no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to<br \/>\n              entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which<br \/>\n              the Central Government or any officer or authority appointed<br \/>\n              under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine,<br \/>\n              and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority<br \/>\n              in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any<br \/>\n              power conferred by or under this Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>            A perusal of the record reveals that the suit land was sold to the<br \/>\nplaintiff-appellant by the Rehabilitation Department for a sale consideration<br \/>\nof Rs.9150\/- vide conveyance deed         No.678 dated 4.8.1997 in a open<br \/>\nauction. Sale deed was written on 30.6.1977 and was duly registered on<br \/>\n4.8.1977 Ex.P1\/A. It appears that the plaintiff had sought rectification of<br \/>\nthe same before and after the execution of the conveyance deed. It is not in<br \/>\ndispute that the Rehabilitation Authorities called the report of the Inspector<br \/>\nand Managing Officer regarding the boundaries of the property in dispute<br \/>\non one of the applications moved by the plaintiff, but he was not satisfied<br \/>\nwith the appointment of the Inspector and, therefore, he applied for<br \/>\nappointment of Tehsildar, Rehabilitation Department for the said purpose.<br \/>\nAdmittedly, reminders had been sent in January 1982 before filing of the<br \/>\npresent suit. Both the learned courts below, keeping in view of the facts of<br \/>\nthe case and nature of the relief claimed by the petitioner, recorded a finding<br \/>\nthat the present case pertains to the rectification of the boundaries as<br \/>\noriginally mentioned in the aforesaid conveyance deed and, therefore,<br \/>\nkeeping in view the bar under Section 36 of 1954 Act, learned courts below<br \/>\nrefused to entertain the suit and further recorded the plaintiff to avail his<br \/>\nremedy under Section 25(2) of 1954 Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>            In Vishnu Dass&#8217;s case (supra), the question was as to whether<br \/>\nthe land left by the defendant in Pakistan was mortgaged by him to the<br \/>\nplaintiff and whether on that basis, the plaintiff was entitled to joint<br \/>\npossession of land allotted to the defendant in India. It was held that the<br \/>\nmatter was not covered under any of the Sections of 1954 Act and,<br \/>\ntherefore, a civil suit for that matter was not barred under 1954 Act and<br \/>\nhence maintainable in a Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>            The facts in the present case are entirely different. The land<br \/>\nwas sold by the Rehabilitation Department to the plaintiff and a conveyance<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> RSA No.2394\/1986                                               -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>deed executed. The plaintiff not being satisfied with the boundaries drawn<br \/>\nin the sale deed has clear cut remedy under Section 25(2) of 1954 Act for<br \/>\ncorrection of the same, therefore, the cited judgment is of no assistance to<br \/>\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>               The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Tek Chand Chitkaria&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case due to the<br \/>\nreason that in the reported case suit for possession of a cattle shed and<br \/>\nboundary attached thereto forming part of khasra nos. 160,161,163, was<br \/>\nfiled on the ground that representation of the plaintiff Tek Chand Chitkaria<br \/>\nregarding non-delivery of possession was rejected by Regional Settlement<br \/>\nCommissioner on 21.1.1958. Appeal, revision and review filed against the<br \/>\nsame under the 1954 Act were also dismissed.          Even the writ petition<br \/>\nchallenging all the said orders was dismissed by the Hon&#8217;ble High Court. It<br \/>\nis in those circumstances, the civil suit was filed. The Hon&#8217;ble Delhi High<br \/>\nCourt in paragraph 23 of the judgment has also discussed the point of bar of<br \/>\njurisdiction under section 36 of the 1954 Act and has held that in the facts<br \/>\nof the case there is no provision in the Act, which empowers the Central<br \/>\nGovernment or any officer under the said Act to determine the matter in<br \/>\ncontroversy.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the present case to resolve the controversy in the suit regarding<br \/>\ncorrection of boundaries, there is a specific provision in Section 25(2) of the<br \/>\n1954 Act. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 36 of the<br \/>\n1954 Act, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Moreover, liberty was<br \/>\ngranted to the plaintiff-appellant by the trial court to approach higher<br \/>\nofficers of the Rehabilitation Department in case of any grievance qua<br \/>\nrectification of the boundaries of the suit land, which he had purchased from<br \/>\nthe Rehabilitation Department itself. However, the plaintiff-appellant has<br \/>\nnot taken recourse to that option. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nDelhi High Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence,<br \/>\nthe submission of the plaintiff-appellant that the civil suit under Section 36<br \/>\nis not barred in the absence of any remedy under the Act, is not tenable as<br \/>\nthere is a specific remedy available under Section 25(2) of the 1954 Act for<br \/>\ncorrection of the boundaries.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In view of the findings recorded on point no.1, learned trial Court has<br \/>\nrightly declined to interfere in the matter and has granted liberty to the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> RSA No.2394\/1986                                             -6-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>plaintiff to approach the authorities under the 1954 Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any ground to interfere<br \/>\nin the present Regular Second Appeal as no substantial question of law is<br \/>\ninvolved. Hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n21.7.2008.                                     (Jaswant Singh)\nmanoj                                               Judge.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008 RSA No.2394\/1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2394\/1986 DATE OF DECISION: 21 .7.2008 Dr. Dhian Singh &#8230;.Appellant through Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate Versus State of Punjab and Another &#8230;..Respondent [&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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008 - 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\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-15T16:23:41+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T16:23:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1734,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T16:23:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008 - 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\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-15T16:23:41+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T16:23:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008"},"wordCount":1734,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008","name":"Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T16:23:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dhian-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Dhian Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200131","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=200131"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200131\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}