{"id":214002,"date":"1998-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998"},"modified":"2019-02-10T19:22:49","modified_gmt":"2019-02-10T13:52:49","slug":"ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998","title":{"rendered":"Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1998 VIAD Delhi 857, 1998 (47) DRJ 233<\/div>\n
Author: D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: D Gupta, K Ramamoorthy<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
Devinder Gupta, J.<\/p>\n
1.     Petitioner  is a resident of Bapu Park, Kotla-Mubarakpur,  New  Delhi, which  is the area stated to be lying between South Extension  Part-I,  defense  Colony  and  Lodhi Colony. Petitioner’s case is that  Bapu  Park  is adjacent to Blocks C and D of South Extension Part-I, New Delhi. The colony was  developed and its plan was duly sanctioned by MCD. The remaining  area was  acquired by the Government. Compensation was paid to the  owners.  Because  of  the  inaction on the part of the  authorities,  certain  persons occupied  the area, which belonged to Government and carried out  new  constructions. Some of the persons occupied the main road. Petitioner’s grievance has been that the respondent authorities have failed and neglected  to discharge their statutory obligations despite various representations  made by  him for removal of illegal encroachment made within the area, which  is sandwiched  between  Blocks C and D of South Extension  Part-I  and  Subhas Market. According to him, mainly there were three cases of encroachment  by K.D.  Chaudhry, Surender Rastogi and Om Prakash (Respondents Nos. 4, 5  and 6). The petitioner has prayed for the following directions:-\n<\/p>\n
     (i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents  authorities to remove all illegal encroachments within  the area  sandwiched between Blocks C & D of South Extension  Part-I, New Delhi, Village Pilanji and Subhash Market, New Delhi  including  the encroachments at point marked ‘X’ and those  being  constructed by Surendra Rastogi and Om Prakash as mentioned in paras (g) and (h) of the petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)  Issue  a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing  the  respondents,  Delhi  Police  to remove the  public  nuisance  under Section  133  of the Code of Criminal Procedure  and  also  under Sections 268 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 83, 84
\n     of Delhi Police Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.   On 10.3.1992, while issuing show cause notice on petitioner’s  miscellaneous  application, a direction was issued that in the meanwhile no  construction, contrary to bye-laws or building plans shall be made or  continued  and  it is the duty of the police to see that the  order  is  complied with.\n<\/p>\n
3.   When despite service of notice and time being granted for the purpose, respondent-MCD  filed to file any reply, a specific direction was  made  on 16.4.1992,  calling upon the Commissioner to file reply after visiting  the area  within  a  period of three weeks. The Commissioner  was  directed  to remain  present  in  Court in case no reply was filed.  Pursuant  to  these directions, P.V. Jaikrishnan, Commissioner, MCD filed his affidavit stating that  in  compliance with the order, he had himself inspected the  area  of Bapu  Park on 5.5.1992. It was further stated that the records relating  to lay  out plans, development plans and road alignment etc. were  still  with DDA,  therefore, it was not possible to distinctly identify the  status  of the land, alleged to have been encroached upon. However, it is stated  that as  per inspection carried out on 5.5.1992, some encroachment was found  to have been made. As per this affidavit, directions had been issued to remove the temporary encroachment. The affidavit reads:-\n<\/p>\n
     “I had also seen unauthorised construction of basement on a  plot of land between House No. 43 and 65 which has been marked as  ‘X’ on  the  plan attached with the writ petition. I  have  seen  the records.  This unauthorised construction of basement  was  booked for demolition on 13.2.92. Said construction has been carried out at  the instance of K.D. Chaudhary. Show cause notice under  Section  343 was issued, a copy of which is Annexure ‘A’.  No  reply was received and as such, DEMOLITION ORDER WAS PASSED, a copy  of which  is Annexure ‘B’. A show cause notice for sealing of  unauthorised  construction  was issued, a copy of which  is  Annexure ‘C’. No reply to this was also received and as such, the basement was sealed on 13.4.1992 vide orders, a copy of which is  Annexure ‘D’.  That  I have also seen the road linking Subhash  Market  to Bapu Park. As mentioned in the writ petition I saw that one  Shri Surendra Rastogi has erected two storeyed house without sanction. This  unauthorised  construction is being  proceeded  against  in accordance with the provisions of the D.M.C. Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     That  I  have also seen the site which is alleged  to  have  been encroached  upon by one Shri Om Parkash. He has erected a  double story  house  on Plot No. S-29. This construction has  also  been booked  on 1.5.1992 and is being proceeded against in  accordance with the provisions of the D.M.C. Act. I may, however, point  out that by reason of this construction, the road leading to  Village Pilanji  has  not been blocked. However, so far as  the  question regarding  the road leading to Village Aliganj is  concerned,  in the  absence of lay-out plan\/road alignment plant etc. it  cannot be determined as to whether there is any blockade or not?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     That  the  entire remaining area of the revenue estate  of  Kotla Mubarakpur  was  urbanised vide Notification  No.  F.9(2)66  Law. Copn. dated 28th May, 1966 and no construction can be carried out without sanctioned of the answering respondent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.   Taking  note of the stand taken in the affidavit of  the  Commissioner aforementioned,  further directions were issued on 24.3.1993  calling  upon the respondents to inform the Court as to what was the latest position  and what  action,  if any, had been taken by the Corporation, pursuant  to  the orders,  stated  to have been issued by the Commissioner. The  order  dated 24.3.1993 reads:-\n<\/p>\n
     “We  have seen the affidavit dated the 7th May, 1992 of Sh.  P.V. Jaikrishnan,  Commissioner,  M.C.D. in which he has  referred  to illegal construction and also some encroachment during his  visit to  Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. It is also stated in  the  affidavit that  he  has passed certain orders but the counsel for  the  respondent is unable to tell us what has happened thereafter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Counsel for the petitioner states that further illegal  construction  has  taken place and whereas in the case  of  Mr.  Surender Rastogi, it is further alleged by the counsel for the  petitioner that  some properties were sealed but the seal has been  removed. We, hereby direct Mr. P.V. Jaikrishanan, Commissioner, M.C.D.  to himself  file  another affidavit in continuation of  his  earlier affidavit dated the 7th May, 1993 and inform the court as to what is  the  position as of today and what action was  taken  by  the Corporation  pursuant to the orders which he had  himself  passed which are referred to in his earlier affidavit of 7th May,  1992. If  necessary,  the Commissioner may visit the area  in  question once again. The affidavit be filed within a week from today.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     To come up on 2nd April, 1993.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Copy of the order be given ‘dasti’ to the counsel for the  M.C.D. duly certified by the Court Master of this Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.   In  response to the aforementioned directions, P.V. Jaikrishnan,  Commissioner, MCD filed further affidavit stating:-\n<\/p>\n
     “I  have inspected the area of Bapu Park, Kotla  Mubarakpur,  New Delhi  again on 31st March, 1993 in pursuance of order  dt.  24th March, 1993.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     That  the colony of Bapu Park, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi is  an unauthorised  colony  and all the houses  have  been  constructed without  getting the building plans sanctioned as required  under Delhi  Municipal Corporation Act and the Building Bye  Laws  made  thereunder.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     That  I have again inspected the corner between Plot No.  43  and Plot No. 65 on 31st March, 1993 and found it was still sealed and no  further  construction  has taken place. It was  in  the  same condition as it was on my earlier inspection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     So far as the house of Surender Rastogi is concerned, it is  Plot No.  169, it is a double storeyed building comprising  of  Ground Floor, First Floor and no further construction has taken place in this building also. Show cause notice in respect of this unauthorised  construction was issued on 1st May, 1992. No reply to  the show cause notice was received and as such demolition notice  was issued on 5th May, 1992. Copy of the show cause notice and  demolition  notice is effectively ‘RE’. There is no  encroachment  on the public street except that there is some projections on Municipal land.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     That  the  property of Sh. Om Prakash is S-29 and  this  property consists  of Ground Floor, First Floor and part of Second  Floor. The building line of this property is in line with other  properties in the area but there are some projections on the  Municipal land.  Show  cause notice in respect of this  property  was  also issued  on  1st  May, 1992. No reply was received  and  as  such, demolition  orders  were passed on 5th May, 1992. A copy  of  the how  cause notice and the demolition order\/demolition notice  in ‘RF’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     That a rough plan of the area of Bapu Park was also got prepared. Copy  of  the  plain is Annexure ‘RG’. The property  of  these  3 persons  has been shown in Red. Property between Plot No. 43  and 65  (65) is marked ‘X’, the property of Sh. Surender  Rastogi  is marked ‘Y’ and that of Sh. Om Prakash is marked ‘Z’. The building line  in respect of the property of Sh. Surender Rastogi and  Sh. Om  Prakash  is  the same as of other properties  in  the  street except some projections on the Municipal land. There has been  no further construction since my last inspection.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.   On 1.9.1994, the Court took notice of the submission made on behalf of respondent  No.6 that while the petitioner was making  allegations  against respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the petitioner does not possess any  sanctioned plan  of his building. By the following order, the petitioner was  directed to  file  an affidavit as to whether he had any sanctioned plan and  as  to whether there is any approved lay out plan:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Notice to the respondents 4 and 5 for 8th December, 1994.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submitted that while the petitioner  is making allegations against respondents Nos. 4,  5, 6,  the petitioner does not himself have any sanctioned  plan  of the petitioners building. He also referred to us the findings  in the  Panchayat  Letter dated 24th March, 1992  which  contains  a finding  of encroachment by petitioner and another into  a  road. The  petitioner  contends that his building was  regularised.  We find  that this Panchayat is dated 24.3.92 while the  regularisation  was in 1986 as per certain documents produced before us  by the  petitioner. Respondents, therefore, submit  that  petitioner has  himself encroached into the road after 1986 as found by  the Panchayat in 1992.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It  may  also be noted here that learned counsel for  the  M.C.D. does  not,  however, accept that there is any  regularisation  of colonies or whether it was regularised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We have repeatedly questioned the petitioner’s counsel to  inform us if the petitioner has any sanctioned plan for his building. We have also asked him to tell us if any lay-out plan is approved by any of the local authorities. Learned counsel for the  petitioner is not able to inform us whether he has a sanctioned plan in  his favour.  He was suggesting to us that the sanctioned plan  should be  called  from the M.C.D.. The case of the M.C.D. is  that  the  whole colony is unauthorised and none of the residents  including the  petitioner has any sanctioned plan. In those  circumstances, the question arises whether the petitioner has come to court with clean  hands  is  a public interest  litigation.  We,  therefore, direct the petitioner to file an affidavit as to whether there is any approved lay-out plan. If any such document is available,  he shall file the same before the next date of hearing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Interim order to continue.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   In  response to these directions, the petitioner filed his  affidavit, relevant part of which affidavit dated 6.12.1994 reads:-\n<\/p>\n
     “That it is submitted that the main case for which the petitioner came  before this Hon’ble High Court has been ‘hijacked’  by  the advocates of M.C.D. and advocates of encroachers. The  petitioner had  approached the Hon’ble High Court against  encroachments  on ‘public roads’ and on ‘Govt. land’. These encorachments on public roads and Govt. land have been identified by no less a person the then  Commissioner of M.C.D. Mr. P.V. Jaikrishna, IAS and who  is even today the Chief Administrator of M.C.D., i.e. higher in rank than  the M.C.D. Commissioner. The M.C.D. advocate and  advocates of encroachers are confusing the Court by making it out  “Whether the  Bapu Park Colony is a regularised Colony or not and  whether permission  to  construct houses there has to  be  obtained  from M.C.D. or not”. As stated above, it is not the case. It is a case of encroachments on public roads and Govt. land, which has to  be removed. Why these encroachments have not so far been removed  is for the M.C.D. to explain.”\n<\/p>\n
8.   On  8.12.1994,  stand of respondents that the  petitioner  is  himself guilty  of unauthorised construction, was dealt with, when it was  observed that it was for the Commissioner, M.C.D. to take action in accordance  with law, in case there was unauthorised construction. On 8.3.1995, taking  note of  the  situation,  as reflected in the affidavit dated  2.4.1993  of  the Commissioner that the Corporation had identified the unauthorised construction  in  the locality, which are subject matter of the  petition,  it  was observed  that  it  was strange that even after two and a  half  years,  no action had been taken with regard to the demolition of unauthorised  structure. The Commissioner was directed to take action, in accordance with  law and proceed with the demolition expeditiously. This order was clarified  on 30.3.1995  to  the extent that it shall be sufficient compliance  with  the order,  if demolition of unauthorised construction is carried out  both  in terms  of what was stated in the affidavit dated 7.5.1992 and  2.4.1993  of the  Commissioner. Again on 4.4.1995, it was clarified that action  by  the Commissioner  should be in accordance with law. On 20.10.1995,  M.C.D.  was directed to file affidavit of Zonal Engineer, clarifying the status of  the encroached portion. Pursuant to those directions, Naveen Garg, Zonal  Engineer,  Central  Zone, M.C.D. filed his affidavit. As a dispute  was  raised with  respect to what was stated in this affidavit, K. Venkataraman,  Advocate  was  appointed as the Commissioner on 7.3.1996, who was  directed  to submit  his  report.  After  receipt of the report,  order  was  passed  on 15.5.1996 that prima facie the court was of the view that its order has not been  fully carried out by the Zonal Engineer. Learned counsel  for  M.C.D. informed the Court that he would instruct M.C.D. to carry out the order  of the  Court  and to submit compliance thereof. The case was  adjourned  from time to time and ultimately on 21.4.1997, R.C. Katyal, Assistant  Engineer, Division-9,  Central  Zone,  M.C.D. filed his affidavit  stating  that  the unauthorised  construction  made by K.D. Chaudhry had been  demolished  and action  report was submitted by way of affidavit dated 7.3.1996. There  has been  no  change in the property thereafter. As regards property  No.  169, Bapu Park of Surender Rastogi, the affidavit states:-\n<\/p>\n
     “On  13.3.97, the property was almost demolished\/damaged but  the beams  and pillars could not be demolished due to  the  adjoining properties and limited working space. On 15.4.97, brick work  and  R.C.C. roof projection (in remaining portion) were demolished and the  hanged  R.C.C. slabs were demolished with the  help  of  gas cutter and the property was made absolutely inhabitable.”\n<\/p>\n
9.   As  regards property No. S-29, Bapu Park of Om Prakash, it  is  stated that  after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to Om Prakash,  orders of  demolition were passed. The owner failed to comply with the  demolition order and thus the unauthorised construction became liable for  demolition. The affidavit further states:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Attempts were made to demolish the unauthorised construction  in the  premises  in question on 27.9.96, 13.3.97  and  15.4.97  but action  could not be executed in respect of this property due  to public  resistance\/hindrance  created at site.  The  property  is residential and occupied one and demolition action shall be taken in due course of time, as per policy.”\n<\/p>\n
10.  In  view  of  what has been stated in various  affidavits  brought  on record,  pursuant  to various directions issued in this case from  time  to time, no other or further direction deserves to be issued in this  petition now except to direct the respondent Corporation to ensure that unauthorised portions of the construction, for which demolition orders have already been passed,  namely property No. S-29 Bapu Park of Om Prakash, are  demolished, in  accordance  with law, within a period of four months from the  date  of receipt of writ order of this Court and it will also ensure that no further unauthorised  construction in the three properties of which cognizance  was taken, takes place in future. Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
11.  As regards the petitioner’s alleged unauthorised construction, as  per the  affidavit of K.D. Chaudhry, it will be open for the M.C.D. to  proceed in accordance with law and take action, whatever is permissible under  law. With these directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1998 VIAD Delhi 857, 1998 (47) DRJ 233 Author: D Gupta Bench: D Gupta, K Ramamoorthy ORDER Devinder Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner is a resident of Bapu Park, Kotla-Mubarakpur, New Delhi, which is the area stated […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998 - 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\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-10T13:52:49+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-10T13:52:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2863,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998\",\"name\":\"Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-10T13:52:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998 - 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\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-10T13:52:49+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998","datePublished":"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-10T13:52:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998"},"wordCount":2863,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998","name":"Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-10T13:52:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-cap-singh-vs-lt-governor-of-delhi-ors-on-14-august-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram (Cap.) Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 August, 1998"}]},{"@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\/214002","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=214002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214002\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}