{"id":223701,"date":"2000-07-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-07-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000"},"modified":"2016-01-31T19:19:25","modified_gmt":"2016-01-31T13:49:25","slug":"komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000","title":{"rendered":"Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of … on 25 July, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of … on 25 July, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: S V Patil<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu., Shivaraj V. Patil.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKOMAL & ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, DEORIA & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t25\/07\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS. RAJENDRA BABU., & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Briefly\t stated,  the facts leading to the filing of this  appeal
\nare the following.\n<\/p>\n
The  property  in  dispute relates to Khata Nos.  22 and  142  of
\nvillage\t Kermeni Premwalia, Distt.  Deoria.  The respondents 3 to
\n7  and\tone Smt.  Samundri filed objections before the\tAssistant
\nConsolidation  Officer\tand prayed that the name of the\t recorded
\ntenure\tholders\t be  expunged  and their names\tmay  be\t recorded
\ncontending  that  one Smt.  Rojhani was the tenure holder of  the
\ndisputed  property;   she  died in the year 1966  and  they  were
\nentitled  to  the  said\t property by succession.   There  was  no
\ndispute\t between  parties  that the properties\tbelonged  to  Ram
\nSubhag.\t  The said property was recorded in his name in\t Khatauni
\nof   1332  Fasali.   The  appellants   contested  the  claim   of
\nRespondents  3\tto 7 and Smt.  Samundri on the ground that  after
\nthe  death  of Smt.  Rojhani in the year 1966, Mahaveer and  Udit
\nbecame\tentitled to succession under Section 171 of Uttar Pradesh
\nJamindari  Abolition  and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (for  short  the
\nAct).  In the said proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation
\nOfficer, the respondents examined Shanker and one Kuber Pandey in
\nsupport\t of  their claim.  The Appellant No.  1\t himself  entered
\ninto  witness box to support his claim and one Sudendar was  also
\nexamined  as  DW-2.  The Appellants contended that  Mahadev,  the
\nhusband\t of  Smt.   Rojhani died after the death of  Ram  Subhag,
\nhence  succession to Smt.  Rojhani was governed by Section 171 of
\nthe  Act.  The Consolidation Officer by his order dated\t 3.5.1979
\nallowed\t the  objections of the Respondents and\t granted  relief.
\nThe  appellants filed an appeal challenging the said order before
\nthe Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation.  The said appeal
\nwas   allowed\ton  2.8.80  and\t  the  order  of  the\tAssistant
\nConsolidation  Officer was set aside.  This time the  respondents
\nfiled  a  revision before the Deputy Director  of  Consolidation,
\nquestioning  the  validity  and correctness of\tthe  order  dated
\n2.8.80 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
\nThe  Deputy  Director,\ton  detailed  examination  of  respective
\ncontentions  in the light of the material placed on record,  came
\nto  the\t conclusion  that  the\torder  passed  by  the\tAssistant
\nSettlement Officer, Consolidation, in appeal was not sustainable.
\nIn  the\t view he took, the revision petition was allowed and  the
\nOrder  dated  2.8.80  passed  in  the  appeal  by  the\tAssistant
\nSettlement  Officer,  Consolidation, was set aside and the  order
\ndated  3.5.1979\t of  the  Consolidation\t Officer  was  confirmed.
\nAggrieved  and\tdissatisfied  by the said order\t dated\t30.3.1981
\npassed\tin  revision,  the  appellants filed  Civil  Misc.   Writ
\nPetition  No.\t9716\/81\t in  the  High\tCourt  of  Judicature  at
\nAllahbad.   The High Court after examining the rival  submissions
\nmade,  dismissed the writ petition finding no merit in it.  Hence
\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Having\tregard\tto the contentions raised and the nature  of  the
\ndispute, it is necessary to look to the pedigree of the family of
\nRam Subhag, given below:-\n<\/p>\n
Ram\t\t\t      Subhag\t\t\t\t\/\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————–\t\/   \/\t\/
\nMahadev\t Mahaveer Udit \/ \/ \/ Rojhani (widow) Komal Ram Chandra\t\/
\nSamundri\t\t     Devi\t\t       (daughter)\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————–  \/ \/ \/ \/\t\/
\nShanker Aaras Satya Narain Kapil Dev Prabhu Nath<\/p>\n
In   the  order\t dated\t30.3.1981  of  the  Deputy  Director   of
\nConsolidation, it is recorded thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“Both the parties admit that if Mahadev died during the life time
\nof Ram Subhag and the name of Rojhani was however recorded during
\nthe  life  time\t of  Ram Subhag, then it will  be  deemed  to  be
\nself-acquired  and  after  the death of Rojhani, it will  not  be
\ndecided\t under\tSection\t 171 but under Section 174  and\t in  case
\nMahadev\t died  after  Ram Subhag, then it will be  decided  under
\nSection 171 after the death of Rojhani.”\n<\/p>\n
Before\tus  also, the legal position as indicated above\t was  not
\ndisputed by the leaned counsel for the parties but they contested
\nonly  with  regard to the aspect whether Mahadev died during  the
\nlife  time  of Ram Subhag or later.  Hence, the decision  in  the
\ncase  essentially  depended on the finding of fact as to  whether
\nMahadev\t died  during lifetime of Ram Subhag or he  survived  Ram
\nSubhag.\t  In  this view it is considered unnecessary to refer  to
\nthe decisions cited.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t Senior\t Counsel for the appellants contended  that  Smt.
\nRojhani\t when examined in the suit filed under Section 176 of the
\nAct  stated  that  Mahadev died after the death\t of  Ram  Subhag;
\nShanker the respondent No.  3 also stated that Mahadev died after
\nthe  death  of\tRam Subhag and one Kuber Pandey examined  in  the
\nmutation  case had also stated that Mahadev died after the  death
\nof  Ram\t Subhag.  According to the learned Senior  Counsel,  this
\nevidence  was binding on the respondents.  He added that the copy
\nof  the\t death\tcertificate of Mahadev filed at later  stage  was
\nforged and fictitious.\n<\/p>\n
Per  contra,  the learned counsel for the contesting  respondents
\nsubmitted  that the Assistant Consolidation Officer (the original
\nauthority)   and  the  Deputy\tDirector  of  Consolidation  (the
\nrevisional  authority), looking to the evidence placed on record,
\nboth  oral and documentary, were right and justified in accepting
\nthe  case of the respondents.  He added that the High Court  also
\ndid  not find any merit in the writ petition and as such the same
\nwas dismissed by the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
As  can\t be  seen from the order dated 30.3.1981  passed  by  the
\nDeputy Director of Consolidation in revision, he has examined all
\naspects in considerable details.  He has referred to statement of
\nMahaveer  in  which  he\t had stated that Ram  Subhag  died  after
\nMahadev;   Komal also has said in his statement that Mahadev died
\nduring\tthe life time of Ram Subhag;  the oral evidence according
\nto  him,  lead\tby parties on either side was  general.\t  In  the
\ncircumstances,\tthe  oral evidence consistent with the\tdocuments
\nwas  accepted  and rightly so.\tReference is made to Khatauni  of
\nMahadev\t from which it was established that he died in 1920.   It
\nwas  clear  from Khatauni of 1333 that Ram Subhag was alive  till
\n1929,  which is equivalent to Khatauni 1333.  It was also noticed
\nthat  there was no evidence to show that name of Mahadev was ever
\nrecorded  in  respect of the disputed land.  If Mahadev had  died
\nafter  Ram Subhag, his name should have been recorded in  respect
\nof  the\t disputed  property.   Referring to  the  judgment  dated
\n19.2.1970  of  the Member of Revenue Board it was taken as  proof
\nthat Mahadev died during the lifetime of Ram Subhag.  In the said
\norder passed in the revision, it is also stated thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“Therefore  the\t name  of Rojhani remained recorded  without  any
\nauthority  and her ownership was admitted by the opposite parties
\nin  the\t case under Section 176 and thus this will be treated  as
\nself  acquired property because neither the opposite parties took
\nany  proceedings for removal her name, nor it will be admitted on
\nthe basis of the entries that the opposite parties had taken some
\nproceeding  for\t removal  of her name and neither the  other  two
\nopposite parties admitted them as co- partners and thus after the
\ndeath  of Rojhani, the sons of her daughter have become heirs  of
\nher under Section 174 of the Succession Act.”\n<\/p>\n
From  the  translated  copies  of statements  of  Smt.\t Rojhani,
\nShanker\t and Kuber Pandey, filed along with the S.L.P.\tit cannot
\nbe  said  that their evidence is clinching on the  point  whether
\nMahadev\t died  during the life time of Ram Subhag or he\t survived
\nhim.   On the other hand, their statements are vague and general.
\nSmt.  Rojhani has only stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“Ram  Subhag  and  Mahadev  both died in the  same  year  due  to
\n(Cholera),  Mahadev  suffered (Cholera) first but the old  person
\nRam  Subhag  died first.  My husband Mahadev died thereafter  six
\nmonths.\t The last rituals of both the persons were together.”\n<\/p>\n
In his statement, Shanker has stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“I  did not see Ram Subhag.  I did not see Mahadev also.  Earlier
\nthe  Khata  of all these were joint.  I do not know  whether  the
\nname  of  Mahadev  was recorded in the Khata.  The name\t of  Smt.
\nRojhani was recorded 40-45 years back and I do not know what time
\nhas  passed  away the death of Mahadev.\t Rojhani was 70-80  years
\nold at the time of her death.  I do not know whether Mahadev died
\nduring the life time of his father or when he died.”\n<\/p>\n
Kuber Pandey has stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“I  had\t not  seen  Mahadev.  First of all Ram\tSubhag\tdied  and
\nMahadev died after him.”\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court, having considered rival submissions, rightly did
\nnot  find  any merit in the writ petition, having regard  to  the
\nmaterial  placed on record and the reasons recorded in the  order
\nof  the\t Deputy Director, Consolidation based on evidence.   This
\nbeing the position, in our view, the impugned order does not call
\nfor interference.  Hence the appeal is dismissed.  However, there
\nwill be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of … on 25 July, 2000 Author: S V Patil Bench: S. Rajendra Babu., Shivaraj V. Patil. PETITIONER: KOMAL & ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, DEORIA & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/07\/2000 BENCH: S. RAJENDRA BABU., & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL. JUDGMENT: SHIVARAJ V. […]<\/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-223701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKomal & Another vs Deputy Director Of ... on 25 July, 2000 - 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\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of ... on 25 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-31T13:49:25+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of … on 25 July, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-31T13:49:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1465,\"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\\\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000\",\"name\":\"Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of ... on 25 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-31T13:49:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of … on 25 July, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of ... on 25 July, 2000 - 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\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of ... on 25 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-31T13:49:25+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of … on 25 July, 2000","datePublished":"2000-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-31T13:49:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000"},"wordCount":1465,"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\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000","name":"Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of ... on 25 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-31T13:49:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/komal-another-vs-deputy-director-of-on-25-july-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Komal & Another vs Deputy Director Of … on 25 July, 2000"}]},{"@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\/223701","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=223701"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223701\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}