{"id":232721,"date":"2010-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-12T16:29:39","modified_gmt":"2015-12-12T10:59:39","slug":"satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                    W.P.No. 2429 \/ 2001\n18-03-2010\n\nShri R.S.Khare, counsel for the petitioner.\n\n\nShri Vikram Singh, counsel for the respondent No.1\/Union of India.<\/pre>\n<p>Shri S.K.Kashyap, counsel for the respondent No.2\/State.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the denial<br \/>\nof freedom fighters pension under the scheme framed by the Central<br \/>\nGovernment in the year 1972 and 1980.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The case of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas appointed and was working in the erstwhile Custom &amp; Excise<br \/>\nDepartment but was removed from service on account of his activities<br \/>\nwhich were found to be anti Government in that particular point of time.<br \/>\nThe petitioner submits that he has filed certificates of the then<br \/>\nCommissioner, Custom &amp; Excise, dated 11-10-1972 and 14-10-1976 to<br \/>\nthat effect as well as a certificate of the Collector, Tikamgarh dated<br \/>\n23-12-1963 to the effect that the petitioner was and is a political<br \/>\nsufferer. It is further stated that he had also produced certificates of the<br \/>\nFreedom Fighter Association, Tikamgarh dated 1-5-1985 in support of<br \/>\nhis claim for freedom fighters pension under the scheme as well as<br \/>\ncertificate of prominent freedom fighters and members of the<br \/>\nParliament. It is stated that in spite of the aforesaid as the claim of the<br \/>\npetitioner was rejected by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner had<br \/>\nfiled a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.No.<br \/>\n4360\/1995 and was disposed of by order dated 6-5-1998 by issuing the<br \/>\nfollowing directions :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                     &#8220;3.    A counter affidavit has been filed by the<br \/>\n       answering respondent disputing the contentions raised in the<br \/>\n       petition. Mr. Gohil, learned senior standing counsel for the<br \/>\n       respondent, Union of India, suggested that if the petitioner<br \/>\n       makes a representation to the competent authority of the<br \/>\n      Central Government along with documents the same shall<br \/>\n      be considered after getting an inquiry conducted by the<br \/>\n      agency of the State Government with regard to the<br \/>\n      genuineness of the documents. Mr. Gohil assures that the<br \/>\n      representation of the petitioner shall be disposed of within<br \/>\n      six months from the date of receipt of representation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                   4.     Recording such assurance the petition<br \/>\n      stands disposed of.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      It is stated that subsequent to the disposal of his petition the<br \/>\npetitioner filed a fresh representation claiming freedom fighters pension<br \/>\non 25-9-1998 which has again been rejected by the respondent-Union<br \/>\nof India by the impugned order dated 4-11-1999 without calling for or<br \/>\nawaiting the report of the State Government. It is submitted that the<br \/>\nimpugned order passed by the respondent-authorities dated 4-11-1999<br \/>\napparently discloses non-application of mind by the authorities as well<br \/>\nas non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.<br \/>\n4360\/1995 dated 6-5-1998 and, therefore, the impugned order<br \/>\ndeserves to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s claim was initially rejected in the year 1973 on account of<br \/>\nthe fact that his assertions regarding freedom fighting activities and<br \/>\nremaining underground were found to be unsubstantiated as the period<br \/>\nof petitioner&#8217;s remaining underground was less than six months which is<br \/>\na pre-requisite under the scheme. It is further stated that the<br \/>\nrespondent-authorities after scrutinizing the petitioner&#8217;s case have<br \/>\nrejected his claim for grant of freedom fighters pension and in such<br \/>\ncircumstances no interference is called for in the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>      I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and<br \/>\nperused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>      From a perusal of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid<br \/>\nwrit petition and the impugned order passed by the respondent-<br \/>\n authorities it is apparent that the authorities have not complied with the<br \/>\ndirections issued by this Court inasmuch as they have not waited for the<br \/>\nenquiry report in respect of the authenticity of the claim of the petitioner<br \/>\nfrom the State Government as is evident from a perusal of paragraph 1<br \/>\nof the impugned order and have again reiterated the same facts stating<br \/>\nthat his claim has already been rejected previously. It is also clear that<br \/>\nthe respondent-authorities have not applied their mind to the claim of<br \/>\nthe petitioner based on his removal from service as a consequence of<br \/>\nwhich he was deprived of his livelihood on account of his involvement in<br \/>\nfreedom fighters the activities which is another ground on which the<br \/>\npetitioner has claimed freedom fighters pension.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In view of the aforesaid the impugned order dated 4-11-1999<br \/>\npassed by the respondent-Union of India is set aside and the petition<br \/>\nfiled by the petitioner is disposed of with direction to the respondent-<br \/>\nState to submit its report\/recommendation on the application filed by the<br \/>\npetitioner after conducting an enquiry into the documents and<br \/>\nassertions made by the petitioner including his claim regarding removal<br \/>\nof service. Looking to the age of the petitioner which is now 91 years<br \/>\nthe said exercise should be completed by the authorities of the State<br \/>\nwithin six weeks from the date of the supplying of the copy of the order<br \/>\npassed today. The authorities of the Union of India on the basis of the<br \/>\nrecommendations and enquiry report submitted by the State shall take<br \/>\na fresh decision on the application of the petitioner within a period of<br \/>\none month thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<p>       With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioner<br \/>\nstands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>       C.C. as per rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                      (R.S.Jha)<br \/>\n                        W.P.No. 2935 \/ 1998<\/p>\n<p>13-04-2010<\/p>\n<p>Shri Parag Chaturvedi, counsel for petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri Hitendra Singh, counsel for respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, counsel for resondent No. 12.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the<br \/>\norder dated 15-12-1988, passed by the Assistant Registrar,<br \/>\nCooperative Societies, Sidhi confirming the auction sale in favour<br \/>\nof the respondent No.1, order dated 20-6-1994, passed by the<br \/>\nJoint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa Division, Rewa and<br \/>\nthe order dated 26-12-1997, passed by the Board of Revenue,<br \/>\nMadhya Pradesh, Gwalior.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the<br \/>\npresent petition are that the petitioner&#8217;s father late Shri Hetram<br \/>\ntook a loan from the respondent No. 12-bank of a sum of<br \/>\nRs.75,000\/- for purchase of a tractor in the year 1981. On non-<br \/>\npayment of the loan amount proceedings were taken up by the<br \/>\nrespondent-bank against late Shri Hetram and 8 acres of land<br \/>\nbelonging to the deceased Hetram were auctioned in favour of the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 and the auction sale was affirmed by the<br \/>\nAssistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sidhi by the impugned<br \/>\norder dated 15-12-1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed an appeal<br \/>\nbefore the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa Division,<br \/>\n Rewa on the grounds amongst others that the auction<br \/>\nproceedings were null and void as they had been taken against a<br \/>\ndead person inasmuch as Hetram had already expired on<br \/>\n14-10-1983 and, therefore, the auction proceedings against<br \/>\nHetram taken up by the respondent-bank in the year 1988 were<br \/>\nnull and void, that the bank had failed to follow the procedure and<br \/>\nthe provisions of Rule 63 of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Rules<br \/>\nwhich required the bank to auction immovable property of the<br \/>\ndeceased on the first instance and as the tractor had already<br \/>\nbeen seized by the bank it should have been first auctioned and<br \/>\nnot the land, and thirdly, on the ground that the petitioner was a<br \/>\nminor at the time the auction proceedings which were taken up in<br \/>\nthe year 1976 and that he took up proceedings by filing an appeal<br \/>\nbefore the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa Division,<br \/>\nRewa immediately on attaining the majority and in such<br \/>\ncircumstances, the appeal filed by the petitioner was within time.<br \/>\nThe appellate authority by the impugned order dated 20-6-1994<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of<br \/>\nlimitation and the said order has been affirmed by the Board of<br \/>\nRevenue by the impugned order dated 26-12-1997<\/p>\n<p>      I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length<br \/>\nand gone through the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>      From the impugned orders passed by both the appellate<br \/>\nauthorities it is manifestly clear that the said authorities have not<br \/>\napplied their mind to the aforesaid three issues amongst others,<br \/>\nraised by the petitioner. The authorities have also not applied their<br \/>\nmind to the documents on record indicating the age of the<br \/>\n       petitioner and the date of his attaining majority, violation of the<br \/>\n      provisions of aforesaid Rule 63 by the bank by which the bank<br \/>\n      was required to firstly auction the immovable property and taking<br \/>\n      up proceedings against a dead person.\n<\/p>\n<p>            In such circumstances, the impugned orders are hereby set<br \/>\n      aside and the matter is remitted back to the first appellate<br \/>\n      authority, i.e. the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa<br \/>\n      Division, Rewa to decide the matter afresh after taking into<br \/>\n      consideration all the issues raised by the petitioner and by<br \/>\n      passing a reasoned order thereon. While doing so, the said<br \/>\n      authority shall also look into the documents filed by the parties<br \/>\n      and give an appropriate finding in that respect. Looking to the fact<br \/>\n      that the petition is of the year 1998, it is further directed that the<br \/>\n      parties shall appear before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative<br \/>\n      Societies, Rewa Division, Rewa on 20th May, 2010 and thereafter<br \/>\n      on such other dates as may be directed by the said authority so<br \/>\n      that the matter can be adjudicated at an early date.\n<\/p>\n<p>            With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the<br \/>\n      petitioner stands allowed to the extent indicated above. In the<br \/>\n      peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no<br \/>\n      order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>            C.C. as per rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                          (R.S.Jha)<br \/>\n                                                           Judge<\/p>\n<p>mct\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010 W.P.No. 2429 \/ 2001 18-03-2010 Shri R.S.Khare, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh, counsel for the respondent No.1\/Union of India. Shri S.K.Kashyap, counsel for the respondent No.2\/State. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the denial of [&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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010 - 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\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-12T10:59:39+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-12T10:59:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1585,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-12T10:59:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010 - 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\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-12T10:59:39+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-12T10:59:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010"},"wordCount":1585,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010","name":"Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-12T10:59:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-vs-ram-singh-ors-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satya Narayan vs Ram Singh &amp; Ors on 13 April, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/232721","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=232721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232721\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}