{"id":234776,"date":"2002-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002"},"modified":"2017-12-10T22:34:29","modified_gmt":"2017-12-10T17:04:29","slug":"delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2003 (66) DRJ 204, 2003 (96) FLR 957, 2003 (1) SLJ 80 Delhi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A D Singh, R Sodhi<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> R.S. Sodhi, J, <\/p>\n<p> 1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 123 of 1999 has filed by the Delhi<br \/>\nDevelopment Authority (for short &#8216;DDA&#8217;) challenging the judgment and order<br \/>\ndated 27.10.1998 of the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 583 of 1997<br \/>\nwhereby the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition quashing the<br \/>\norders dated 16.4.1991 and 15.9.1991 of the DDA, while directing<br \/>\nreinstatement of the respondent herein in service of the DDA with all<br \/>\nconsequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The facts of the case, as emerged from the documents on records,<br \/>\nare that the respondent herein was appointed in the service of DDA on<br \/>\n27.7.1981 as Junior Engineer. In January, 1983 he was transferred to the<br \/>\nHousing Division No. 4 of the appellant-DDA. In August, 1983, the<br \/>\nrespondent was directed to take charge of construction of 237 MIG dwelling<br \/>\nunits in Pocket KG-1, Vikaspuri, New Delhi from Mr. A.K. Chopra, the<br \/>\nofficer-in-charge of the said construction work. On 29.8.1983 the respondent<br \/>\ntook over charge subject to verifications. On 22.12.1983, it was found that<br \/>\nitems in the charge of the respondent fell short. On detection of shortfall<br \/>\nduring stock verification, the respondent was charged as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;That the said Shri R.C. Jain, Junior Engineer while<br \/>\nfunctioning as J.E., Housing Division No. IV during<br \/>\nthe year 1983 failed to maintain absolute integrity<br \/>\nand devotion to duty inasmuch as<br \/>\npilferage\/misappropriation of brass fitting<br \/>\ncomprising of brass valve, brass bib cock, brass<br \/>\nstop cock, face of stop cock etc. (valued at<br \/>\napproximately Rs. 32,000\/- stored in two locked<br \/>\ntrunks inside a room of a vacant FF Flat No. 146 at<br \/>\nthe work site of 237 MIG Houses at Bodella, took<br \/>\nplace as a result of gross negligence of Shri Jain.\n<\/p>\n<p> Shri R.C. Jain by his above said acts of commission<br \/>\nand omission exhibited lack of integrity and devotion<br \/>\nto duty thereby violating Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct)<br \/>\nRules, 1964 as made applicable to D.D.A.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. On the basis of material on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report<br \/>\ndated 30.4.1990 holding the respondent guilty of the charge framed. A<br \/>\nshow-cause notice dated 27.9.1990 was served on the respondent calling<br \/>\nupon him to show cause why a penalty of compulsory retirement from<br \/>\nservice be not imposed. Taking the reply of the respondent into<br \/>\nconsideration, the Vice-Chairman of the appellant-DDA imposed penalty<br \/>\nof compulsory retirement. The respondent preferred an appeal before the<br \/>\nLt. Governor under Regulation 22(1) of DDA (Salary, Allowance and<br \/>\nConditions of Service) Regulation, 1961.The appeal was rejected vide<br \/>\norder dated 5.9.1991. Being aggrieved thereof, the respondent filed a suit<br \/>\nfor declaration that his compulsory retirement is illegal and that he<br \/>\ncontinues to be in service of the appellant-DDA; as also a declaration that<br \/>\nthe order of recovery of Rs. 32,000\/- from the terminal benefits is illegal<br \/>\nand void. This suit was filed with an application for condensation of delay.<br \/>\nOn 16.10.1992, the respondent moved an application for amendment of<br \/>\nthe plaint in order to explain the delay in institution of the suit. It is the<br \/>\naverment of the respondent that the suit was taking a long time and,<br \/>\ntherefore, during pendency of the suit he filed a writ petition before the<br \/>\nHigh Court being Civil Writ Petition No. 583\/1997 with an undertaking<br \/>\nto withdraw the suit. It was the case of the respondent before the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge that the Inquiry Officer could not have returned a finding of<br \/>\nguilt as it was a case of no evidence. Consequently, the order imposing<br \/>\npenalty was also bad.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The learned Single Judge vide his judgment and order dated<br \/>\n27.10.1998, while re-appraising the evidence on record, has returned a<br \/>\nfinding that the handing over\/taking over report (Ex.P-4) could not be<br \/>\nadmitted into evidence as the original of the same has not been produced<br \/>\nbefore the Enquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge also returned a<br \/>\nfinding that it does not stand to reason that the original of the handing<br \/>\nover\/taking over report would be with the respondent herein (petitioner<br \/>\nin the writ petition) as has been deposed by PW-1, Shri A.K. Chopra. The<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge further returned a finding that the testimony of Shri<br \/>\nA.K. Chopra, PW-1, and Shri Radhakrishna, PW-3 does not inspire<br \/>\nconfidence. On the question of maintainability of writ petition during the<br \/>\npendency of the suit for the same relief, it was held that in the<br \/>\ncircumstances it would not be proper to require the respondent to<br \/>\ncontinue with the suit and the matter could be disposed of in writ<br \/>\npetition, consequently allowed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Being aggrieved of the findings of the learned Single Judge,<br \/>\nthe appellant-DDA assails the same in the present appeal on the<br \/>\ngrounds, inter alia, that it was not open to the High court in writ<br \/>\npetition to evaluate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion<br \/>\nwhen the same had been gone into by two authorities, both<br \/>\nreturning a concurrent finding. It is also the grievance of the<br \/>\nappellant that the learned Single Judge ought not to have<br \/>\nentertained the writ petition during the pendency of the suit. It was<br \/>\ncontended that law is well settled to the effect that High Court will<br \/>\nnot re-evaluate the evidence to substitute its reasoning for that of<br \/>\nthe authorities in matters of departmental enquiries. Learned<br \/>\ncounsel also contended that it is not a case of &#8216;no material\/no<br \/>\nevidence&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. In order to adjudicate the dispute raised before us, it is<br \/>\nnecessary to go into the evidence on record; firstly to ascertain<br \/>\nwhether this was a case of &#8216;no evidence&#8217; as has been held by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge and\/or whether the conclusions arrived at by<br \/>\nthe Enquiry Officer was arbitrary, casual, irrational and not<br \/>\nsupported by any material on record. The respondent has<br \/>\ncontended that the handing over\/taking over report dated<br \/>\n29.8.1983 Ex.P-4 is not the original but a photo copy which does<br \/>\nnot bear his signature on the first page while it does so on the<br \/>\nsecond page. He also contended that the note at the bottom of the<br \/>\nsecond page, namely, &#8220;most of the material found in packing<br \/>\nposition has been counted and which is perishable item, charge is<br \/>\ntaken over with further verification&#8221; indicates that the charge had<br \/>\nnot been fully taken over.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that from<br \/>\nthe oral evidence of PW-1, Shri A.K. Chopra, which is corroborated in all<br \/>\nmaterial aspects by PW-3, Shri Radhakrishna, it cannot be said that the<br \/>\ncharge against the respondent has not been proved. It is further<br \/>\ncontended that since the original of Ex.P-4 was handed over to the<br \/>\nrespondent, the respondent could very well have disproved the accuracy of<br \/>\nthe handing over\/taking over report. In other words, it was submitted<br \/>\nthat once PW-1 has tendered into evidence Ex.P-4 which document is<br \/>\nsupported by PW-3, Shri Radhakrishna, the burden of proof, shifted to<br \/>\nthe respondent who has failed to discharge his burden and, therefore,<br \/>\nEx.P-4 cannot be doubted.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. We have heard leaned counsel for the parties and have<br \/>\nexamined the material on record. PW-1, Shri A.K. Chopra in his<br \/>\ntestimony has stated that in 1986 he was posted as Junior Engineer in<br \/>\nHousing Division No. IV on the project related to construction of 237 MIG<br \/>\ndwelling units. In August, 1983 he was transferred from Division No. IV<br \/>\nand had handed over the charge to the respondent-Shri R.C. Jain. The<br \/>\narticles were physically counted and the charge was handed over. The<br \/>\ncharge report was prepared at that time and a photo copy of the same<br \/>\nreport dated 29.8.1983 is Ex.P-4. This witness has also stated that Shri<br \/>\nR.C. Jain had signed this report and that at the time of handing over, all<br \/>\nthe items were physically checked. At that time Shri R.C. Jain had<br \/>\npointed out that he would check the wash basins to see if there were any<br \/>\ncracks. No further discrepancy was brought to his notice by his<br \/>\nsuccessor at the time of handing over and taking over. In his cross-examination,<br \/>\nthis witness has stated that three copies of the report were<br \/>\nprepared. The original copy was retained by Shri R.C. Jain, the second<br \/>\ncopy which was the carbon copy, was also signed by Shri R.C. Jain and<br \/>\nwas kept by PW-1, Shri A.K. Chopra. Since the third copy was not clear<br \/>\nShri R.C. Jain had refused to sign it. The Vigilance Department had<br \/>\nasked for the copy of the charge report after the theft was reported.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. PW-3, Shri Radhakrishna, Assistant Engineer, deposed to the<br \/>\neffect that he was working in the Housing Division No. IV at Subhash<br \/>\nNagar crossing and was in-charge of Sub-Division No. II and had two<br \/>\nworks under his control. The first work was construction of 237 MIG<br \/>\nHousing Units at Bodella Pocket KG-II, the second work was construction<br \/>\nof 120 MIG houses at Hari Nagar in Pocket-FI. There were two Junior<br \/>\nEngineers working in connection with 237 MIG houses, namely, Shri<br \/>\nA.K. Chopra and Shri R.C. Jain. Both were looking after the rectification<br \/>\nwork of these houses. Shri A.K. Chopra was transferred from the said<br \/>\ndivision in August, 1983 and Shri R.C. Jain had taken over the charge<br \/>\nfrom Shri A.K. Chopra. Shri R.C. Jain started taking over the charge on<br \/>\n25.8.1983. PW-3 has further deposed that he along with Mr. A.K. Chopra<br \/>\nhad shown the stores on 25.8.1983 to Shri R.C. Jain. At that time, the<br \/>\nkeys, including the duplicate one of both the boxes were handed over to<br \/>\nShri R.C. Jain in Sub-division office. There was a handing over and<br \/>\ntaking over charge from Shri A.K. Chopra. On 29.8.1983, Shri R.C. Jain<br \/>\ncompleted the taking over charge of the stores from Shri A.K. Chopra.<br \/>\nThe witness has further stated that &#8220;I have seen the document, Ex.P-4.<br \/>\nIt is the photo copy of the charge report prepared at the time which was<br \/>\nsigned by both Shri A.K. Chopra and Shri R.C. Jain. According to this<br \/>\ncharge report, all the costly items pertaining to this work were handed<br \/>\nover to Shri R.C. Jain. The name of the item and quantity of each item<br \/>\nwas specifically mentioned in this charge report. From the tick mark<br \/>\nagainst the items it is made out that Shri R.C. Jain had counted these<br \/>\nitems&#8221;. Shri R.C. Jain acknowledged that &#8220;most of the material found in<br \/>\npacking position which has been counted and is parishable item charge is<br \/>\ntaken over with further verification&#8221; at the bottom of the charge report,<br \/>\nEx.P-4. This witness further states that Shri R.C. Jain did not report to<br \/>\nhim during the next three or four months about having physically verified<br \/>\nthe condition of these parishable items. He has further deposed that<br \/>\nafter Shri R.C. Jain had taken over charge, Shri Jain never asked this<br \/>\nwitness to check the stores. He did not inform him about any periodical<br \/>\ncheck conducted. In this cross-examination, this witness has stated that<br \/>\n&#8220;Ex.P-4 is also photo copy. I have relied on it because I had seen its<br \/>\noriginal copy. The original copy of the document Ex.P-4 was not given to<br \/>\nme but it was shown to me.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. From the aforesaid evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 it cannot be said<br \/>\nthere there is no evidence on record to substantiate the charge against the<br \/>\nrespondent. It also cannot be said that Ex.P-4 is not admissible as the<br \/>\noriginal was not produced. Strict rules of evidence do not apply to<br \/>\ndepartmental inquiries and further, as stated by PW-1 that the original was<br \/>\nhanded over to the respondent, which fact is not denied by the respondent,<br \/>\nthe department has discharged its onus in the enquiry. It is well settled<br \/>\nthat the High Court will not dwell into evidence to re-evaluate for itself the<br \/>\nsufficiency thereof nor substitute its opinion on such re-evaluation. That<br \/>\nbeing the case, it was not proper,with great respect, the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge to have substituted its opinion on re-evaluation of evidence. The<br \/>\ncontention of the appellant that a writ petition ought not to have been<br \/>\nentertained during the pendency of the suit, is not without force. Once<br \/>\nrecourse had been taken to proceedings by way of civil suit dropping it<br \/>\nmidway and moving the High Court by way of writ petition ought not to be<br \/>\nencouraged.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Having carefully examined the case, with the aid of learned<br \/>\ncounsel, we are of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case which<br \/>\nnecessitates the reversal of the judgment under appeal. Consequently, the<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 27.10.1998 of the learned Single Judge in Civil<br \/>\nWrit Petition No. 583 of 1997 is set aside. L.P.A. 123 of 1999 is allowed. No<br \/>\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2003 (66) DRJ 204, 2003 (96) FLR 957, 2003 (1) SLJ 80 Delhi Bench: A D Singh, R Sodhi JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J, 1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 123 of 1999 has filed by the Delhi Development Authority (for [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002 - 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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-10T17:04:29+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-10T17:04:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2142,\"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\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002\",\"name\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-10T17:04:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002 - 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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-10T17:04:29+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-10T17:04:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002"},"wordCount":2142,"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\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002","name":"Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-10T17:04:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-development-authority-vs-ramesh-chand-jain-on-13-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Chand Jain on 13 November, 2002"}]},{"@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\/234776","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=234776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234776\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}