{"id":235046,"date":"2009-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-02-27T03:16:21","modified_gmt":"2018-02-26T21:46:21","slug":"raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
i.23\n*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n\n%                          Date of Decision : December 17, 2009\n\n\n+                       LPA 346\/2004\n\n       RAJ KUMAR                              .... Appellant\n                Through:      Mr.Ramesh Chandra, Senior\n                              Advocate with Ms.Geeta Mehrotra\n                              and Mrs.R.Ratnam Nagar,\n                              Advocates.\n\n                  versus\n\n       FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.             .... Respondents\n                 Through: None.\n\n\n       CORAM:\n       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be\n        allowed to see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?              No\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the\n        Digest?                                        No\n\n\n\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
1.           Land admeasuring 1 bigha and 2 biswa situated in<\/p>\n
Khasra No.15\/1 in the revenue estate of Village Shahbad<\/p>\n
Daulatpur, Delhi was under the bhumidari of one Jabar Singh.<\/p>\n
He sold the said land to Vinod Chopra on 25.6.1988 whose<\/p>\n
general attorney, in turn, sold the land to the appellant on
\nLPA No.346\/2004                                           Page 1 of 7<\/span>
\n 5.3.1992 by and under a registered sale deed.<\/p>\n
2.           Having purchased the land, the appellant applied to<\/p>\n
the Revenue Authorities i.e. the Tehsildar for the land to be<\/p>\n
mutated in his name in the revenue records. Vide mutation<\/p>\n
order dated 16.7.1993 the land was mutated in the name of<\/p>\n
the appellant. But, prior thereto, on 17.1.1992, with reference<\/p>\n
to a show-cause notice issued in the name of the previous<\/p>\n
recorded owner, a conditional order under Section 81 of the<\/p>\n
Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 was passed by the Revenue<\/p>\n
Assistant.\n<\/p>\n
3.           Holding that the land required to be used for an<\/p>\n
agricultural purpose was being misused, it was directed, vide<\/p>\n
order 17.1.1992, that if within 3 months land use was not<\/p>\n
restored for the purpose prescribed as per law the same would<\/p>\n
be liable to be vested in the gaon sabha.\n<\/p>\n
4.           Thereafter, on 28.9.1995 a vesting order was<\/p>\n
passed holding that since the land use was not reverted to the<\/p>\n
permissible land use, the land stood vested in the gaon sabha.<\/p>\n
5.           When sought to be executed in the year 2000, the<\/p>\n
appellant filed an application on 7.7.2000 under Appendix VI<\/p>\n
Rule 14 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules 1954 stating that the<\/p>\n
vesting order dated 28.9.1995 was passed without any notice<\/p>\n
to him and hence should be recalled.\n<\/p>\n
6.           The said application was dismissed by the Revenue
\nLPA No.346\/2004                                       Page 2 of 7<\/span>
\n Assistant on 21.8.2000 holding that since a conditional order<\/p>\n
for ejectment had been passed on 17.1.1992 after serving the<\/p>\n
then recorded owner and the appellant having purchased the<\/p>\n
land subsequent to said date, it could not be claimed by the<\/p>\n
appellant that no notice had been served.\n<\/p>\n
7.           The appellant filed a Revision Petition before the<\/p>\n
Financial Commissioner challenging the order dated 21.8.2000<\/p>\n
passed by the Revenue Assistant stating that the appellant<\/p>\n
was laying a challenge to the vesting order dated 28.9.1995<\/p>\n
which was passed without any show-cause notice being served<\/p>\n
upon the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
8.           The   Revisional   Authority   i.e.   the    Financial<\/p>\n
Commissioner dismissed the Revision Petition vide order dated<\/p>\n
30.10.2000 holding that before the conditional vesting order<\/p>\n
was passed, the recorded bhumidar of the land was served. It<\/p>\n
was further held that having got the land mutated in his favour<\/p>\n
in the year 1993, it was not explained as to how after a gap of<\/p>\n
5 years, the vesting order dated 28.9.1995 was challenged<\/p>\n
when the application was filed before the Revenue Assistant<\/p>\n
on 7.7.2000.\n<\/p>\n
9.           The appellant challenged the order passed by the<\/p>\n
Financial Commissioner by and under WP(C) No.835\/2001<\/p>\n
which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding<\/p>\n
as under:-\n<\/p>\n
LPA No.346\/2004                                          Page 3 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n
       “The only contention raised before the Revenue
\n      Assistant was that the vesting order has come into
\n      being in the year 1995 despite the transfer in the
\n      name of the petitioner in pursuance to the sale deed
\n      of 1992 recorded by the entry in the khatauni of
\n      20.09.1993. The Revenue Assistant, however, found
\n      that the order had been passed on 17.01.1992 prior to
\n      the entry in favour of the petitioner and the order of
\n      vesting was a consequence of the earlier order dated
\n      17.01.1992. Since the recorded owner Jabbar Singh
\n      was served, the occasion to serve the petitioner did
\n      not arise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      This is the same reasoning which has weighed with
\n      the Financial Commissioner when the petitioner filed
\n      the revision petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Learned counsel for the petitioner today sought to
\n      contend that prior to the transfer being recorded in
\n      favour of the petitioner in 1993, there was an
\n      intervening sale in favour of Shri Vinod Chopra which
\n      was recorded prior to the order of 17.01.1992.
\n      Learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically
\n      asked to show as to where such a plea was raised
\n      before the Revenue Assistant or before the Financial
\n      Commissioner. There is no answer to this query. A
\n      reading of both the orders show that there is no such
\n      plea raised. In para (3) of the order of the Financial
\n      Commissioner what is recorded is that the petitioner
\n      purchased the land from Shri Vinod Chopra who had in
\n      turn purchased the land from Jabar Singh. Shri Jabar
\n      Singh was the lone recorded bhoomidar to whom
\n      admittedly notice has been given by the Revenue
\n      Assistant before passing the conditional order on
\n      17.01.1992.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In my considered view, in order to raise the plea about
\n      non-service of notice on Shri Vinod Chopra, this matter
\n      should have been agitated before the forums below
\n      showing the mutation in the name of Shri Vinod
\n      Chopra and the non service on Shri Vinod Chopra
\n      coupled with the affidavit of Shri Vinod Chopra for non-
\n      receipt of the said notice. The petitioner cannot now
\n      be permitted to raise this fresh plea which has not
\n      been raised before the Revenue Assistant or before
\n      the Financial Commissioner.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
LPA No.346\/2004                                       Page 4 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n
 10.          We have perused the application filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant     before   the   Revenue    Assistant   on    7.7.2000<\/p>\n
challenging the order dated 28.9.1995 as also the Revision<\/p>\n
Petition filed before the Revenue Assistant.<\/p>\n
11.          We find that the appellant has categorically raised a<\/p>\n
plea that pursuant to the sale deed dated 5.3.1992 land was<\/p>\n
mutated in his name vide mutation order dated 16.7.1993.<\/p>\n
The appellant questioned the vesting order dated 28.9.1995<\/p>\n
urging that before the same could be passed he was required<\/p>\n
to be served with a show-cause notice.\n<\/p>\n
12.          We further note that with respect to the conditional<\/p>\n
vesting order dated 17.1.1992 the appellant urged that having<\/p>\n
sanctioned mutation in his name on 16.7.1993 the revenue<\/p>\n
authorities could not predicate any right under the conditional<\/p>\n
vesting order dated 17.1.1992.\n<\/p>\n
13.          As regards the delay, the appellant has specifically<\/p>\n
pleaded that he learnt about the order dated 28.9.1995 only<\/p>\n
when the same was attempted to be executed.<\/p>\n
14.          We note that the revenue authorities have not<\/p>\n
bothered to consider whether the order dated 28.9.1995 was<\/p>\n
served upon the appellant, who by virtue of the mutation<\/p>\n
dated 16.7.1993 was shown as the recorded bhumidar of the<\/p>\n
land. Thus, the claim of the appellant with respect to the bar<\/p>\n
of delay required to be considered with reference to the
\nLPA No.346\/2004                                          Page 5 of 7<\/span>
\n vesting order being served and if not served, to consider<\/p>\n
whether knowledge was gained by the appellant when the<\/p>\n
vesting order was sought to be executed.\n<\/p>\n
15.          Further, it had to be considered whether the vesting<\/p>\n
order dated 28.9.1995 was legal and valid for the reason the<\/p>\n
appellant was never served with a prior notice before the order<\/p>\n
was passed; he having been shown as the recorded bhumidar<\/p>\n
of the land when mutation was effected in his favour on<\/p>\n
16.7.1993.\n<\/p>\n
16.          We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned<\/p>\n
order dated 8.1.2004.        WP(C) No.835\/2001 filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant stands allowed. Order dated 30.10.2000 passed by<\/p>\n
the Financial Commissioner dismissing Case No.273\/2000-CA<\/p>\n
is set aside. The Revision Petition i.e. Case No.273\/2000-CA is<\/p>\n
restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
17.          We direct the Financial Commissioner to re-decide<\/p>\n
the Revision Petition and while so doing to take note of the<\/p>\n
facts noted herein above by us.\n<\/p>\n
18.          Needless to state, on revival of the proceedings, the<\/p>\n
Financial Commissioner shall serve the respondents.<\/p>\n
19.          The appellant is directed to appear before the<\/p>\n
learned Financial Commissioner on 22.2.2010 and is further<\/p>\n
directed that on or before 1.2.2010 under cover of an<\/p>\n
application, certified copy of the present order would be filed
\nLPA No.346\/2004                                         Page 6 of 7<\/span>
\n in the office of the learned Financial Commissioner so that the<\/p>\n
Reader of the learned Financial Commissioner can trace out<\/p>\n
the file of Case No.273\/2000-CA and list the same before the<\/p>\n
learned Financial Commissioner on 22.2.2010.<\/p>\n
20.          No costs.\n<\/p>\n
21.          Copy of this order be supplied dasti to learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                SURESH     KAIT, J\nDECEMBER 17, 2009\nDharmender\n\n\n\n\nLPA No.346\/2004                                      Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog i.23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : December 17, 2009 + LPA 346\/2004 RAJ KUMAR …. Appellant Through: Mr.Ramesh Chandra, Senior Advocate with Ms.Geeta Mehrotra and Mrs.R.Ratnam Nagar, Advocates. […]<\/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-235046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009 - 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\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-26T21:46:21+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\\\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-26T21:46:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1303,\"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\\\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-26T21:46:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009 - 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\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-26T21:46:21+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\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-26T21:46:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009"},"wordCount":1303,"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\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009","name":"Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-26T21:46:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-financial-commissioner-ors-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raj Kumar vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. on 17 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/235046","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=235046"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235046\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}