{"id":236014,"date":"1954-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954"},"modified":"2018-11-05T07:32:56","modified_gmt":"2018-11-05T02:02:56","slug":"s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954","title":{"rendered":"S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 P H 161<\/div>\n
Author: Kapur<\/div>\n
Bench: H Singh, Kapur<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Kapur, J.   <\/p>\n
 1. These are two rules obtained by four petitioners in the first case C. W. A.  86-54 and eight in the
\nsecond  C.  W.  A.  37-54  and counsel moved that the orders made in regard to consolidation of holdings be quashed and that the State Government be directed to forbear from proceeding with the consolidation of holdings in village Nowshehra Punuam, in Tehsil Tarn Taran of Amritsar District.\n<\/p>\n
 2.  On 17-7-1951 a notification under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings’ (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, Act 50 of 1948 was published for consolidation of agricultural holdings in village Nowshehra Punuam. This village has got three ‘tarafs’ and several ‘pattis’ in each ‘taraf’ which are:\n<\/p>\n
 S. No.
\n Name of Taraf
\n Name of Pattis in each Taraf.\n<\/p>\n
 1.
\n Risal\n<\/p>\n
 1. Gag
\n Descendants of Risal.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Mand<\/p>\n
 3. Mukand<\/p>\n
 4. Mohan Das<\/p>\n
 5. Lal Chand<\/p>\n
 6. Chuhar Mal<\/p>\n
 2.<\/p>\n
 7. Madho
\n Nominal Pattis of Other peoples who merged in Taraf “Risal.”\n<\/p>\n
 8. Malla<\/p>\n
 9. Mudke<\/p>\n
 10. Chhlos<\/p>\n
 11. Dalu<\/p>\n
 12. Gill<\/p>\n
 13. Dhillen<\/p>\n
 2.
\n Das\n<\/p>\n
 1. Das
\n Descendants of Kirte.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Must<\/p>\n
 3. Abdal<\/p>\n
 3.
\n Sand\n<\/p>\n
 1. Jaimal
\n Descendants of Bond.\n<\/p>\n
 2.Mansur<\/p>\n
 3.Lal Chand<\/p>\n
 4. Nokal<\/p>\n
 5. Umer Shai<\/p>\n
 3.  On 15-6-1953, Mr. K. K. Kalia, Consolidation Officer and Tahsildar prepared a draft for consolidation of holdings under Section 14(2) of the Act which is given at page 31 in Civil Writ Application No. 37 of 1954. This scheme was published in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules made under Section 46 of the Act. There is no dispute that this was duly proclaimed. Later on this scheme of consolidation was amended and the amended scheme was sent to the Settlement Officer and was finally confirmed by him. The publication of this amended scheme was on 2-12-1950 and after the expiry of thirty days which is the period prescribed for filing of objections; objections were filed which were rejected and the amended scheme was therefore accepted by the Settlement Officer and this is the scheme in accordance with which consolidation was being carried out till this Court ordered that possession of the petitioners be not disturbed pending the hearing of the petition.\n<\/p>\n
 4.  The constitutionality of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, Act 50 of 1948 has been attacked on two grounds– (1) that it infringes Article 31 of the Constitution and (2) Article 14 of the Constitution. In order to determine its constitutionality it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of this Act. Section 2(b) defines consolidation of holdings to mean-\n<\/p>\n
  “2(b)   ‘Consolidation of Holdings’ means the amalgamation and the redistribution of all or
\n any of the lands in an estate or sub-division of an estate so as to reduce the number of plots in the holdings;”\n<\/p>\n
 Section 2(j) defines ‘sub-division’ to” mean a “patti”, ‘taraf or ‘pata’ in a record of rights. Section 14 gives power to Government to issue a notification of its intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings and under Section 14(2) they can appoint a Consolidation Officer. Provision for compensation, is made under Sections 15(1) and 34(1) of the Act which run as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “15(1)  The Scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer, shall provide for the payment of compensation to any owner who is allotted a holding of less market value than that of his original holding and for the recovery of compensation from any owner who is allotted a holding of greater market value than that of his original holding.\n<\/p>\n
 34(1)  The amount of   compensation   shall be assessed by the Consolidation Officer, so far as practicable,   in    accordance    with   the   provisions of Sub-section (1) of  Section 23 of the Land   Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894).”\n<\/p>\n
 Article 31(2) of the Constitution provides-\n<\/p>\n
  “31(2) No property, movable or immovable, including any interest in, or in any company owning, any commercial or industrial undertakings, shall be taken possession of or acquired for public purposes under any law authorising the taking of such possession or such acquisition, unless the law provides for compensation for the property taken possession of or acquired and either fixes the amount of the compensation, or specifies the principles on which, and the manner in which, the compensation is to be determined and given.”\n<\/p>\n
 Thus, there are two things necessary if immovable property is taken possession of by the State or under the orders of State that the law should provide for (1) compensation for the property taken possession of and (2) either fixation of the amount of compensation or specifying the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined. As I read Section 15(1) it does make a provision for the payment of compensation to any owner who is allowed a holding of lesser market value than that of his original holding and also provides that the scheme should have a provision for the recovery of compensation from one owner for payment to another. Although the amount of compensation is not fixed — as indeed it could not be — the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and given has been provided in  Section 34(1) of the impugned Act which provides that compensation shall be assessed by the Consolidation Officer as far as practicable in accordance with the provisions of  Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which section provides for what it is to be taken into consideration for determining the compensation.\n<\/p>\n
 It cannot be said therefore that this Act in any way contravenes the provisions of Article 31(2). Counsel referred to — ‘State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose’, AIR<\/a> 1954 SC 92 (A); –‘Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.’, AIR<\/a> 1954 SC 119 (B) and –‘State of West Bengal v. Mrs. Bela Banerjee’, AIR<\/a> 1954 SC 170 (C). The impugned Act does not, in my opinion, fall within any of the cases which<\/p>\n
counsel has relied upon. As far as this case’ is concerned the only relevancy of ‘Subodh Copal Dose’s case (A)’ is the meaning of the words ‘taken possession of and taking that to be applicable the impugned Act does make a provision for compensation and the principles and the manner of its determination. The rule laid down in ‘Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co.’s case (B) is also not in any way contravened nor the rule laid down in ‘Mrs. Bela Banerjee’s case (C)’ where all that was held was that the compensation must be equivalent to what the owner has been deprived of. In the view that I have taken of Section 15(1) and of Section 84(1) of the impugned Act, none of these cases helps the petitioners. In my opinion therefore there is no contravention of Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
 5.  The contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution is based on the fact that although under the Land Acquisition Act there is a procedure for reference to the District Judge and then an appeal to the High Court and the Supreme Court, no such provision is made in the impugned Act. Article 14 may be quoted-\n<\/p>\n
  “14.   The   State    shall  not    deny   to   any   person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This   Article  provides  for  equality  before  the   law and equal protection of the laws. It is not shown that in the State of Punjab there is any other law dealing with   consolidation    of   holdings   where   a different procedure   has  been   prescribed,  nor has it been shown that in any other part of the State the citizens have different rights in regard to consolidation.     Now,   the  impugned  Act  is   a  Punjab Act which falls  under item   18  in the  State List which   deals with  lands.     Equality before the  law or equal protection of law   must be   taken in reference  to the laws  made  by the Punjab  Legislature in regard to the same subject for all citizens of this State.  Mr. Gover referred to certain observations   of Mahajan J.    and   Mukherjea J.   in   –‘State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali’, AIR<\/a> 1952 SC 75 at pp. 85 and 88 (D). The former observed–“It is designed to prevent any person or class of persons for being singled  out as  a  special  subject  for    discriminatory    and    hostile    legislation. Democracy   implies   respect    for   the    elementary rights of   man,   however   suspect  or   unworthy. Equality of right is a principle of republicanism and  Article    14   enunciates    this   equality   principle in   the   administration   of  justice,   In   its   application   to legal  proceedings   the   article  assures  to everyone the same rules of evidence and modes of procedure.     In   other   words,  the   same rule must exist for  all  in similar circumstances.  This principle,   however,   does not   mean that   every law must have universal application for all persons  who  are  not by nature,  attainment or  circumstance,  in  the  same  position.”\n<\/p>\n
 and Mukherjea J, at page 88 said-\n<\/p>\n
  “It  only means that all persons  similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred  and  liabilities  imposed.”\n<\/p>\n
  But both the learned Judges were careful to point out that this principle does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons, and at page 88 Mukherjea said that the principle<\/p>\n
underlying the guarantee in Article 14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons or that the same remedies should be available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances and a little lower down his Lordship observed;\n<\/p>\n
  “As there is no infringement of the equal protection   rule,   if  the   law  deals   alike  with  all  of  a certain class, the legislature has   the undoubted right  of  classifying    persons   and    placing    those whose  conditions  are  substantially similar  under the  same  rule of law,  while  applying different rules  to persons  differently situated.”\n<\/p>\n
  Thus, there   is no   infringement  of this   Article if law  deals   alike   with   all persons   belonging to  a certain    class  nor   does it prevent   the  legislature from   placing   those    who    are  similarly   circumstanced under the same rule of law.     As I have said, there is nothing to indicate  that to persons similarly circumstanced in the Punjab in regard to whose lands consolidation is to take place a different  law  has  been  made   applicable.     Merely “because in regard to compulsory acquisition for public   purposes    under   the   Land Acquisition   Act  a particular procedure is prescribed is no reason for holding that the impugned Act introduces any discrimination  in  regard to  the   applicability  or protection of laws.\n<\/p>\n
 6.   It  was next contended   that after   the  draft scheme  had   been   published   in  the   manner prescribed and no objections were received, the Consolidation Officer could not make any amendments in the scheme,   but   I   am  unable    to agree’   with this  submission.   The following portion of Section   19(1) which was relied upon may be quoted-\n<\/p>\n
  “The   Consolidation   Officer   shall,   after   considering the  objections, if any,  received,    submit the scheme  with such  amendments    as  he   considers to be  necessary   together  with   his   remarks   on the objections,  to the Settlement Officer  (Consolidation.)”\n<\/p>\n
 As I understand this section it means that the Consolidation Officer has to take into Consideration the objections, if any, received and even if none have been received, he can make such amendments as he thinks necessary and then submit his report, but I cannot imagine that once the draft scheme is published, it becomes beyond the power of the Consolidation Officer to make any amendments, the only requisite condition being that the amended scheme has to be published by the Consolidation Officer in the manner prescribed in Rule 3 of the Rules,  <\/p>\n
 7.  Mr. Grover further submitted that the amended scheme was not published in the manner prescribed which in my opinion is based on a misconception because we have found that on 2-12-1953 the amended scheme was published and the objections which were filed against this scheme were filed thirty days after the publication and were therefore barred by time and were consequently not taken into consideration. So neither of these two grounds in regard to the amended scheme has any force and the contentions must be repelled.\n<\/p>\n
 8.  It was also submitted that at the time of the amendment of the  scheme there  was no consultation with the Panchayat or the consultative committee. Section 19 does not envisage any such consultation, nor is there anything in the rules which requires that a Consolidation Officer should consult the consultative committee before he amends the scheme. In their reply however, the opposite party has stated that forty-six persons including Gursaran Singh petitioner and Meja Singh cousin of Kala Singh petitioner and members of the village Panchayat and other members of the village advisory committee had unanimously agreed to the amendment in the original draft and had either signed or thumb-marked this amended scheme. Even if such consultation was necessary in this case it was done.\n<\/p>\n
 9.  Objection was also taken on the ground that the amended scheme had been sent away to the Settlement Officer on. 21-12-1953, but it was returned for a certificate and on the ground that thirty days had not elapsed. As I have said above, there was a requisite certificate in regard to the publication, but it somehow or other was not sent with the amended scheme. But because the amended scheme was sent earlier to the Settlement Officer does not take away from the validity of the amended scheme which depends upon the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. The objections to the amended scheme in C. W. (Application) No. 86 of 1954 wore filed by means of a telegram on
\n12-1-1954   and  the    scheme   was    resubmitted    on
\n13-1-1954, but the telegram sent was more than thirty days after the publication of the scheme and was therefore barred by time.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  It was then submitted that the scheme was vague. In the first place, it has not been shown to be so, and secondly this Court is not a Court of appeal against the administrative tribunal as was held in — “Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd.’, AIR<\/a> 1952 SC 192 (E).\n<\/p>\n
 11.  I would therefore dismiss this petition with costs and discharge the rule.\n<\/p>\n
 12.  The facts and the question raised in Civil Writ Application No. 37 of 1954 are the same and three of the petitioners signed the amended scheme. I would therefore dismiss that petition with costs and discharge the rule.\n<\/p>\n
  Harnam Singh, J.\n<\/p>\n
 13. I agree.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954 Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 P H 161 Author: Kapur Bench: H Singh, Kapur JUDGMENT Kapur, J. 1. These are two rules obtained by four petitioners in the first case C. W. A. 86-54 and eight in the second […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-236014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954 - 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\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954\" \/>\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=\"1954-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-05T02:02:56+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-05T02:02:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954\"},\"wordCount\":2369,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954\",\"name\":\"S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-05T02:02:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954\"}]},{\"@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":"S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954 - 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\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-05T02:02:56+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954","datePublished":"1954-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-05T02:02:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954"},"wordCount":2369,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954","name":"S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-05T02:02:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-gursaran-singh-and-ors-vs-punjab-state-and-ors-on-2-july-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Gursaran Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 2 July, 1954"}]},{"@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\/236014","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=236014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}