{"id":237624,"date":"2000-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000"},"modified":"2016-05-20T17:57:23","modified_gmt":"2016-05-20T12:27:23","slug":"shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: Sethi<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, R.P. Sethi.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 1941  of  1997\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSHISH RAM & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS. Saghir Ahmad & R.P. Sethi.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
    Holding that the land described as “charand” is included
\nwithin\tthe  definition of “Shamilat-deh” as  defined  under
\nSection\t  2(g)\t of   the   Punjab  Village   Common   Lands
\n(Regulations)  Act,  1961 (hereinafter referred to  as\t“the
\nAct”)  and relying upon its earlier Division Bench  judgment
\nin the case of Khushi Puri v.  State of Haryana [1978 Punjab
\nLaw  Journal 78], the High Court dismissed the writ petition
\nfiled  by the appellants praying for issuance of  directions
\nprohibiting  the Gram Panchayat from leasing out the charand
\nland  and  to  keep land measuring 541 kanal  and  2  marlas
\nreserved  as charand for grazing up cattles.  The High Court
\nalso  did not consider it proper to grant the prayer of\t the
\nappellants  seeking  declaration that the land reserved\t for
\ncharand\t during\t consolidation\tcould not be  used  for\t the
\nincome\tof the Gram Panchayat as it stood allegedly deducted
\nfrom  the lands of the proprietors.  Not satisfied with\t the
\njudgment  of  the  Division  Bench of the  High\t Court,\t the
\nappellants have filed the present appeal with the submission
\nthat  the reservation of charand land for the income of Gram
\nPanchayat  violated Article 31A of the Constitution of India
\nas  was the ratio of the this Court in Bhagat Ram & Ors.  v.
\nState  of Punjab & Ors.\t [1967 (2) SCR 165].  It is  further
\nsubmitted that without paying any compensation at the market
\nvalue  to the proprietors of the village, the land could not
\nvest in the Gram Panchayat.  The reservation of Charand land
\nfor  the  income  of Gram Panchayat allegedly in  breach  of
\nSection\t 5 of the Act is stated to be illegal.\tThe  leasing
\nout  has been alleged to be in contravention of the  grazing
\nrights\tof  the\t proprietors   and  non-proprietors  of\t the
\nvillage.   There  is  no doubt that the appellants  are\t the
\ninhabitants  of\t village Khajuri, Tehsil Jagadari,  District
\nYamuna\tNagar,\tHaryana.  It is also not disputed  that\t the
\nland,\tthe   subject  matter  of   the\t  litigation   being
\nshamilat-deh  is vested in the Gram Panchayat.\tIt has\talso
\nto be noticed that after the vesting of the land in the Gram
\nPanchayat, none of the inhabitants of the village raised any
\nobjections  regarding  its vesting for a period of about  34
\nyears.\t It is also on record that some land out of shamilat
\ndeh  land  was\tbeing leased out to the proprietors  of\t the
\nvillage\t since\tthe  year 1976 and none of  the\t inhabitants
\nraised\tany objection.\tFrom the counter affidavit filed  on
\nbehalf of the respondents it appears that many of the family
\nmembers\t of the appellants, particularly, the brother of the
\nappellant  No.1\t had  themselves  been taking  the  land  in
\ndispute\t on  lease without raising any\tobjection.   Learned
\ncounsel\t appearing  for the appellants relying upon  a\tFull
\nBench  judgment\t of  the  Punjab &  Haryana  High  Court  in
\nBishamber  Dayal  v.  State of Haryana & Ors.  [1986  Punjab
\nLaw  Journal 208] submitted that the Gram Panchayat was\t not
\nentitled  to lease the land or use it in the manner it\tlike
\nwithout\t  following  the  procedure   and  subject  to\t the
\nrestrictions  placed on its use by the Punjab Village Common
\nLands  (Regulations) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as
\n“the  Rules”).\tReferring to Rule 3(2), the learned  counsel
\nsubmitted  that\t the  Gram Panchayat could use the  land  in
\nshamilat-deh  vested  in it under the Act either  itself  or
\nthrough another for anyone or more of the purposes specified
\ntherein.   One of the purposes referred to in clause (vi) is
\n‘grazing  of  animals’.\t Learned counsel appearing  for\t the
\nrespondents  drew our attention to clause (xxv) of  Sub-rule
\n(2) of Rule 3 which authorised the Gram Panchayat to use the
\nland  for  the purposes of leasing out for cultivation.\t  He
\nalso  drew  our attention to the Division Bench judgment  of
\nthe  High Court in Khushi Puri’s case(supra) wherein it\t was
\nheld:\t“It  is provided by rule 3(2) of the Punjab  Village
\nCommon\tLands  (Regulation) Rules, 1964, that the  panchayat
\ncould  make  use  of the land in shamilat deh vested  in  it
\neither itself or through another for the purposes related to
\nforestry.   It\tcannot,\t therefore,  be\t gainsaid  that\t the
\nplantation  of\ttrees was such a purpose for which the\tland
\ncould not be utilised by the panchayat.\t Whatever rights the
\npanchayat  had for the management of the land devolved\tupon
\nthe Administrator and there is, therefore, no basis for this
\ncontention  made by the learned counsel for the\t petitioners
\nthat the Administrator acted beyond his powers.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tSalig  Ram  & Ors.v.  Maksudan Singh &\tOrs.   [1965
\nCurrent\t Law Journal 711], the High Court had earlier  held:
\n“…that  the panchayat has a right to use the shamilat\t deh
\nvested\tin  it under the 1954 Act either itself\t or  through
\nanother\t person in any of the manners set out in that  rule.
\nSimilar\t rules are stated to have been framed under the Act.
\nThis  shows that except to the extent to which the statutory
\nrules  indicate,  there\t is no fetter on the  power  of\t the
\npanchayat  to  use the shamilat deh which vests in it  under
\nthe Act for any of the specified purposes it likes and it is
\nnot necessary that what was grazing land out of the shamilat
\ndeh previous to such vesting, must continue to be such.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tBishamber Dayal’s case (supra) the Full Bench of the
\nCourt  had  considered\tand approved the view taken  by\t the
\nDivision  Bench\t in Khusi Puri’s case.\tIn that\t regard\t the
\nCourt had held:\n<\/p>\n
    “The  Act  and the Rules empower the Gram  Panchayat  to
\nconvert\t a portion of the street for any one or more of\t the
\npurposes given in Rule 3(2).  A Division Bench of this Court
\nhad  an\t occasion  to construe the  provisions\tof  Sections
\n2(g)(4),  4 and 5 of the Act and Rule 3(2) of the Rules made
\nthereunder  in Khushi Puri’s case (supra).  It was held that
\nthe  Gram Panchayat could make use of the shamilat deh\tland
\nvested\tin  it\teither\titself or through  another  for\t the
\npurposes  mentioned  in Rule 3(2).  In that case a  part  of
\nCharand\t land  which  was used for grazing cattle  had\tbeen
\nentrusted  to  the Forest Department to plant  trees,  which
\nwere  to be the property of the Gram Panchayat.\t This action
\nof  the Gram Panchayat had been upheld by theDivision Bench.
\nShri  Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has  raised
\nno  contention before us that Khushi Puri’s case(supra) does
\nnot lay down the correct law or that the ratio thereof needs
\nreconsideration\t by  a larger Bench.  We are  in  respectful
\nagreement with the ratio of Khushi Ram’s case (supra).”\n<\/p>\n
    We\tdo  not\t agree with the submission  of\tthe  learned
\ncounsel of the appellants that in Bishamber Dayal’s case the@@
\n\t       JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nFull Bench of the High Court had taken a different view than@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nthe  one  which was taken in Khushi Puri’s case.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  appears\tto  have  consistently held  that  the\tland
\nvesting\t in  the Gram Panchayat can be used for any  one  or
\nmore  of  the purposes specified in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule  3,
\nleasing\t out for cultivation being one of the purposes.\t  We
\nfind  no reason to disagree with the High Court and in\tfact
\napprove\t the  position of law settled by it in Khusi  Puri’s
\ncase which was upheld by the Full Bench in Bishamber Dayal’s
\ncase.  Learned counsel for the appellants then tried to make
\na distinction between the charand land and the shamilat deh.
\nIn support of his contentions he referred to Annexures I and
\nII  wherein the land, the subject matter of the dispute\t has
\nbeen defined to be charand land.  The definition of shamilat
\ndeh  proivdes that it shall include “lands described in\t the
\nrevenue\t record\t as  shamilat deh  or  (charand-in  Haryana)
\nexcluding  abadi deh”.\tRelying upon the Khushi Puri’s\tcase
\nthe  High  Court  in the impugned judgment  was,  therefore,
\nright  in  holding that there did not exist any\t distinction
\nbetween\t the charand and shamilat deh and the contention  of
\nthe appellants that the charand could not vest with the Gram
\nPanchayat  under  the Act was based upon wrong\tassumptions.
\nReliance  placed  by the learned counsel for the  appellants
\nupon  the judgment in Bhagat Ram’s case is misplaced besides@@
\n\t  JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nbeing  without\tany  basis.   Despite  our  insistence,\t the@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nlearned\t counsel  for the appellants could not refer to\t any
\naverments  in  the  writ petition filed in  the\t High  Court
\nregarding  the\talleged\t violation  of Article\t31A  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tWe are also of the opinion that the  present
\npetition  though filed in a representative capacity, yet was
\nnot  a bonafide action inasmuch as the appellants and  their
\nrelations having accepted the position of law and earlier at
\ntimes taking the benefit of lease-hold rights could not have
\nrecourse to the legal proceedings after having failed to get
\nthe  lease in their favour or in favour of their  relations.
\nThe   delay   in  approaching\tthe  court   also   remained
\nunexplained.   There  is  no merit in this appeal  which  is
\naccordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.@@
\n\t\t      JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000 Author: Sethi Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, R.P. Sethi. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1941 of 1997 PETITIONER: SHISH RAM & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/05\/2000 BENCH: S. Saghir Ahmad […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-20T12:27:23+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\\\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-20T12:27:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1532,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000\",\"name\":\"Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-20T12:27:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-20T12:27:23+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\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-20T12:27:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000"},"wordCount":1532,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000","name":"Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-20T12:27:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shish-ram-ors-vs-the-state-of-haryana-ors-on-5-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shish Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237624","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=237624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}