{"id":239332,"date":"2009-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-07T23:13:03","modified_gmt":"2017-02-07T17:43:03","slug":"parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 2009<\/div>\n
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007                          -1-\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\nCHANDIGARH.\n\n\n\n            DATE OF DECISION: July 07, 2009.\n\n                Parties Name\nMount Carmel Educational Society, Chandigarh\n                                   ...PETITIONER\n     VERSUS\nChandigarh Administration, U.T. Chandigarh and others\n                                   ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH\n\n\nPRESENT: Mr. Akshay Bhan,\n         Advocate, for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate,\n            for the respondents.\n\nJASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)\n\n\nORDER:\n<\/pre>\n
            Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer that<\/p>\n
directions be issued to respondent No. 3 to rectify account statement<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-15) and to re-prepare the same in terms of Rule 10 of the<\/p>\n
Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (in short the<\/p>\n
Rules) It is also prayed that the date of instalment, towards payment of<\/p>\n
price of the plot allotted to the petitioner, be rescheduled by taking May 3,<\/p>\n
2000, as the deemed date of delivery of possession.\n<\/p>\n
            Record reveals that in response to a public notice Annexure P-<\/p>\n
1, inviting applications for allotment of land, on lease hold basis, to the<\/p>\n
educational Institutions in Sector 47-B, Chandigarh, petitioner moved an<\/p>\n
application along with earnest money of Rs. 20,03,760\/- for allotment of a
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007                          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
plot measuring 2.30 Acres of land to start a School. Petitioner was found<\/p>\n
eligible and vide order dated May 6, 1999, plot measuring 1.37 Acres in<\/p>\n
Sector 47-B, Chandigarh, for setting up a Primary School was allotted in<\/p>\n
favour of the petitioner against premium of Rs. 1,99,63,250\/-.         In the<\/p>\n
allotment letter, it was also stated that ground rent, at usual rate, as<\/p>\n
prescribed under the Rules shall be charged. Para No. 5 of the allotment<\/p>\n
letter reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
             “The allotment of land shall be governed by the provision of<\/p>\n
             Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973.<\/p>\n
             You are, therefore, requested to remit a sum of Rs. 9,87,525.00<\/p>\n
             to cover 25% tentative premium along with an undertaking on<\/p>\n
             Non-judicial Stamp Papers worth Rs. 3\/- duly attested by<\/p>\n
             Executive Magistrate in case the above terms and conditions<\/p>\n
             are acceptable, within thirty days from the date of issue of this<\/p>\n
             letter.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             In response to letter of    allotment, petitioner deposited an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs. 9,87,053\/- on May 25, 1999. Vide letter Annexure P-5, the<\/p>\n
petitioner, after accepting allotment of land measuring 1.37 Acres, made a<\/p>\n
prayer for allotment of additional land, making its plot 2.3 Acres. On<\/p>\n
receipt of money, as referred to above, vide letter dated September 16, 1999,<\/p>\n
allotment order was issued (Annexure P-6) intimating the petitioner that<\/p>\n
amount deposited by way of earnest money has been adjusted against price<\/p>\n
of the plot allotted and following schedule for payment of instalments<\/p>\n
towards premium and ground rent was fixed:\n<\/p>\n
 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007                                 -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Number of the        Due date of    Date upto which       Amount of equated
\n       instalment           payment       payment should       instalment including
\n                                             be made                 interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1st instalment         7-2000                      10\/08\/00 Rs.15,87,942.00
\n2nd instalment         7-2001                      10\/08\/01 Rs.15,87,942.00
\n rd
\n3 instalment           7-2002                      10\/08\/02 Rs.15,87,942-00
\n th
\n4 instalment           7-2003                      10\/08\/03 Rs.15,87,942-00
\n5th instalment         7-2004                      10\/08\/04 Rs.1587,942-00
\n6th instalment         7-2005                      10\/08\/05 Rs.15,87,942-00
\n7th instalment         7-2006                      10\/08\/06 Rs. 15,87,942-00
\n th
\n8 instalment           7-2007                      10\/08\/07 Rs. 15,87,942-00
\n th
\n9 instalment           7-2008                      10\/08\/08 Rs. 15,87,942-00
\n10th instalment        7-2009                      10\/08\/09 Rs. 15,87,942-00
\nGround rent annually                                        Rs.299081\/- for every
\nfor 1st 33 years                                            year.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 Admittedly, possession of the plot was delivered on May 25,<\/p>\n
1999. Thereafter, request of the petitioner for allotment of additional piece<\/p>\n
of land was also approved by the authority concerned on November 16,<\/p>\n
1999 (Annexure P-7) and it was decided that additional area of land<\/p>\n
measuring 1.37 Acres be allotted to the petitioner. In response to order,<\/p>\n
mentioned above, allotment letter was issued on May 3, 2000.                      For<\/p>\n
additional area, total premium payable was fixed as Rs. 1,19,63,250\/- and it<\/p>\n
was stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
                 “The following shall be the schedule of payment of instalments<\/p>\n
                 of the premium and ground rent:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n      Number of the        Due date of      Date upto which      Amount of equated\n       instalment           payment        payment should be         instalment\n                                                 made            including interest.\n1st instalment         4-2001                         10\/05\/01 Rs.15,87,942-00\n nd\n2 instalment           4-2002                         10\/05\/02 Rs.15,87,942-00\n rd\n3     instalment       4-2003                         10\/05\/03 Rs.1587,942-00\n4th instalment         4-2004                         10\/05\/04 Rs.15,87,942-00\n5th instalment         4-2005                         10\/05\/05 Rs. 15,87,942-00\n6th instalment         4-2006                         10\/05\/06 Rs. 15,87,942-00\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007                             -4-<\/span>\n\n      Number of the        Due date of     Date upto which    Amount of equated\n       instalment           payment       payment should be       instalment\n                                                made          including interest.\n7th instalment         4-2007                       10\/05\/07 Rs. 15,87,942-00\n8th instalment         4-2008                       10\/05\/08 Rs. 15,87,942-00\n th\n9 instalment           4-2009                       10\/05\/09 Rs. 15,87,942-00\n      th\n10 instalment          4-2010                       10\/05\/10 Rs. 15,87,942-00\nGround rent annually                                          Rs. 299081\/-      for\nfor 1st 33 years                                              every year\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                 It is an admitted fact that possession of the additional land<\/p>\n
allotted was delivered on May 3, 2000.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Record reveals that the petitioner failed to comply with the<\/p>\n
Schedule, fixed for payment, accordingly interest and penalty amount were<\/p>\n
charged. Against above said action, petitioner sent a representation on<\/p>\n
March 14, 2003 (Annexure P-8), wherein it was specifically stated that<\/p>\n
deemed date of delivery of possession should be as on May 3, 2000, when<\/p>\n
additional area of land was allotted to the petitioner and payment schedule<\/p>\n
be re-fixed accordingly. Vide order dated October 16, 2003 (Annexure P-<\/p>\n
9), the competent authority conveyed it to the petitioner that on account of<\/p>\n
failure of the petitioner to deposit amount of instalment towards price in<\/p>\n
time, penalty, interest etc. to the tune of Rs. 4,59,433\/- has been imposed<\/p>\n
upon the petitioner. Petitioner went in appeal. In its ground of appeal, it<\/p>\n
was specifically stated that date of delivery of possession be taken as May 3,<\/p>\n
2000, when allotment of additional area was made and the schedule of<\/p>\n
payment be fixed accordingly and further that taking into consideration that<\/p>\n
date, ground rent be charged. Appeal was partly accepted. Vide order dated<\/p>\n
April 6, 2004, it was ordered as under:\n<\/p>\n
                 “I have heard both the parties and gone through the records of<\/p>\n
                 the file carefully. The Law Officer representing the Estate
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007                             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
             Officer submitted that the appellant failed to make the payment<\/p>\n
             of the government dues within stipulated date and time.<\/p>\n
             Therefore, the orders of the Estate Officer are as per rule. The<\/p>\n
             counsel for the appellant submitted that at present no amount is<\/p>\n
             due against his client. If any due he is ready and willing to pay<\/p>\n
             the same. He, therefore, prayed that the order of the Estate<\/p>\n
             Officer may kindly be set aside and reduce the penalty.<\/p>\n
             On the basis of arguments led by both the parties and facts of<\/p>\n
             the case, I find that a lenient view is granted in this case. As per<\/p>\n
             submissions made by the counsel for the appellants, I accept the<\/p>\n
             appeal. Accordingly, the order of the Estate Officer is set aside<\/p>\n
             and the penalty on amount of ground rent be reduced from<\/p>\n
             100% to 60%.         The appellant is directed to clear the<\/p>\n
             outstanding dues within three months.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The order, extracted above, clearly indicates that a lenient view<\/p>\n
was taken when relief was granted to the petitioner. Petitioner was not<\/p>\n
satisfied. It filed an application for clarification of the order, mentioned<\/p>\n
above and vide order dated July 13, 2004, penalty imposed for non-payment<\/p>\n
of instalment was also reduced from 10% to 4%. Petitioner went in revision<\/p>\n
reiterating grounds of attack, which it agitated in its appeal.          It was<\/p>\n
specifically stated that no amount would be recoverable from the petitioner<\/p>\n
if date of possession of both the plots is taken as May 3, 2000. In revision,<\/p>\n
on an undertaking given by the petitioner that it shall clear all dues, revision<\/p>\n
petition was disposed of by observing thus on February 22, 2006:<\/p>\n
             “3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed a
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007                      -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
         revision petition against the order of the Chief Administrator<\/p>\n
         dated 13.7.2004, wherein the petitioner was directed to deposit<\/p>\n
         the entire outstanding amount within a period of three months<\/p>\n
         with reduced penalties imposed upon him. The petitioner could<\/p>\n
         not utilize the land allotted to him as the allotment was not in<\/p>\n
         accordance with the commitment made in the public notice.<\/p>\n
         The respondent Estate Officer imposed penalties on the ground<\/p>\n
         of delay in making payment of premium without rationalizing<\/p>\n
         the allotment letter. The petitioner has not been communicated<\/p>\n
         the legally due amount till date. However, the petitioner is<\/p>\n
         ready to deposit the outstanding amount in case an opportunity<\/p>\n
         is given. A prayer was, therefore, made for setting aside the<\/p>\n
         impugned order and waiving off the entire amount of the<\/p>\n
         penalties in the interest of justice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         4. The representative of the Estate Officer submitted that the<\/p>\n
           Chief Administrator has already given enough relief to the<\/p>\n
           petitioner by reducing the penalties from 100% to 60% on<\/p>\n
           ground rent and from 10% to the 4% on instalments. Since<\/p>\n
           the petitioner failed to clear the outstanding dues within the<\/p>\n
           time given by the Chief Administrator, the petition, he<\/p>\n
           argued, therefore, deserved to be dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         5. After hearing the parties, going through the record and<\/p>\n
           keeping in view the undertaking given by the petitioner to<\/p>\n
           clear the outstanding dues, I hereby set aside the impugned<\/p>\n
           order and grant six months time to clear the entire<\/p>\n
           outstanding dues, failing which the order of the Estate
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007                           -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
                Officer shall become operative.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The respondent – Estate Officer wrote a letter to the petitioner<\/p>\n
to deposit an amount of Rs. 18,55,957\/- and Rs. 3,05,145\/- by August 21,<\/p>\n
2006. The amount was worked out without penalty (Annexure P-15).<\/p>\n
Statement of account was also annexed with the letter. Petitioner deposited<\/p>\n
the amount as claimed vide order Annexure P-15.               Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
respondent claimed an amount of Rs. 18,87,023\/- towards price of the<\/p>\n
additional land and an amount of Rs. 2,99,081\/- towards ground rent, which<\/p>\n
had fallen due on July 16, 2007-. Petitioner made a representation denying<\/p>\n
its liability to make above said payment. Thereafter present writ petition has<\/p>\n
been filed.\n<\/p>\n
              In its reply, the respondents have stated that allotment of land<\/p>\n
of 1.37 Acres was accepted by the petitioner without any objection.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, request was made for allotment of additional land, which was<\/p>\n
also allotted subsequently. Both the transactions were independent and<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act will start taking effect from the date when possession<\/p>\n
was delivered in each case. It was further stated that the petitioner has not<\/p>\n
laid challenge to the order Annexure P-14, which was passed on its<\/p>\n
undertaking to make payment of the amount claimed and further that the<\/p>\n
issues which the petitioner has now raised, were very much available to the<\/p>\n
petitioner when the matter was pending before the appellate authority and<\/p>\n
the revisional authority. Once order dated February 22, 2006 (Annexure P-<\/p>\n
14) has become final, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say to<\/p>\n
the contrary. It has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.<\/p>\n
              After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is convinced
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007                           -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
that no interference can be made in this writ petition, at the instance of the<\/p>\n
petitioner. In response to notices Annexures P1 to P3, petitioner moved an<\/p>\n
application for allotment of land measuring 2.30 Acres in Sector 47,<\/p>\n
Chandigarh. Its request was acceded only to the extent of land measuring<\/p>\n
1.37 Acres, for which intimation was sent vide letter dated May 25, 1999<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-5). The petitioner was directed to make payment towards 25%<\/p>\n
of amount of premium. Petitioner complied with the same. Thereafter<\/p>\n
allotment letter was issued on September 16, 1999 (Annexure P6).<\/p>\n
Possession of the land in question was also delivered on that date and<\/p>\n
schedule for payment was also fixed. Petitioner accepted the allotment<\/p>\n
made to it without any murmur. However, thereafter request was made for<\/p>\n
allotment of additional land, which was accepted vide order dated<\/p>\n
November 16, 1999. Allotment         letter was issued regarding additional<\/p>\n
land, measuring 1.37 Acres, on May 3, 2000. Possession was also delivered<\/p>\n
on May 3, 2000.\n<\/p>\n
             Facts of the case clearly indicate that two adjoining plots were<\/p>\n
allotted to the petitioner vide two separate allotment letters. Both allotments<\/p>\n
were independent transactions. Under these circumstances, it cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted, as propagated by the petitioner, that schedule of payments be<\/p>\n
fixed by treating May 3, 2000 (on which date second letter of allotment was<\/p>\n
issued) as a date of allotment of entire land to the petitioner. The petitioner<\/p>\n
was required to adhere to the schedule of payment as was mentioned in<\/p>\n
allotment letters, referred to above. No objection was raised regarding<\/p>\n
separate schedule of payments for both the plots. Default was committed for<\/p>\n
making the payment and when interest, penalty etc. were imposed, the<\/p>\n
petitioner woke up and to save its skin, put up this excuse of giving deemed
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007                            -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
date of possession, i.e., May 3, 2000. The authorities took a lenient view<\/p>\n
and waived some portion of interest and penalty. Before the revisional<\/p>\n
authority, the petitioner gave an undertaking to make entire payment. By<\/p>\n
taking note of the same, total amount of interest and penalty were waived<\/p>\n
and six months’ time was granted to the petitioner to clear the outstanding<\/p>\n
dues. Before the appellate authority and the revisional authority, petitioner<\/p>\n
averred with vehemence that schedule of payments be fixed, by taking date<\/p>\n
of second allotment (May 3, 2000) as a date of delivery of possession for<\/p>\n
the entire land. This was not accepted. Order Annexure P-14 was passed<\/p>\n
on February 22, 2006, which has become final and is not under challenge.<\/p>\n
As such,    at this stage, petitioner is not entitled to rake up the same<\/p>\n
controversy, which it has raised before the competent forum.<\/p>\n
            In view of facts, mentioned above, it is not open to the<\/p>\n
petitioner to say that amount of interest, penalty, ground rent etc. were not<\/p>\n
calculated in terms of rule 10 of the Rules. Be that as it may, Rule 10 of the<\/p>\n
Rules reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
            “10. Delivery of possession:- Actual possession of the site\/<\/p>\n
            building shall be delivered to the lessee on payment of 25% of<\/p>\n
            the premium in accordance with rule 8 or 9 as the case may be.<\/p>\n
            Provided that no ground rent payable under rule 13 and interest<\/p>\n
            on the instalments of premium payable under sub-rule (2) of the<\/p>\n
            Rule 12 shall be paid by the lessee till the actual and physical<\/p>\n
            possession of the site\/building is delivered or offered to be<\/p>\n
            delivered to him, whichever is earlier.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In earlier part of this order, this Court has held that two plots of<\/p>\n
land were allotted to the petitioner, one on September 16, 1999 (Annexure
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007                             -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
P-6) and another on May 3, 2000. Admittedly, possession of the first plot<\/p>\n
was delivered on September 16, 1999, and possession of second plot was<\/p>\n
delivered on May 3, 2000. In both the allotment letters, separate schedule<\/p>\n
of payment was fixed. Limitation for imposition of ground rent was also<\/p>\n
fixed from the date when possession was delivered. Contention of counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner that possession of the entire land shall be deemed to have<\/p>\n
been delivered on May 3, 2000 (date of second allotment) is liable to be<\/p>\n
rejected in view of discussion in earlier part of this order.<\/p>\n
             In view of facts, mentioned above, no case is made out for<\/p>\n
interference. Dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\nJuly 07, 2009.                                              ( Jasbir Singh )\nDKC                                                              Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 2009 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13577 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: July 07, 2009. Parties Name Mount Carmel Educational Society, Chandigarh …PETITIONER VERSUS Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Chandigarh and others …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. […]<\/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-239332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 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\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-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=\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-07T17:43:03+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\\\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T17:43:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2270,\"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\\\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T17:43:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 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":"Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 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\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-07T17:43:03+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\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T17:43:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009"},"wordCount":2270,"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\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009","name":"Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T17:43:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-chandigarh-administration-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parties Name vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 July, 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\/239332","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=239332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}