{"id":24904,"date":"2000-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000"},"modified":"2015-07-15T22:50:24","modified_gmt":"2015-07-15T17:20:24","slug":"sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000","title":{"rendered":"Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Raju<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.S.Ahamad, Doraiswamy<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSUDARSHAN NATH &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/04\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.S.Ahamad, Doraiswamy\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Raju, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  appellants, who are the legal representatives  of<br \/>\nthe   original\t landholder  Raghubinder   Nath\t  and\twere<br \/>\nunsuccessful before the High Court, have come up before this<br \/>\nCourt  against the order dated 20.8.91 of the Division Bench<br \/>\nof  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition<br \/>\nNo.3062 of 1991, declining to interfere with the order dated<br \/>\n1.8.90 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals).\tLate<br \/>\nRaghubinder  Nath,  who was said to be a big landowner,\t was<br \/>\ngoverned  by  the provisions of the Punjab Security of\tLand<br \/>\nTenures\t Act,  1953  (hereinafter referred to as  `the\tLand<br \/>\nTenures Act).  By a proceeding dated 30.6.60 in exercise of<br \/>\nthe  powers  of the Collector under Sections 3 and 4 of\t the<br \/>\nLand  Tenures  Act, the ceiling area of the  said  landowner<br \/>\ncame  to be determined and an extent of 3 Standard Acres and<br \/>\n9  \u00bc  Units  were  declared as\tsurplus.   On  31.3.76,\t the<br \/>\nCollector  Agrarian,  Gurdaspur,  after\t completion  of\t the<br \/>\nconsolidation  proceedings  in\tthe area,  passed  an  order<br \/>\ndeclaring that there is no area left surplus and ordered the<br \/>\ncase   to   be\tfiled.\t While\t matter\t stood\t thus,\t the<br \/>\npredecessor-in-interest\t of respondents 2 and 3, Late  Jagat<br \/>\nRam,  to whom 20 kanal and 13 marlas were said to have\tbeen<br \/>\ngiven  on  lease  even\tprior  to 1953,\t filed\ta  suit\t for<br \/>\ndeclaration  that  he, being a tenant, is eligible  for\t the<br \/>\nallotment of the surplus area measuring about 56 kanal and 4<br \/>\nmarlas\twith  a\t consequential direction to  the  Collector,<br \/>\nGurdaspur,  to allot the surplus land to him.  No doubt,  to<br \/>\nthese proceedings the landowner was not impleaded as a party<br \/>\nbut only the State, represented by the Collector, was made a<br \/>\nparty.\t The  said  suit  came to  be  decreed\ton  7.11.79,<br \/>\nex-parte.   When  the  said plaintiff  filed  the  Execution<br \/>\nPetition  No.5\tof  1980,   the\t learned  Subordinate  Judge<br \/>\nadverted  to  the fact that the legal heirs  of\t Raghubinder<br \/>\nNath have filed an appeal against the order of the Collector<br \/>\nand  inasmuch  as  the matter has been stayed,\tthe  vesting<br \/>\ncannot\ttake  effect  and the allotment order could  not  be<br \/>\nissued\tat  that  stage.   On\tthat  view,  the   execution<br \/>\nproceedings  were  held\t to be\tpremature  and\tconsequently<br \/>\ndismissed  on  1.11.81.\t  In the meanwhile, on\t29.9.80\t the<br \/>\nCollector  Agrarian, Gurdaspur, passed an order declaring  3<br \/>\nStandard  Acres and 9 \u00bc Units to be the surplus area.\tThis<br \/>\norder was challenged by the original landholder on an appeal<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, but the\tsame<br \/>\ncame  to be dismissed on 10.2.82.  The challenge was further<br \/>\npursued\t before\t the  Financial Commissioner by means  of  a<br \/>\nRevision Petition.  When the above proceedings were pending,<br \/>\nthe  Collector,\t Gurdaspur,  appears to\t have  allotted\t the<br \/>\nsurplus\t land,\tas declared, to Late Jagat Ram\ton  24.3.82.<br \/>\nPursuant  to the allotment so made, on 30.3.82 Jagat Ram was<br \/>\nsaid to have deposited Rs.5,900\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  revision  filed  by Raghubinder Nath\t before\t the<br \/>\nFinancial  Commissioner\t against  the order  passed  by\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner  came  to\tbe  disposed of on  10.3.83  with  a<br \/>\ndirection  that the landowner should be given an opportunity<br \/>\nof  selecting permissible area and the allottee accommodated<br \/>\nelsewhere  on  an  equivalent  land.\tIn  doing  so,\t the<br \/>\nrevisional  authority  was  of\tthe view  that\tthe  Revenue<br \/>\nOfficers  are bound to give an opportunity to a landowner of<br \/>\nbeing heard and selecting his permissible area under Section<br \/>\n24-A(2)\t of  the  Land\t Tenures  Act,\tafter  consolidation<br \/>\nproceedings,  if  the  land declared surplus  had  not\tbeen<br \/>\nutilised by them.  It is interesting to notice that even the<br \/>\nrevisional authority did not approve of the bona fide nature<br \/>\nof  the\t transfers  said to have been effected in  1954\t and<br \/>\nadversely  commented upon the omission to produce copies  of<br \/>\nthe  Khasra  girdawaris\t for the period\t subsequent  to\t the<br \/>\nexecution  Sale Deed dated 2.5.54.  On 2.2.84, the  original<br \/>\nlandowner Raghubinder Nath died and the mutation was said to<br \/>\nhave been sanctioned on 16.1.86 in favour of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Pursuant\tto  the\t order dated 10.3.83 passed  by\t the<br \/>\nFinancial  Commissioner, the Collector Agrarian pursued\t the<br \/>\nmatter\tfurther and by his proceedings dated 10.6.86 came to<br \/>\nthe  conclusion that the heirs of Late Raghubinder Nath were<br \/>\nentitled  to  reserve the area for themselves in  accordance<br \/>\nwith  the  provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms  Act,\t1972<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as `the Land Reforms Act) and that<br \/>\nthe  total land holding of Raghubinder Nath worked out to 43<br \/>\nStd.   Acres  2 Units (33 Std.\tAcres 9 \u00bc Units plus 9\tStd.<br \/>\nAcres  8 \u00bc Units sold already).\t Since Raghubinder Nath died<br \/>\nleaving\t seven\tlegal heirs, there is no surplus  land\twith<br \/>\nthem  and consequently the allotment made in favour of Jagat<br \/>\nRam  was not only held bad but stood cancelled and he has to<br \/>\nbe  accommodated elsewhere in terms of the directions of the<br \/>\nFinancial  Commissioner\t dated 10.3.83.\t The Naib  Tehsildar<br \/>\n(Agrarian)  was directed to put up a proposal for  allotment<br \/>\nof  alternative\t land equivalent to the area to be given  to<br \/>\nJagat Ram.  As against the said proceedings, Jagat Ram filed<br \/>\nan  appeal before the Commissioner.  During pendency of\t the<br \/>\nsame,\tJagat\tRam   died  on\t 2.10.86   and\t the   legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives\t were  brought on record on  13.1.87.\tThis<br \/>\nappeal\tcame  to be dismissed on 16.5.88 on the ground\tthat<br \/>\nthe  area  declared surplus did not vest in the State  under<br \/>\nSection\t 8  of the Act for want of notice as required  under<br \/>\nSection\t 9(1)  of the Act.  The allottee Jagat Ram was\talso<br \/>\nheld  to  have\tnot  proved his\t possession  of\t the  lands.<br \/>\nThereupon,  the legal heirs of Jagat Ram pursued the  matter<br \/>\nbefore\tthe Financial Commissioner by filing a revision\t and<br \/>\nhis  legal heirs continued the same on account of his death.<br \/>\nBy  the proceedings dated 1.8.90, the revision petition\t was<br \/>\nallowed\t and  the orders of the Commissioner  dated  16.5.88<br \/>\ncame  to  be set aside holding that the declaration  of\t the<br \/>\nsurplus\t area  in the year 1960\/1980 held the field and\t was<br \/>\nnever  set  aside and that Jagat Ram, the  allottee,  having<br \/>\ndeposited  the\tpurchase amount on 30.3.82 in the  Treasury,<br \/>\nbecame\tthe owner of the land on such deposit.\tIt was\talso<br \/>\nheld  that in view of the death of the original landowner in<br \/>\nthe  year  1984 and the utilisation of the land even  during<br \/>\nthe  life- time of the landowner, who did not challenge\t the<br \/>\nsame  successfully, the orders of the Commissioner cannot be<br \/>\nsustained.   Aggrieved\tagainst\t the said  proceedings,\t the<br \/>\nheirs  of  the\tRaghubinder Nath approached the\t High  Court<br \/>\nunsuccessfully.\t Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  learned counsel for the appellants placed  strong<br \/>\nreliance  upon\tthe  orders dated 31.3.76  under  which\t the<br \/>\nCollector  held\t that there is no area left as surplus,\t the<br \/>\nfurther\t orders\t dated\t10.3.83\t  passed  by  the  Financial<br \/>\nCommissioner  holding that the landholder should be given an<br \/>\nopportunity  to\t select the permissible area and the  tenant<br \/>\nJagat  Ram should be accommodated elsewhere on an equivalent<br \/>\nland,  and the orders passed on 10.6.86 by the Collector  as<br \/>\nwell  as that of the Commissioner made on 16.5.88 to contend<br \/>\nthat  the  appellants  had  acquired rights  to\t retain\t the<br \/>\nentirety  of  the lands, in view of the fact that the  lands<br \/>\ndeclared  surplus  were\t not also utilised  by\ttaking\tover<br \/>\npossession  of the same.  It was also strenuously  contended<br \/>\nthat  there was no vesting of the lands declared surplus  in<br \/>\naccordance   with   law\t and,\ttherefore,   the   Financial<br \/>\nCommissioner  committed\t an  error in interfering  with\t the<br \/>\norders\tof  the Commissioner and the Collector.\t Argued\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t counsel further that the High Court, in  dismissing<br \/>\nthe  Writ Petition without assigning any reason\t whatsoever,<br \/>\ncommitted  a  serious  mistake and,  therefore,\t the  appeal<br \/>\nbefore this court merits acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Per  Contra, the learned counsel for the\trespondents,<br \/>\nwho  are  the legal heirs of Jagat Ram, contended  that\t the<br \/>\norders\tof  the\t Financial  Commissioner  dated\t 1.8.90\t has<br \/>\nconsidered the issues arising in their proper perspective on<br \/>\nthe  indisputable  position  arising out of  the  fixing  of<br \/>\nceiling\t and declaration of surplus lands of the  landholder<br \/>\nas  early as on 30.6.60, the subsequent allotment in  favour<br \/>\nof  Jagat  Ram\ton  24.3.82  and the deposit  of  a  sum  of<br \/>\nRs.5900\/- on 30.3.82 which proved utilisation of the surplus<br \/>\nland  even  during the life time of the landholder who\tdied<br \/>\nonly  on  2.2.84.   It\twas   further  contended  for  those<br \/>\nrespondents  that  the\tpossession  of\tthe  lands  declared<br \/>\nsurplus\t and  allotted\tto  Jagat Ram  were  always  in\t his<br \/>\npossession  and this position being an indisputable fact  on<br \/>\nrecord\tthe Commissioner and the Collector in passing orders<br \/>\non  10.6.86  and  16.5.88 merely proceeded  on\tsurmises  to<br \/>\nsustain\t the  claim  of\t the appellants\t and  therefore\t the<br \/>\nFinancial  Commissioner was right in granting relief to\t the<br \/>\nrespondents,  on a proper appreciation of all the facts\t and<br \/>\nby  applying  the  correct principles of law.\tThe  appeal,<br \/>\naccording to them, had no merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  first respondent-State also affirmed the  factual<br \/>\nposition  that the area in question was declared surplus and<br \/>\nutilised  during  the  life  time   of\tthe  big  landholder<br \/>\nRaghubinder  Nath  and,\t therefore, the appellants  have  no<br \/>\nrights\twhatsoever  to\tbe vindicated and  consequently\t the<br \/>\nappeal only merited rejection.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We  have been taken through the various orders  passed<br \/>\nat  different times by the concerned authorities and we\t are<br \/>\nonly  surprised\t to notice that such orders were being\tmade<br \/>\nfrom  time  to time taking into account one or the other  of<br \/>\nthe  facts  without  a comprehensive  consideration  of\t the<br \/>\ntotality  of  facts and the law governing the case on  hand.<br \/>\nThe  impugned  orders  of the Financial\t Commissioner  dated<br \/>\n1.8.90\tonly  analysed all those relevant aspects  in  their<br \/>\nproper\tperspective  and no exception could be taken to\t the<br \/>\naction\tof the High Court in declining to interfere,  though<br \/>\nit  would have been proper and desirable for the High  Court<br \/>\nto  have given some reasons to disclose its mind, instead of<br \/>\nrejecting the Writ Petition by a cryptic order.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shorn   of  all  controversies,\tthere  are   certain<br \/>\nunalloyed  facts which can neither be ignored nor can escape<br \/>\nthe   attention\t of  anyone   expected\tto  adjudicate\t the<br \/>\ncontroversy  in\t issue\tand which have, in  our\t view,\tbeen<br \/>\nrightly\t taken\tnote  of by the Financial  Commissioner,  in<br \/>\npassing the impugned order dated 1.8.90.  Even the Financial<br \/>\nCommissioner  who  passed  orders on 10.3.83 on\t a  revision<br \/>\npetition filed by the landholder Raghubinder Nath recognised<br \/>\ncertain\t facts\twhich  are indisputable on  record  and\t the<br \/>\nappellants,  who  strongly rely upon it to  derive  benefits<br \/>\ngiven  thereunder  cannot afford to ignore or go behind\t the<br \/>\nsame.  The fact that Jagat Ram was a tenant on the appointed<br \/>\ndate, as a consequence of which only the lands were allotted<br \/>\nto  him\t has  not also been disturbed  or  specifically\t set<br \/>\naside.\tExcept for the fact that the Financial Commissioner,<br \/>\nin  passing  those orders merely took into  account  Section<br \/>\n24-A(2)\t of  the  Land\tTenures\t  Act  to  grant  a  further<br \/>\nopportunity  to\t select the permissible area,  by  observing<br \/>\nthat  another  opportunity  to\t separate  the\tarea  after<br \/>\nconsolidation  has to be given to the landowner, there\tis<br \/>\nno  interference even by this authority of the fact that the<br \/>\nceiling\t and surplus in respect of this landholder has\tbeen<br \/>\nalready fixed, since then only the question of selecting the<br \/>\npermissible  area arise, for the landholder.  The  Financial<br \/>\nCommissioner  specifically recorded a finding about the lack<br \/>\nof  bona  fide in the sale claimed to have been made by\t the<br \/>\nlandholder  in 1954 in the following terms:  The petitioner<br \/>\nhas  however,  failed to prove his bona fides regarding\t the<br \/>\nland  transferred  by him in 1954.  The revenue record\tdoes<br \/>\nnot  show  that possession of the land alleged to have\tbeen<br \/>\nsold in 1954 was actually transferred to the vendee in 1954.<br \/>\nThis  transfer as claimed has not been accepted as bona fide<br \/>\nby the learned Collector.  If the land had been transferred,<br \/>\nthe  landowner\tshould\thave produced copies of\t the  khasra<br \/>\ngirdawaris  of\tthe crop subsequent to the execution of\t the<br \/>\nsale  deed dated 2.5.54.  Since this has not been done,\t the<br \/>\ntransfer  of  the land as claimed by the landowner has\tbeen<br \/>\nrightly\t disallowed by the learned Collector and endorsed by<br \/>\nthe learned Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  predecessor-in-interest  of the  appellants\tlate<br \/>\nRaghubinder  Nath was considered to be a big landholder\t and<br \/>\nby  an order dated 30.6.60, the ceiling was fixed in respect<br \/>\nof  his holding and after ignoring the sales claimed to have<br \/>\nbeen  made after 15.4.53 (the appointed date for purposes of<br \/>\nthe  1953  Land Tenures Act) an extent of 3 Std.  Acres 9  \u00bc<br \/>\nUnits  of land were declared surplus.  After  consolidation,<br \/>\nthe  area  in  the  hands  of the  landowner  seem  to\thave<br \/>\nincreased  to  35 Std.\tAcres-10 \u00bd Units and  thereafter  on<br \/>\n29.9.80 the extent of 3 Std.  Acres 9 \u00bc Units was once again<br \/>\ndeclared surplus by specifying the items of lands also viz.,<br \/>\n&#8220;Khasra  Nos.86-R\/13  (6K-  4M),   1461\/2  (0-15M),  1461\/3<br \/>\n(1K-17M)  1462 (20K-12M) total measuring 29 K &#8211; 9 Marlas &#8211; 3<br \/>\nStandard  Acres\t 9  \u00bc Units.  The remaining  area  of  the<br \/>\nlandowner  was held to be his reserved area.  Thereafter, on<br \/>\n24.3.82,  the  Collector allotted the surplus land to  Jagat<br \/>\nRam  and thereupon Jagat Ram deposited the sum of Rs.5900\/-.<br \/>\nThis  allotment\t in his favour was on the basis that he\t was<br \/>\nthe  tenant of the lands which came to be declared  surplus,<br \/>\nalso.\tIt is only in view of all these, the learned counsel<br \/>\non either side concentrated at the time of hearing before us<br \/>\non  the\t basic\tquestion as to whether\tthe  lands  declared<br \/>\nsurplus\t could be said to have been utilised even during the<br \/>\nlife  time  of\tthe landholder viz.  prior  to\t2.2.84\twhen<br \/>\nRaghubinder Nath died.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  decision in Bhagat Gobind Singh vs.\tF.C., Punjab<br \/>\n[1972  PLJ 319] on which strong reliance was placed for\t the<br \/>\nappellants  may\t not be of any assistance in this case.\t  It<br \/>\ncould  be  seen from the said judgment that the\t remand\t and<br \/>\nfurther\t opportunity  given  for the landholder was  in\t the<br \/>\ncontext\t of the orders\/instructions of the State  Government<br \/>\ndated  22.7.61\tto  save, if at all, bona  fide\t sales\tmade<br \/>\nbetween\t 15.4.53 and 30.7.58 and more so, due to the  reason<br \/>\nthat  there  was no scope in that case when the ceiling\t was<br \/>\nfixed  and  surplus declared to undertake such an  exercise.<br \/>\nSo  far as the facts of the present case are concerned,\t the<br \/>\nsales  were held to be not bona fide by all the\t authorities<br \/>\nand  this fact also has been approved by the very orders  of<br \/>\nthe  Financial\tCommissioner dated 10.3.83.  So far  as\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of  this court reported in Rameshwar &amp;  Ors.\t Vs.<br \/>\nJot  Ram  &amp;  Anr.   [1976(1)  SCC 194 =\t 1975  PLJ  454]  is<br \/>\nconcerned,  in construing Section 18(4) of the Land  Tenures<br \/>\nAct,  this Court held that on the deposit of even the  first<br \/>\ninstalment  of the purchase price the tenant shall be deemed<br \/>\nto have become the owner of the land.  The dispute sought to<br \/>\nbe  with  reference  to\t the   vesting\tas  well  as  taking<br \/>\npossession  also has no merit.\tSince the lands were already<br \/>\nin  the possession of the tenant Jagat Ram, who happened  to<br \/>\nbe the allotee also, there is no substance in the challenge.<br \/>\nThe   landholder  or  his   heirs,  having  not\t  challenged<br \/>\nspecifically  the order dated 24.3.82, cannot be allowed  to<br \/>\ndispute\t this  factual\tposition  at  all.   The   Financial<br \/>\nCommissioner  chose to give relief to the heirs of Jagat Ram<br \/>\nonly  on the ground that the lands declared surplus came  to<br \/>\nbe also utilised effectively under the Punjab Utilisation of<br \/>\nSurplus\t Area Scheme, 1973 before 2.2.84 when the landholder<br \/>\ndied  and therefore, there was nothing for the appellants to<br \/>\nre-agitate  the matter once over again to revise the ceiling<br \/>\narea  taking  advantage\t of  the   death  of  the  erstwhile<br \/>\nlandholder.   The reasons, which weighed with the  Financial<br \/>\nCommissioner  for granting relief to the heirs of Jagat\t Ram<br \/>\nby  passing  the  order dated 1.8.90, cannot be said  to  be<br \/>\neither\tillegal or suffer any serious infirmities whatsoever<br \/>\nto call for any interference in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The   appeal  consequently  fails\t  and  shall   stand<br \/>\ndismissed.  The parties shall bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000 Author: Raju Bench: S.S.Ahamad, Doraiswamy PETITIONER: SUDARSHAN NATH &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/04\/2000 BENCH: S.S.Ahamad, Doraiswamy JUDGMENT: Raju, J. The appellants, who are the legal representatives of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24904","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-15T17:20:24+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T17:20:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2590,\"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\\\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000\",\"name\":\"Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T17:20:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 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":"Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-15T17:20:24+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000","datePublished":"2000-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T17:20:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000"},"wordCount":2590,"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\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000","name":"Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T17:20:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudarshan-nath-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-4-april-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudarshan Nath &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 4 April, 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\/24904","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=24904"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24904\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}