{"id":251832,"date":"1972-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972"},"modified":"2018-11-09T19:57:57","modified_gmt":"2018-11-09T14:27:57","slug":"rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972","title":{"rendered":"Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 66, 1973 SCR (2) 166<\/div>\n
Author: K K Mathew<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M., Palekar, D.G., Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien, Dwivedi, S.N., Chandrachud, Y.V.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJKUMAR DEVINDRA SINGH & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/09\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nSHELAT, J.M.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR   66\t\t  1973 SCR  (2) 166\n 1973 SCC  (1)\t51\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1981 SC 670\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\nPunjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery)\nAct   1959,  Section  3\t and  Section\t4   (1)-Unauthorised\noccupation of public premises-Possession before the premises\nbecame public premises-Eviction cannot be ordered under\t the\nAct.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellants, along with their brothers, were residing  in\nan ancestral property.\tThe eldest member of the family sold\nthe  property to the State Government as property  belonging\nto him.\t After the sale, the State Government issued  notice\nof  eviction  to  the appellant under Section  4(1)  of\t the\nPunjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent  Recovery\nAct,  1959.  The writ petition, challenging legality of\t the\neviction order was rejected by the single Judge, and then on\nappeal\tby  the\t Division Bench of the\tPunjab\tHigh  Court.\nBefore this Court the appellants contended that they were in\npossession under a legal title and that the impugned  notice\nwas issued without jurisdiction.\n HELD  : The appellants were in possession of  the  property\nbefore the date of sale to the State Government, when it was\nnot  public  preprocess.  The word \"thereof\"  in  Sec.\t3(1)\nmakes  it  clear  that the person  must\t have  entered\tinto\npossession   of\t  public  premises  before  or\t after\t the\ncommencement of the Act in order that he may be deemed to be\nin unauthorised occupation.  Unless the premises are  public\npremises  on  the date of possession, Section  3(a)  is\t not\napplicable., [170A-B]\nHELD, further, that Section 3(b) is attracted only where the\nperson\tcontinues  in possession after the  cancellation  or\ndetermination of allotment, lease or grant from\t Government.\nThe appellants were not in unauthorised occupation of public\npremises  and  therefore the notice under Section  4(1)\t was\nissued without jurisdiction. [171A]\nAppeal allowed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1967.
\nAppeal\tby  certificate from the judgment  and\torder  dated
\nOctober\t 15, 1963 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh  in
\nL.P.A. No. 330 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
A.   Subba Rao, Bhuvansesh Kumari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C.
\nMathur\t  and Ravinder Narain for the appellant.
\nV.   C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey for respondents Nos. 1 to\n<\/p>\n
3.
\nRamamurthi  &  Co. for the Intervener (State, of  Jammu\t and
\nKashmir).\n<\/p>\n
S.   C. Majumdar for the Intervener (Megalal Chhaganlal\t (P)
\nLtd.).\n<\/p>\n
Vinod  Kumar,  Krishan Lal Mehta and Veneet  Kumar  for\t the
\nintervener.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     167<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMATHEW,\t J. The appellants filed a writ petition before\t the
\nHigh Court of Punjab for the issue of an appropriate writ or
\norder quashing a notice dated June 21, 1961, issued under s.
\n4(1)  of the Punjab Public Premises and Land  (Eviction\t and
\nRent  Recovery)\t Act, 1959, hereinafter\t called\t the  ‘Act’,
\ndirecting  the 2nd appellant to show cause why an  order  of
\neviction should not be passed against him in respect of\t the
\npremises in question.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant’s case was as follows.  On the demise of\t the
\nlate  Maharaja\tBhupinder Singh, his  eldest  son,  Maharaja
\nYadavindra  Singh  succeeded to the gaddi of  the  erstwhile
\nState of Punjab which subsequently merged with the State  of
\nPunjab.\t  Maharaja  Bhupinder  Singh, along  with  his\tsons
\nincluding the appellants, constituted a joint Hindu  family.
\nThe  appellants\t along\twith  the  other  sons\tof  Maharaja
\nBhupinder  Singh had an interest, by virtue of\ttheir  being
\ncoparceners,  in  all the properties of\t Maharaja  Bhupinder
\nSingh.\t The appellants, along with their brothers, were  in
\noccupation of a property known as “colonel Mistry’s  House”,
\nMoti Bagh Palace, Patiala, in their own right as the sons of
\nMaharaja  Bhupinder Singh.  It was an ancestral property  in
\nthe hands of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh and they were residing
\nas members of the family in the said property.\tOn March 10,
\n1958, Maharaja Yadavindra Singh sold Moti Bagh Palace to the
\nGovernment  of\tPunjab, as property belonging  to  him,\t and
\ndelivered actual possession of certain portion and agreed,
\nto  deliver possession of the rest subsequently.  The  State
\nGovernment  was\t not  competent\t to  evict  them  under\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe Act as’ they were  not  in\tunauthorized
\noccupation  of\tany public premises and\t that  the  impugned
\nnotice was issued without jurisdiction.
\nThe  counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2\t was
\nfiled by Sri S. P. Jain, Deputy Secretary to the  Government
\nof  Punjab, and it stated that there was no proof  that\t the
\nappellants  were the sons of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh,\tthat
\nBhupinder and his sons were not members of a Hindu Undivided
\nFamily;\t that the Maharaja and his progeny being  Jats,\t did
\nnot constitute a Joint Hindu Family and that the  appellants
\nnever  acquired any interest by birth in the property.\t The
\ncounter-affidavit  did\tnot  admit  the\t allegation  of\t the
\nappellants that they were in possession of the property as
\ncoparceners.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned single judge came to the conclusion that  since
\nthe  case raised complicated questions of law and  fact,  it
\nwas not\t meet that they should be resolved in  a  petition
\nunder  Act.  226 and that, even if the\tappellants  were  in
\npossession before the date
\n168<\/span>
\nof the sale of the property to the Government, they were  in
\nunauthorised   occupation  of  public  premises\t since\t the
\nappellants   were  not\tholding\t the  property\t under\t any
\nallotment, lease or grant from the Government after the date
\nof the sale deed and dismissed the writ petition.  A letters
\ndetent\tappeal was preferred against this decision and\tthat
\nwas  dismissed in liming.  This appeal, by  certificate,  is
\nagainst the decision of the High Court in the letters patent
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal as originally filed, challenged the\t correctness
\nof the order of the High Court, on the basis of the decision
\nof  this Court in Northern India Caterers Private  Ltd.\t and
\nAnother\t v. State of Punjab and Another<\/a>(1).  But the  Punjab
\nLegislature amended the Act by passing the  Punjab  Public
\nPremises  and  Land (Eviction and Rent\tRecovery)  Amendment
\nAct, 1969.  By s. 102<\/a> of the Amendment Act, the jurisdiction
\nof the Civil Court, among other things, to entertain a\tsuit
\nor  proceeding\tfor  ,eviction\tof  any\t person\t who  is  in
\nunauthorised  occupation of any public premises,  was  taken
\naway.\tOn  their motion, the appellants were  permitted  by
\nthis  Court to amend the appeal petition and  challenge\t the
\nvalidity  of the relevant provisions of the  Amendment\tAct<\/a>,
\nand the appeal petition was amended accordingly.
\nBefore us, the appellants raised two contentions : (1)\tthat
\nthey were in possession of the property in their capacity as
\ncoparceners with Maharaja Yadavindra Singh, or at any  rate,
\nthey were residing in the property with a right of residence
\nin  the\t property as junior members of the  family  and\t the
\nGovernment  cannot,  by resorting to the provisions  of\t the
\nAct,  summarily ,evict them from the property on the  ground
\nthat  they  were  in,  unauthorised  occupation\t of   public
\npremises within the meaning ,of s. 3<\/a> of the Act; (2) that s.
\n10E  of\t the Punjab Public Premises and Land  (Eviction\t and
\nRent  Recovery)\t Amendment  Act,  1969,\t which\tbarred\t the
\njurisdiction  of  the Civil Court to entertain\ta  suit\t for
\nrecovery  of possession of public premises  is\tconstitutio-
\nnally bad.\n<\/p>\n
The  first  question, therefore, is whether  the  appellants
\nwere in unauthorised occupation of public premises.  S. 2(d)
\nof the Act defines ‘public premises’ as under
\n.lm15
\n“public\t premises means any premises belonging to, or  taken
\non  lease  or requisitioned by, or on behalf of,  the  State
\nGovernment.  or\t requisitioned by  the\tcompetent  authority
\nunder the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
\nProperty Act, 1953, and
\n(1)  [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399.\n<\/p>\n
169<\/span><\/p>\n
includes  any  premises\t belonging to  any  district  board,
\nmunicipal   committee,\tnotified  area\tcommittee  or\tpan-
\nchayat.”\n<\/p>\n
S.   3 of the Act deals with what is unauthorised occupation
\npublic premises.  That section says :\n<\/p>\n
“For purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be in
\nunauthorised occupation of any public premises :-
\n“(a)  where he has whether before or after the\tcommencement
\nof this Act, entered into possession thereof otherwise\tthan
\nunder and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant; or
\n” (b) where he, being an allottee, lease or grantee, has, by
\nreason\t of  the  determination\t or  cancellation   of\t his
\nallotment,  lease or grant in accordance with the  terms  in
\nthat  behalf  therein contained, ceased, whether  before  or
\nafter the commencement of this Act, to be entitled to occupy
\nor hold such public premises.\n<\/p>\n
”  (c)\twhere  any person authorised to\t occupy\t any  public
\npremises has, whether before or after the corn.us Act;\n<\/p>\n
(i)  sublet  in\t contravention of the  terms  of  allotment,
\nlease  or  grant,  without  the\t permission  of\t the   State
\nGovernment  or\tof any other authority competent  to  permit
\nsuch  sub-letting  the\twhole or any  part  of\tsuch  public
\npremises;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) otherwise\tacted in contravention of any of  the  terms
\nexpress\t or implied, under which he is authorised to  occupy
\nsuch public premises.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation : For purposes of clause (a), a person shall not
\nmerely\tby reason of the fact that he has paid any  rent  be
\ndeemed\tto have entered into possession as allottee,  lessee
\nor grantee.”\n<\/p>\n
S.   4(1)  of  the  Act provides that, if  Collector  is  of
\nopinion\t that any persons are in unauthorised occupation  of
\nany public premises situate within his jurisdiction and that
\nthey  should be evicted, the Collector shall issue,  in\t the
\nmanner provided in subsections (2), (3) and (4), a notice in
\nwriting,  calling upon all persons concerned to\t show  cause
\nwhy an order of eviction should not be made.
\nA person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of
\npublic\tpremises  for  purposes of s. 3<\/a> (a)  where  he\thas,
\nbefore
\n170<\/span>
\nor   after  the\t commencement  of  the\tAct,  entered\tinto
\npossession thereof, otherwise than under and in pursuance of
\nany allotment, lease or grant.\tThe word ‘thereof’ makes  it
\nclear  that the person must have entered into possession  of
\npublic premises before or after the: commencement of the Act
\nin  order  that\t he  may be deemed  to\tbe  in\tunauthorised
\noccupation.  If the appellants were in possession before the
\ndate of the sale of the property to the Government, it could
\nnot  be said that the appellants entered into possession  of
\npublic\tpremises,  for,\t at  the  time\twhen  they  were  in
\noccupation  of\tthe property, the property  was\t not  public
\npremises.   Then it was either the joint family property  or
\nthe  property of the Maharaja, namely, Yadavindra  Singh.
\nThe  property was not public premises before it was sold  to
\nthe Government.\t So if the appellants were in possession  of
\nthe property before it was sold to the Government, it  could
\nnot  be\t said that they entered into  possession  of  public
\npremises  before  or after the commencement of the  Act\t and
\nclause (a) of s. 3<\/a> of the Act cannot obviously apply and the
\nappellants  were  not in unauthorised occupation  of  public
\npremises  within  the  meaning\tof  clause  (a)\t of  s.\t  3<\/a>.
\nTherefore,  the question is, whether the appellants were  in
\npossession  of\tthe  property  before it  was  sold  to\t the
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
It was alleged in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of
\nthe writ petition that the appellants were in possession  of
\nthe  property  in their own right for a number of  years  as
\nsons  of  Maharaja  Bhupinder  Singh;  paragraph  2  of\t the
\ncounter-affidavit stated that the allegation is admitted  to
\nthe extent that the appellants “are, at present residing  in
\nColonel\t Mistry’s  House, Moti Bagh, Patiala.  Rest  of\t the
\npara  is  not admitted”.   There  was  no  denial  of  the
\nallegation  that the appellants, were in possession  of\t the
\nproperty  in their own right as sons of\t Maharaja  Bhupinder
\nSingh.\tIt is difficult to understand how a Deputy Secretary
\nto  the Government of Punjab could have\t personal  knowledge
\nabout  the  actual possession of the  property\tin  question
\nbefore\tthe  sale  deed\t was  executed\tin  favour  of\t the
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants were admittedly in possession of the property
\non  the\t date  of the issue  of\t the-impugned  notice.\t The
\nrespondents  lad  no case that the appellants  entered\tinto
\npossession  of the property after the date of the sale.\t  We
\nare  not very much concerned with the title under which\t the
\nappellants  were in possession; what is really relevant\t for
\nthis  case is whether the appellants were in  possession  of
\nthe property before the date of sale, to the Government.  We
\nthink  that  the case of the appellants that  they  were  in
\npossession  of\tthe  property before it\t was  sold  to\tthe,
\nGovernment must be taken as true.  The learned single  judge
\nalso appears to have proceeded on the same basis.\n<\/p>\n
171<\/span><\/p>\n
Clause (b) of s. 3<\/a> of the Act speaks of an allottee,  lessee
\nor,  grantee, who has, by determination or  cancellation  of
\nhis allotment, lease or grant, in accordance with the  terms
\nin  that  behalf,  ceased,  whether  before  or\t after\t the
\ncommencement  of  the Act to be entitled to occupy  or\thold
\nsuch  public premises.\tIt is clear that for this clause  to
\napply,\tthe  person must be an allottee, lessee\t or  grantee
\nfrom  the Government.  We do not think that this clause\t can
\napply  in  this case as the appellants were  not  allottees,
\nlessees grantees of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
Clause\t(c)  of\t s.  3<\/a> of the  Act  can\t obviously  have  no
\napplication to the case.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants, were not, therefore, in unauthorised occupa-
\ntion  of public premises within the meaning of s. 3<\/a>  of\t the
\nAct.   It  is only if the appellants  were  in\tunauthorized
\noccupation  of public premises that the Collector would\t get
\njurisdiction  to  issue a notice under s. 4(1)<\/a> of  the\tAct.
\nWe,  therefore,\t hold that, the notice\twas  issued  without
\njurisdiction and it has to be quashed and we do so.
\nIn  this  view, we have no occasion to\treach  the  question
\nwhether\t the  impugned provisions of the Amendment  Act<\/a>\t are
\nconstitutionally  valid\t and we do not express\tany  opinion
\nupon  that point.  We set aside the order of the High  Court
\nand allow the appeal with costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
S.B.\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n172<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 66, 1973 SCR (2) 166 Author: K K Mathew Bench: Shelat, J.M., Palekar, D.G., Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien, Dwivedi, S.N., Chandrachud, Y.V. PETITIONER: RAJKUMAR DEVINDRA SINGH & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB […]<\/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-251832","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972 - 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\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-09T14:27:57+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\\\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T14:27:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972\"},\"wordCount\":2029,\"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\\\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972\",\"name\":\"Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T14:27:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972 - 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\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-09T14:27:57+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\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972","datePublished":"1972-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T14:27:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972"},"wordCount":2029,"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\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972","name":"Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T14:27:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-devindra-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-11-september-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajkumar Devindra Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 September, 1972"}]},{"@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\/251832","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=251832"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251832\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251832"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251832"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251832"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}