{"id":253373,"date":"2005-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005"},"modified":"2017-12-27T14:02:31","modified_gmt":"2017-12-27T08:32:31","slug":"ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Ashok Bhan, S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1428 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nRanvir Singh & Anr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/09\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nAshok Bhan & S.B. Sinha\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nW I T H<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4117 OF 2003
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.1429-1435 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.2747-2751 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.2935, 2947-2957 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.3075-3076, 3079, 3083-3094 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.3170-3182 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.3186-3357 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.3359-3369 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.3371-3382 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3384-3394 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.3396-3402 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NOS.3426-3438 OF 2004
\n CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3443-3454 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.3463 OF 2004
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.4908, 7759-62, 7765-7795 OF 2004 <\/p>\n
AND<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5546-5551, 5553-54, 5557-60 & 5562 OF 2005
\n[@ SLP (CIVIL) NOS.12073, 12075, 16318-20, 19846, 19848,
\n19851-52,  19854, 5558,  22411 & 23819 OF 2004]<\/p>\n
AND    <\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5561 OF 2005
\n[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO.17837 OF 2005]<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J  :\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted in the special leave petitions.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThese appeals involving similar questions of fact and law were taken
\nup for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Union of India issued four notifications on or about 13.2.1981,
\n20.2.1981, 13.3.1981 and 31.12.1981 under Section 4(1)<\/a> of the Land
\nAcquisition Act (The Act) for acquisition of various blocks of land situated
\nin village Rithala for construction of supplementary drain, sewage treatment
\nplant, remodeling the Nagloi Drain and planned development of Delhi.  In
\nrelation to the aforementioned acquisitions, four awards were passed being
\n4\/85-86, 20\/82-83, 1\/83-84 and 16\/85-86.  The Land Acquisition Officer in
\nits awards in regard to acquisitions in terms of notifications dated 13.2.1981
\nand 20.2.1981 sub-divided the acquired lands in two blocks and awarded
\ncompensation at the rate of Rs. 3800\/- per bigha\/ Rs. 3.77 per sq. yard for
\nblock A and Rs. 2600\/- per bigha\/ Rs. 2.57 per sq. yard for block B.
\nHowever, in regard to the acquisition in terms of notification dated
\n13.3.1981,  compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 6500\/- per bigha\/
\nRs. 6.45 per sq. yard whereas as regard the acquisition under notification
\ndated 31.12.1981, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 10837\/- per
\nbigha \/ Rs. 10.75 per sq. yard for block A, Rs. 9000\/- per bigha\/ Rs. 8.9 per
\nsq. yard for block B and Rs. 7000\/- per bigha\/ Rs. 6.9 per sq. yard for block
\nC respectively.  Reference having been made to the Civil Court at the
\ninstance of the claimants in terms of Section 18<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act,
\nthe Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation in the following
\nterms:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tDate of Notification\t\tAmount of compensation
\n\t\t\t13.2.1981\t\t\tRs. 20000\/- per bigha\/
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRs. 19.85 per sq. yard<\/p>\n
\t\t\t20.2.1981\t\t\tRs. 10800\/- per bigha\/
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRs. 10\/- per sq. yard<\/p>\n
\t\t\t13.3.1981\t\t\tRs. 10800\/- per bigha\/
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRs. 10\/- per sq. yard<\/p>\n
\t\t\t31.12.1981\t\t\tRs. 21000\/- per bigha\/
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRs. 20.83 per sq. yard<\/p>\n
 \tBeing not satisfied, the parties hereto preferred respective appeals in
\nthe High Court wherein the High Court awarded the following amounts of
\ncompensation:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tDate of Notification\t\tAmount of compensation
\n\t\t\t13.2.1981\t\t\tRs. 67000\/- per bigha\/
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRs. 67 per sq. yard<\/p>\n
\t\t\t20.2.1981\t\t\tRs. 67000\/- per bigha\/
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRs. 67\/- per sq. yard<\/p>\n
\t\t\t13.3.1981\t\t\tRs. 67000\/- per bigha\/
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRs. 67\/- per sq. yard<\/p>\n
\t\t\t31.12.1981\t\t\tRs. 73584\/- per bigha\/
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRs. 73 per sq. yard<\/p>\n
 \tBefore this Court, 179 appeals have been filed by the Union of India
\nand 163 appeals have been filed by the claimants out of which 244 matters
\nwere listed before us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  \tThe representative fact of the matter is being noticed from Civil
\nAppeal No. 2747 of 2004.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 \tIn the award being No. 16\/85-86, 677 claim applications were filed
\nclaiming different amount of compensation.  The Land Acquisition Collector
\nin his awards while determining the market value took into consideration
\nseveral deeds of sale and\/ or awards for acquisition of lands in neighbouring
\nvillages held :\n<\/p>\n
“Keeping in view the above facts and taking into
\naccount of raising trend in the market value of the
\nland, I assess the fair and reasonable market value
\nof the land which kept in Block A is based on
\naverage price of sale deeds mentioned at sarila No.
\n5-11 which comes to Rs. 10837\/- per Bigha.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, I assured the fair and reasonable market
\nvalue of land in Block “A” @ 10, 340\/- making the
\nround figure of Rs. 10837\/- per Bigha, Block “B”
\n@ Rs. 9000\/- per Bigha and Block “C” @ Rs.\n<\/p>\n
7000\/- per Bigha and accordingly awarded the
\nsame.  No compensation is assessed for Gair
\nMumkin Sarak which consists the total land
\nmeasuring 42 Bigha 06 Biswas.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tHe, however, in certain individual cases considered the question
\nrelating to grant of further compensation in view of special features therein.\n<\/p>\n
 \tBefore the Reference Court the claimants relied upon the following
\ndocuments:\n<\/p>\n
(i).\tExhibit P-1 : copy of judgment dated 1.9.1987 in Sher Singh Vs.
\nUnion of India passed by Shri S.R. Goel, Additional District Judge,
\nDelhi in respect of land acquired vide Award No. 20\/82-83 (date of
\nnotification U\/s. 4 dated 20.2.1981).  Market value therein was fixed
\nat the rate of Rs. 20,000\/- per bighas.\n<\/p>\n
(ii).\tExhibit P-II : copy of judgment dated 24.10.1992 in Udai Chand Vs.
\nUnion of India passed by Shri H.R. Malhotra, Additional District
\nJudge, Delhi in respect of land acquired vide Award No. 4\/85-86
\n(Notification U\/s. 4 dated 13.2.1981) wherein the Market Value was
\nfixed at the rate of Rs. 20,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(iii).\tExhibit P-III:  copy of sale deed executed on 9.4.1981 in respect of
\nland measuring 1 bigha out of Khasra No. 967 in village Rithala for a
\ntotal consideration of Rs. 35,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(iv).\tExhibit P-IV:   copy of sale deed executed on 27.7.1981 for 1 bigha of
\nland out of Khasra No. 1217 situated in village Rithala for a
\nconsideration of Rs. 49,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(v).\tExhibit P-V:   copy of sale deed executed on 3.11.1981 in respect of 7
\nBiswas of land out of Khasra No. 133 situated in Village Rithala for a
\nconsideration of Rs. 24,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(vi).\tExhibit P-VI: copy of sale deed executed on 3.11.1981 in respect of 7
\nBiswas of land out of Khasra No. 133 situated in Village Rithala for a
\nconsideration of Rs. 24,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe claimants had also relied upon a circular dated 21.10.1981 as also
\na judgment delivered by Additional District Judge in LAC No. 557 of 1993
\ntitled Pat Ram Vs. Union of India wherein the market value of the land
\nacquired was assessed at  Rs. 21000\/- per bigha.\n<\/p>\n
 \tUnion of India, on the other hand, relied upon the following
\ndocuments which were also marked exhibits before the Reference Court:\n<\/p>\n
(i).\tExhibit R-1: copy of judgment delivered by Additional District Judge
\nin Land Acquisition Collector No. 5\/86 titled as Trilock Chand Vs.
\nUnion of India relating to Award No. 1\/83-84 wherein market value
\nwas fixed at the rate of Rs. 10,800\/- per bigha as on 13.3.1981.\n<\/p>\n
(ii).\tExhibit R-II: copy of judgment delivered by Additional District Judge,
\nDelhi in Land Acquisition Collector No. 57\/83 titled as Jit Ram &
\nOrs. Vs. Union of India relating to Award No. 20\/82-83 of Village
\nRithala wherein the market value of the land was fixed at the rate of
\nRs. 10,800\/- per bigha for all kinds of land.\n<\/p>\n
(iii).\tExhibit R-III: copy of sale deed executed on 28.11.1981 for a piece of
\nland measuring 4 bighas 12 biswas out of Khasra No. 59\/15 situated at
\nVillage Rithala for a consideration of Rs. 46,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(iv).\tExhibit R-IV: copy of the sale deed executed on 5.6.1981 for a piece
\nof land 3-12 bigha comprising in Mustalil No. 58 Kila No. 15 situated
\nat Village Rithala for a consideration of Rs. 32,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(v).\tExhibit R-V: copy of the sale deed executed on 9.2.1981 for 1 bigha 3
\nbiswas of land being part of Khasra No. 6\/17 situated in village
\nRithala for a consideration of Rs. 10,800\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(vi).\tExhibit R-VI: copy of sale deed whereby about 3 bigha 3 biswas of
\nland falling in Khasra No. 58\/14 in village Rithala was sold for a
\nconsideration of Rs. 34,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(vii).\tExhibit R-VII: sale deed executed on 9.2.1981 whereby land
\nmeasuring 1 bigha 3 biswas part of Khasra No. 6\/19 in village Rithala
\nwas sold for a sum of Rs. 10,800\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOut of the aforementioned Exhibits, Exs. R-1, R-III, R-IV, R-V, R-VI
\nand R-VII pertain to portions of the acquired lands.  The High Court,
\nhowever, in its impugned judgment principally relied upon a brochure issued
\nby the Delhi Development Authority in respect of Rohini as also the circular
\nletters issued by the Union of India fixing value of the land for the purpose
\nof computing the stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. R. Mohan, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on
\nbehalf of the Union of India in assailing the impugned judgment would
\nsubmit that the High Court committed a manifest error in solely relying upon
\ntwo documents, viz., Exs. A & B wherein the schedule of rates of developed
\nresidential and commercial land in different areas of Delhi were mentioned
\nas also a brochure of Delhi Development Authority inviting applications for
\npurchase of fully developed lease-hold plots in the adjacent residential
\nscheme without taking into consideration the deeds of sale and other
\njudgments which had been relied upon by the parties before the Reference
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned counsel would contend that the circular letters fixing the
\ncircle rates is inadmissible in evidence and, thus, the High Court has
\ncommitted a manifest error in basing its judgment thereupon.  Reliance in
\nthis behalf has been placed on Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan,
\nDistrict Badaun through its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar and Another<\/a> [(2004)
\n2 SCC 283], Painder Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
\n[(1995) 5 SCC 310], U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and
\nAnother Vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and Others [(1996) 3 SCC
\n124], P. Ram Reddy and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad
\nUrban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 305],
\nLand Acquisition Officer, Eluru and Others Vs. Jasti Rohini (Smt.) and
\nAnother [(1995) 1 SCC 717] and Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue
\nDivisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Others<\/a> [(1994) 4 SCC 595].\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was furthermore urged that the sale deeds produced by the parties
\ncould not have been brushed aside on the ground that the same had not been
\nproved by examining the vendors and vendees thereof in view of the
\nConstitution Bench decision of this Court in Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd.
\nVs. Purya and Others [(2004) 8 SCC 270].  It was argued that the most
\nrelevant piece of evidence for determining the market value as on the date of
\nacquisition would be the sale deeds and in particular pertaining to portions
\nof the acquired lands which having not been taken into consideration by the
\nHigh Court, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned Additional Solicitor General would further contend that
\nsuch market value has to be assessed not only having regard to the
\ncomparable sales method but also having regard to the size of the land, area,
\nother features thereof and several other relevant factors.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the deduction
\nat the rate of 53% or more is permissible in law as the same would vary from
\nplace to place, area to area and extent of development required to be carried
\nout.  Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Land Acquisition Officer,
\nKammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, A.P. vs. Nookala Rajamallu and
\nOthers<\/a> [(2003) 12 SCC 334] and Basavva (Smt.) and Others Vs. Spl. Land
\nAcquisition Officer and Others [(1996) 9 SCC 640].\n<\/p>\n
 \tOur attention was also drawn to a decision of 3-Judge Bench of this
\nCourt in Union of India and Another Vs. Ram Phool and Another [(2003) 10
\nSCC 167] wherein this Court accepted the amount of compensation as made
\nby the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of Rs. 12100\/- per bigha for
\nBlock A, Rs. 12000\/- per bigha for Block B and Rs. 6000\/- per bigha for
\nBlock C and rejected grant of higher compensation by the Reference Court
\nas also the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. R.F. Nariman, Mr. R. Venkataramani and other learned counsel
\nappearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, would submit
\nthat the xerox copies of the deeds of sale produced before the court were not
\nadmissible in evidence and in that view of the matter, the High Court acted
\nwithin its jurisdiction in relying upon the brochure issued by the Delhi
\nDevelopment Authority in respect of the village Rithala which admittedly is
\nadjacent to Rohini which is a fully developed colony.  Rohini, it was urged,
\nwas developed during the period 1961 and 1981 and in that view of the
\nmatter the notifications under Section 4<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act having
\nbeen issued on different dates in the year 1981, the price offered for grant of
\na long term lease by Delhi Development Authority would provide for the
\nbest instance for computation of the amount of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned counsel drew our attention to the fact that if the market
\nvalue of the acquired land was to be determined on the basis of deeds of
\nsale, various factors relevant therefor including distance of the acquired land
\nfrom the land sold, the quality of the land, and other features thereof as well
\nas various other factors were required to be proved by adduction of oral
\nevidence which having not been done, the High Court cannot be said to have
\ncommitted any error in relying upon the brochure issued by the Delhi
\nDevelopment Authority.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned counsel, however, conceded having regard to the
\ndecisions of this Court that the circle rates notified in the circular letters
\nissued by the Union of India for the purpose of fixing the rate of stamp duty
\nwould not be admissible in evidence.\n<\/p>\n
 \tDrawing our attention to a recent decision of this Court in R.P. Singh
\nVs. Union of India & Ors. [since reported in 2005 (6) SCALE 80], Mr.
\nNariman submitted that having regard to the fact that the market value of the
\nland acquired in village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi was determined at the rate
\nof Rs. 7000\/- per bigha in respect of an acquisition made in the year 1961
\nand, thus, this Court may assess the market value of the lands situate in
\nvillage Rithala upon considering the increase therein at the rate of 12% per
\nannum.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn support of the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, the
\nlearned counsel would submit that deduction at the rate of 60% by the High
\nCourt was on a high side as village Rithala was a semi-developed area.  Our
\nattention in this regard has been drawn to a recent decision of this Court in
\nOm Prakash (Dead) By LRs. and Others vs. Union of India and Another<\/a>
\n[(2004) 10 SCC 627] wherein the judgment of the High Court awarding
\ncompensation at the rate of Rs. 82255\/- per bigha for acquisition of the land
\nin the year 1983 was not interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
 \tConcededly, the High Court in its impugned judgment did not place
\nany reliance whatsoever upon the sale instances whereupon strong reliance
\nhas been placed by the parties solely on the ground that neither the vendors
\nnor the vendees thereof had been examined as witnesses.  It has also not
\nplaced any reliance upon any other judgment or award filed by the parties.
\nThe High Court while arriving at the said finding evidently took into
\nconsideration the law as it then stood.  The correctness of the decisions
\nwherein the aforementioned view had been taken was doubted and the
\nmatter was referred to a larger Bench. A Constitution Bench of this Court in
\nCement Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), opined:\n<\/p>\n
“25. Section 51A<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act
\nseeks to make an exception to the aforementioned
\nrule.\n<\/p>\n
26. In the acquisition proceedings, sale deeds are
\nrequired to be brought on records for the purpose
\nof determining market value payable to the owner
\nof the land when it is sought to be acquired.\n<\/p>\n
27. Although by reason of the aforementioned
\nprovision the parties are free to produce original
\ndocuments and prove the same in accordance with
\nthe terms of the rules of evidence as envisaged
\nunder the Indian Evidence Act<\/a>, the L.A. Act<\/a>
\nprovides for an alternative thereto by inserting the
\nsaid provision in terms whereof the certified copies
\nwhich are otherwise secondary evidence may be
\nbrought on record evidencing a transaction. Such
\ntransactions in terms of the aforementioned
\nprovision may be accepted in evidence.\n<\/p>\n
Acceptance of an evidence is not a term of art. It
\nhas an etymological meaning. It envisages exercise
\nof judicial mind to the materials on record.\n<\/p>\n
Acceptance of evidence by a court would be
\ndependent upon the facts of the case and other
\nrelevant factors. A piece of evidence in a given
\nsituation may be accepted by a court of law but in
\nanother it may not be.\n<\/p>\n
28. Section 51<\/a> A of the L.A. Act may be read
\nliterally and having regard to the ordinary meaning
\nwhich can be attributed to the term ‘acceptance of
\nevidence’ relating to transaction evidenced by a
\nsale deed, its admissibility in evidence would be
\nbeyond any question. We are not oblivious of the
\nfact that only by bringing a documentary evidence
\nin the record it is not automatically brought on the
\nrecord. For bringing a documentary evidence on
\nthe record, the same must not only be admissible
\nbut the contents thereof must be proved in
\naccordance with law. But when the statute enables
\na court to accept a sale deed on the records
\nevidencing a transaction, nothing further is
\nrequired to be done. The admissibility of a
\ncertified copy of sale deed by itself could not be
\nheld to be inadmissible as thereby a secondary
\nevidence has been brought on record without
\nproving the absence of primary evidence. Even the
\nvendor or vendee thereof is not required to
\nexamine themselves for proving the contents
\nthereof. This, however, would not mean that
\ncontents of the transaction as evidenced by the
\nregistered sale deed would automatically be
\naccepted. The legislature advisedly has used the
\nword ‘may’. A discretion, therefore, has been
\nconferred upon a court to be exercised judicially,
\ni.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant
\nfactors.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn view of the said latest pronouncement of this Court, thus, the High
\nCourt was required to consider the deeds of sale in their proper perspective
\nfor determining the market values of the acquired land.\n<\/p>\n
 \tContention of Mr. Nariman that the Xerox copies of the deeds of sale
\nproduced by the parties were not admissible in evidence in terms of Section
\n51A<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act is stated to be rejected.  \tThe provisions of
\nthe Indian Evidence Act<\/a> postulate that secondary evidence can be led by the
\nparties in the event primary evidence is not available.  In a case of this
\nnature, however, the claimant-respondents may be aware of the transactions.
\nIndisputably, they did not raise any objection as regard admissibility of the
\nsaid deeds of sale .  The xerox copy of the deeds of sale were marked
\nexhibits without any objection having been taken by the Respondents herein.
\nSuch an objection cannot, therefore, be taken for the first time before this
\nCourt.  [See  R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami
\n& V.P. Temple and Another<\/a>,  (2003) 8 SCC 752 &  Dayamathi Bai (Smt.)
\nvs. K.M. Shaffi<\/a> – (2004) 7 SCC 107].  What would be their evidentiary value
\nmay ultimately fall for consideration by the Court but the said deeds of sale
\ncannot be rejected only on the ground that only Xerox copies thereof had
\nbeen brought on records.  The onus to prove the market value as obtaining
\non the date of notification was on the claimants.  It was for them to adduce
\nevidence to prove their claims by bringing sufficient and cogent materials on
\nrecord so as to enable the court to determine the market value of the
\nacquired land as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4<\/a> of
\nthe Land Acquisition Act.  If the claimants themselves filed Xerox copies of
\nthe deeds of sale or failed to examine any witness to prove the relevant
\nfactors for determining the market value of the land acquired with reference
\nto the said sale instances, they cannot now be permitted to resile therefrom
\nand contend that the said documents should be totally ignored.\n<\/p>\n
 \t  We have noticed hereinbefore the concession of Mr. Nariman as
\nregard inadmissibility of the notification issued by the Union of India
\ndetermining the circle rates.  The notifications issued by the Union of India,
\ntherefore, whereupon strong reliance has been placed by the High Court
\ncannot form the basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands.
\nThis leaves us with the brochure issued by the Delhi Development
\nAuthority.  Before, however, we advert to the rival contentions raised by the
\nparties in this behalf, it may be observed that the Delhi Development
\nAuthority was not a party before the High Court and an application was filed
\nonly before this Court for impleading it as a party.  The Delhi Development
\nAuthority, thus, got no opportunity to raise any contention as to why the sale
\nbrochure should not be considered to be a determinative criterion for the
\npurpose of fixation of market value of the lands in question.  We may,
\nfurthermore, notice that a housing scheme at Rohini was floated by the Delhi
\nDevelopment Authority.  The lands at Rohini were agricultural in nature.
\nThey were acquired in the year 1961.  It became a residential area at the time
\nof issuance of the notification in question issued under Section 4<\/a> of the Land
\nAcquisition Act.  The approximate population of Rohini was 8,50,000.
\nThere were work centres.  Major facilities like health, education, social and
\ncultural were thence available.  The provisional rates for land in the said
\nbrochure  were notified as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Size of plot in
\nsq. mts.\n<\/p>\n
Category
\nRate per sq. mt.\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
EWS\/JANTA
\nRs. 100
\n32<\/span>
\nLIG
\nRs. 125
\n48<\/span>
\nLIG
\nRs. 150
\n60<\/span>
\nMIG
\nRs. 200
\n90<\/span>
\nMIG
\nRs. 200″\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe High Court without having regard to different sizes and different
\ncategories of land separately took into consideration the value of 48 sq. mts.
\nof land at the rate of Rs. 150\/- per sq. mtr.  It, keeping in view of the fact that
\nthe Delhi Development Authority sought to create lease-hold right whereas
\nupon acquisition of land a free-hold right would be created, multiplied the
\nsaid figure by two and arrived at a conclusion that the market value of 1 sq.
\nmtr. of land at Rohini would be Rs. 300\/-.  The mean figure thereof was
\ntaken at Rs. 200\/- per sq. mts. as wholesale price of free-hold plots in a
\ndeveloped condition.  From the said Rs. 200\/-, 60% had been deducted
\ntowards costs of development and considering the large extent of land, the
\nretail market price was worked out at Rs. 80\/- per sq. mtr.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhile adopting the said method, in our opinion, the High Court
\ncommitted manifest errors.  The market value of fully developed land cannot
\nbe compared with wholly underdeveloped land although they may be
\nadjoining or situated at a little distance.  For determining the market value, it
\nis trite, the nature of the land plays an important role.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Bhim Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2003)
\n10 SCC 529], this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“10. It was next submitted that the claimants were
\nentitled to higher compensation as the Respondents
\nhad in 1989 auctioned plots of land at the rate of
\nRs. 1725 to Rs. 2510 per square yard. In our view
\nthis submission merely needs to be stated to be
\nrejected. What price is fetched after full
\ndevelopment cannot be the basis for fixing
\ncompensation in respect of land which was
\nagricultural.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court did not consider any relevant criteria on the basis
\nwhereof it could come to the conclusion that the value of the freehold lands
\nwould be double of the value of the leasehold lands.  The fact that in terms
\nof the brochure the leasehold was to be a perpetual one and the ground rent
\npayable therefor was absolutely nominal being Re.1\/- per plot per annum for
\nthe first five years and thereafter at the rate 2 =% of the total amount of the
\npremium, which was to be enhanced only after every 30 years, was a
\nrelevant factor which should have been taken into consideration for arriving
\nat a finding in that behalf.  It is worth noting that the terms and conditions
\nwere set out for sale by the Delhi Development Authority on behalf of the
\nPresident of India of perpetual lease-hold rights in the residential plots under
\nthe Rohini Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
 \tA large amount of money was spent for development of Rohini over a
\nperiod of 20 years.  A large area has been earmarked for schools, hospitals,
\ncommunity halls, etc.  Many other advantages were also provided.  In law it
\nmay be perceived that the scheme floated by the D.D.A. may
\nnot be viable and as such the possibility of reduction of the rate at a future
\ndate could not be ruled out.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe need not dilate on the relevant criteria for determining the market
\nvalue as the same are no longer res integra.  The relevant factors which were
\nto be taken into consideration for determining the market value have recently
\nbeen stated by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) By Lrs. vs.
\nState of Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 789].  See also Basavva (supra).\n<\/p>\n
 \tFurthermore, it is well-settled that the sale deeds pertaining to portion
\nof lands which are subject to acquisition would be the most relevant piece of
\nevidence for assessing the market value of the acquired lands. [See Land
\nAcquisition Officer (Revenue Division Officer) Nalgonda (A.P.) Vs.
\nMorisetty Satyanarayana and Others (2002) 10 SCC 570]<\/p>\n
 \tFor the purpose of determining the market value, even market
\nconditions prevailing as on the date of notification are relevant.  [See Jasti
\nRohini (supra)]<\/p>\n
 \tThe burden of proof that the acquired land and the land covered by
\nsale transaction bear similar or same potentialities or advantageous features
\nis also on the claimant. [See Jawajee Nagnatham (supra), P. Ram Reddy
\n(supra) and Shaji Kuriakose and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and
\nOthers, (2001) 7 SCC 650]<\/p>\n
 \tSale price in respect of a small piece of land, it is well settled, cannot
\nbe the basis for determination of a market value of a large stretch of land.  In
\nRam Phool (supra), this Court held that an isolated deed of sale showing a
\nvery high price cannot be the sale basis for determining the market value.
\nThe said decision was rendered in relation to a land situated at village
\nPoothkalan which is adjacent to the lands in question.  Even the claimants, it
\nis interesting to note, had exhibited sale deeds in respect to the land situated
\nat village Poothkalan for proving their claim.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe need not dilate upon the other relevant factors in great details
\ninasmuch as in Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL
\nNOS. 6825-26 OF 2003] disposed of this date, we have considered the same
\nat some length.\n<\/p>\n
 \tFurthermore, a judgment or award determining the amount of
\ncompensation is not conclusive.  The same would merely be a piece of
\nevidence.  There cannot be any fixed criteria for determining the increase in
\nthe value of land at a fixed rate.  We, therefore, are unable to accept the
\ncontention of Mr. Nariman that as in one case we have fixed the valuation of
\nRs. 7000\/- per bigha wherein the lands were acquired in the year 1961,
\napplying the rule of escalation the market rate should be determined by
\ncalculating the increase in the prices at the rate of 12% per annum.  We do
\nnot find any justifiable reason to base our decision only on the said criteria.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn any event, the claimants having not examined any witness, it
\ncannot be accepted that the village Rithala was a semi-developed area or it
\nhad a great potentiality.\n<\/p>\n
 \tKeeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the
\nopinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and accordingly
\nthe same are set aside.  The matters are remitted to the High Court for
\nconsideration of the matter afresh.  The High Court shall proceed to
\ndetermine the market value of the acquired land upon taking into
\nconsideration the materials on record and all other relevant factors necessary
\nfor determining the market value of the lands in question.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThese appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions.
\nHowever, we would request the High Court to consider the desirability of
\ndisposing of the appeals as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
\nperiod of six months from the date of communication of this order and
\nreceipt of records. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: Ashok Bhan, S.B. Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1428 of 2004 PETITIONER: Ranvir Singh & Anr. RESPONDENT: Union of India DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/09\/2005 BENCH: Ashok Bhan & S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-253373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRanvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005 - 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\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-27T08:32:31+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-27T08:32:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4626,\"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\\\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005\",\"name\":\"Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-27T08:32:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005 - 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\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-27T08:32:31+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-27T08:32:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005"},"wordCount":4626,"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\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005","name":"Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-27T08:32:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranvir-singh-anr-vs-union-of-india-on-7-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005"}]},{"@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\/253373","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=253373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253373\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}