{"id":255694,"date":"2010-06-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-26T03:08:23","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T21:38:23","slug":"fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: . B Chauhan<\/div>\n
Bench: B.S. Chauhan, T.S. Thakur<\/div>\n
                                                            REPORTABLE\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n             CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5292 OF 2004\n\n\nFULJIT KAUR                                      .... Appellant\n\n     VERSUS\n\nSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.                           .... Respondents\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.   This is a unique case which reveals that an influential<\/p>\n
person can have allotment of a residential plot in discretionary<\/p>\n
quota within 48 hours of submission of application and then<\/p>\n
assert in Court that she has a right to have a land on a<\/p>\n
throwaway price and not to deposit the sale price for quarter of<\/p>\n
a century.\n<\/p>\n
\n
2.   This appeal has been preferred against a Judgment and<\/p>\n
Order dated 21.12.1999 in Writ Petition No. 4763 of 1992 of<\/p>\n
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh,
\ndismissing   the    petition   against   the   Demand   Notice   of<\/p>\n
additional price for residential plot.\n<\/p>\n
\n
3.   Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that<\/p>\n
the appellant made an application on 23.02.1987 for allotment<\/p>\n
of a residential plot in Urban Estates, SAS Nagar, Punjab. The<\/p>\n
Administration, vide letter dated 25.02.1987, issued the<\/p>\n
allotment letter in favour of the appellant in respect of plot No.<\/p>\n
702, measuring 400 sq. yards in Sector 70 Urban Estate SAS<\/p>\n
Nagar, making it clear that as the proper calculation could not<\/p>\n
be made and tentative price had not been determined, the<\/p>\n
allottee has to deposit provisional price of Rs. 93000\/- in four<\/p>\n
installments upto 15.10.1989. Subsequently, vide letter dated<\/p>\n
25.03.1992, additional demand of Rs. 2,19,000\/- was made,<\/p>\n
however, instead of depositing the said amount, appellant<\/p>\n
challenged the said Demand Notice by filing Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
4763 of 1992 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana<\/p>\n
contending that the additional demand was arbitrary and<\/p>\n
unreasonable.      A large number of similar cases were also<\/p>\n
pending before the High Court and some had earlier been<\/p>\n
disposed of. However, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant
\nhas been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned<\/p>\n
Judgment and Order dated 21.12.1999 upholding the demand<\/p>\n
dated 25.03.1992. Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\n
4.   Sh. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the appellant, has submitted that the High Court committed<\/p>\n
an error in dismissing the said Writ Petition relying upon the<\/p>\n
Judgment of this Court in Preeta Singh & Ors. Vs. Haryana<\/p>\n
Urban Development Authority & Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 756. In<\/p>\n
D.S. Laungia & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. AIR<\/p>\n
1993 Pub.&Har. 54, such unreasonable and arbitrary demand<\/p>\n
had been quashed by the High Court and the State<\/p>\n
Government was issued direction to re-determine the amount<\/p>\n
taking into consideration the provisions of the Punjab Urban<\/p>\n
Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called as, “the<\/p>\n
Rules”) and provisions of Punjab Urban Estates (Development<\/p>\n
and Regulation) Act<\/a>, 1964 (hereinafter called as, “the Act”).<\/p>\n
The said Judgment has attained finality as the State had<\/p>\n
preferred Special Leave Petition against the said Judgment &<\/p>\n
Order before this Court but later on, it was withdrawn. After<\/p>\n
re-determining the additional price, no recovery has been
\nmade from Sh. D.S. Laungia till date. Therefore, the appeal<\/p>\n
deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
5.       On the other hand, Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar, learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the<\/p>\n
appeal contending that the High Court has rightly relied upon<\/p>\n
the Judgment in Preeta Singh (supra).           In D.S. Laungia<\/p>\n
(supra),    the   State   Government,   being    aggrieved,   had<\/p>\n
challenged the said Judgment and Order before this Court by<\/p>\n
filing the Special Leave Petition but it was withdrawn for<\/p>\n
certain reasons.      Therefore, it cannot be held that the<\/p>\n
Judgment in D.S. Laungia (supra) stood approved by this<\/p>\n
Court.     Calculations had been made strictly in consonance<\/p>\n
with the Statutory provisions of the Act and the Rules,<\/p>\n
particularly taking note of Rule 2(aa) and 2(e) of the Rules and<\/p>\n
it is to be recovered from D.S. Laungia also. The High Court<\/p>\n
was fully satisfied regarding determination of the additional<\/p>\n
price and therefore, no fault can be found with impugned<\/p>\n
Judgment and Order.         Hence, the appeal is liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
6.   We have considered the rival submissions made by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.<\/p>\n
7.   The questions do arise as to whether such an order of<\/p>\n
withdrawal    passed     by    this    Court    amounts      to<\/p>\n
confirmation\/approval of the judgment and order of the High<\/p>\n
Court and as to whether appellant could be treated differently.<\/p>\n
8.   There is no dispute to the settled proposition of law that<\/p>\n
dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine by this Court<\/p>\n
does not mean that the reasoning of the judgment of the High<\/p>\n
Court against which the Special Leave Petition has been filed<\/p>\n
before this Court stands affirmed or the judgment and order<\/p>\n
impugned merges with such order of this Court on dismissal<\/p>\n
of the petition. It simply means that this      Court did not<\/p>\n
consider the case worth examining for the reason, which may<\/p>\n
be other than merit of the case. Nor such an order of this<\/p>\n
Court operates as res judicata. An order rejecting the Special<\/p>\n
Leave Petition at the threshold without detailed reasons<\/p>\n
therefore does not constitute any declaration of law or a<\/p>\n
binding precedent. [Vide The Workmen of Cochin Port Trust
\nVs. The Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust & Anr.<\/p>\n
AIR 1978 SC 1283; Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico<\/p>\n
Printing Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen & Anr. AIR 1981 SC<\/p>\n
960; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.<\/p>\n
AIR 1986 SC 1780; Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare<\/p>\n
Association Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 334;<\/p>\n
Yogendra Narayan Chowdhury & Ors. Vs. Union of India &<\/p>\n
Ors. AIR 1996 SC 751;     Union of India & Anr. Vs. Sher<\/p>\n
Singh & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 1796; V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P)<\/p>\n
Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 2000 SC 1623;<\/p>\n
Saurashtra Oil Mills Assn., Gujrat Vs. State of Gujrat &<\/p>\n
Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1130; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jaipal<\/p>\n
Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121; and Y. Satyanarayan Reddy Vs.<\/p>\n
Mandal Revenue Officer, Andhra Pradesh (2009) 9 SCC<\/p>\n
447].\n<\/p>\n
\n
9.      In State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar AIR 1995 SC<\/p>\n
1991, this Court considered a case wherein against the<\/p>\n
judgment and order of the High Court, special leave petition<\/p>\n
was not filed but when other matters were disposed of by the<\/p>\n
High Court in terms of its earlier judgment, the Authorities
\napproached this Court challenging the correctness of the<\/p>\n
same.    It was submitted in that case that if the State<\/p>\n
Authorities had accepted the earlier judgment and given effect<\/p>\n
to it, it was not permissible for the Authority to challenge the<\/p>\n
subsequent judgments\/orders passed in terms of the earlier<\/p>\n
judgment which had attained finality. This Court repealed the<\/p>\n
contention observing that the circumstances for non-filing the<\/p>\n
appeals in some other or similar matters or rejection of the<\/p>\n
SLP against such Judgment in limine by this Court, in some<\/p>\n
other similar matters by itself, would not preclude the State<\/p>\n
Authorities to challenge the other orders for the reason that<\/p>\n
non-filing of such SLP and pursuing them may seriously<\/p>\n
jeopardize the interest of the State or public interest.<\/p>\n
10.   In Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr<\/a>. AIR<\/p>\n
2000 SC 2587, this Court reconsidered the issue and some of<\/p>\n
the above referred judgments and came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
dismissal of special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking<\/p>\n
order may not be a bar for further reconsideration of the case<\/p>\n
for the reason that this Court might not have been inclined to<\/p>\n
exercise its discretion under Article 136<\/a> of the Constitution.
\nThe declaration of law will be governed by Article 141<\/a> where<\/p>\n
the matter has been decided on merit by a speaking judgment<\/p>\n
as in that case doctrine of merger would come into play. This<\/p>\n
Court laid down the following principles:-<\/p>\n
     “(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against
\n     an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other
\n     authority before superior forum and such superior
\n     forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put
\n     in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate
\n     forum merges in the decision by the superior forum
\n     and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative
\n     and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136<\/a> of the
\n     Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first
\n     stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave
\n     to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and
\n     when the leave to appeal is granted and the special
\n     leave petition is converted into an appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or
\n     unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of
\n     jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the
\n     content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable
\n     of being laid shall be determinative of the
\n     applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction
\n     should be capable of reversing, modifying or
\n     affirming the order put in issue before it. Under
\n     Article 136<\/a> of the Constitution the Supreme Court
\n     may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or
\n     order appealed against while exercising its appellate
\n     jurisdiction     and    not    while     exercising   the
\n     discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for
\n     special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can
\n     therefore be applied to the former and not to the
\n     latter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be
\n      a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either
\n      case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An
\n      order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand
\n      substituted in place of the order under challenge. All
\n      that it means is that the Court was not inclined to
\n      exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being
\n      filed.\n<\/p>\n
      (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking
\n      order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of
\n      leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly,
\n      the statement of law contained in the order is a
\n      declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the
\n      meaning of Article 141<\/a> of the Constitution. Secondly,
\n      other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated
\n      in the order are the findings recorded by the
\n      Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto
\n      and also the court, tribunal or authority in any
\n      proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial
\n      discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of
\n      the country. But, this does not amount to saying that
\n      the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has
\n      stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court
\n      rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of
\n      the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res
\n      judicata in subsequent proceedings between the
\n      parties.”\n<\/p>\n
11.   The Court came to the conclusion that where the matter<\/p>\n
has been decided by a non-speaking order in limine the party<\/p>\n
may approach the Court for reconsideration of the case in<\/p>\n
exceptional circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
12.   In view of the above, in the fact-situation of the case in<\/p>\n
D.S. Laungia (supra), question of application of doctrine of<\/p>\n
merger did not arise and even by no stretch of imagination it<\/p>\n
can be held that this Court has approved the judgment in D.S.<\/p>\n
Laungia (supra), rather a different view is required to be<\/p>\n
taken in view of the fact that this Court had expressed doubts<\/p>\n
about the correctness of the impugned Judgment by making<\/p>\n
the following observations :-\n<\/p>\n
      “In the instant matter as also in the matters
\n      enumerated in the letter of Mr. G.K. Bansal, Advocate
\n      for the petitioners dated January 25, 1994, seeking
\n      withdrawal of all these matters, we are constrained
\n      to remark that no reasons have been assigned as to
\n      why the State of Punjab is submitting to the
\n      impugned orders of the High Court which prima
\n      facie appear to us to be unsustainable. The
\n      direct result of the withdrawal would not only be
\n      compounding to an illegality but would otherwise
\n      cause tremendous loss to the State exchequer. We,
\n      therefore, direct that the reasons which impelled the
\n      State to seek withdrawal of these matters be placed
\n      before us in the form of an affidavit by the Chief
\n      Secretary, Punjab or the Secretary of the Department
\n      concerned      justifying   the  step   for   seeking
\n      withdrawal.” (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
13.   The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia<\/p>\n
(supra) in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14<\/a> of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India does not envisage for negative
\nequality. Article 14<\/a> is not meant to perpetuate illegality or<\/p>\n
fraud. Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution has a positive concept.<\/p>\n
Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and<\/p>\n
therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a<\/p>\n
negative manner.        If an illegality and irregularity has been<\/p>\n
committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals<\/p>\n
or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial Forum, others<\/p>\n
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court<\/p>\n
for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality<\/p>\n
or for passing wrong order. A wrong order\/decision in favour<\/p>\n
of any particular party does not entitle any other party to<\/p>\n
claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even<\/p>\n
otherwise Art.14<\/a> cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would<\/p>\n
make    function   of     the   administration   impossible.   [vide<\/p>\n
Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR<\/p>\n
1984 SC 1772; Panchi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.<\/p>\n
(2009) 2 SCC 589; and Shanti Sports Club & Anr. Vs. Union<\/p>\n
of India & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 705].\n<\/p>\n
\n
14.   Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have<\/p>\n
been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such
\norder does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the<\/p>\n
same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Administration & Anr Vs. Jagjit<\/p>\n
Singh & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 705; Smt Sneh Prabha Vs. State<\/p>\n
of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 540; Jalandhar Improvement<\/p>\n
Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1347; State of Bihar<\/p>\n
& Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., AIR 2000 SC<\/p>\n
2306; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2001 SC<\/p>\n
1877; Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT Delhi &<\/p>\n
Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1241; Union of India & Anr. Vs.<\/p>\n
International Trading Company & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 3983;<\/p>\n
M\/s Anand Button Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR<\/p>\n
2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006<\/p>\n
SC 898; and Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Anr. Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 24).\n<\/p>\n
\n
15.   In view of the above, the submissions made by Shri<\/p>\n
Hansaria, Amicus Curiae in this regard are preposterous and<\/p>\n
not worth consideration.\n<\/p>\n
\n
16.   In the instant case, the High Court has taken into<\/p>\n
consideration all statutory provisions and calculations made
\nby    the   respondents   as   under    what   circumstances   the<\/p>\n
“tentative- price” had been fixed and reached the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the demand was justified.         The Court also rejected the<\/p>\n
submissions made on behalf of the allottees that judgment in<\/p>\n
D.S. Laungia (supra) was an authority on the issue.<\/p>\n
17.   Rules 2(aa), 2(e), 4 and 5 of the Rules which have direct<\/p>\n
bearing on the questions raised in this appeal read as under:<\/p>\n
      “2(aa)- `Additional Price’ means such sum of
\n      money as may be determined by the State
\n      Government, in respect of the sale of a site by
\n      allotment, having regard to the amount of
\n      compensation by which the compensation awarded
\n      by the Collector for the land acquired by the State
\n      Government of which the site sold forms a part, is
\n      enhanced by the Court on a reference made under
\n      Section 18<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the
\n      amount of cost incurred by the State Government in
\n      respect of such reference.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2(e)- `tentative price’ means such sum of money as
\n      may be determined by the State Government from
\n      time to time, in respect of the sale of a site by
\n      allotment, having regard among other matters, to the
\n      amount of compensation awarded by the Collector
\n      under Land Acquisition Act<\/a>, 1894 for the land
\n      acquired by the State Government of which the site
\n      sold forms a part.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.    Sale Price:- In the case of sale of a site by
\n            allotment the sale price shall be:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(a) where such site forms part of the land acquired
\n    by the State Government under the Land
\n    Acquisition Act<\/a>, 1894; and<\/p>\n
(i)    no reference under Section 18<\/a> thereof is made
\n       against the award of the Collector of such
\n       reference having been made has failed, the
\n       tentative price.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   On a reference made under Section 18<\/a> thereof
\n       the compensation awarded by the Collector is
\n       enhanced by the Court. The aggregate of the
\n       tentative price and the additional price;<\/p>\n
 (b) in any other case, such final price as may be
\n     determined by the State Government from time to
\n     time.\n<\/p>\n
(2) In case of sale of site by auction the sale price
\n    shall be such reserve price as may be
\n    recommended by the State Government from time
\n    to time or any higher price determined as a result
\n    of bidding in an open auction.\n<\/p>\n
5-A: Liability to pay additional price.\n<\/p>\n
(1) In the case of sale of site by allotment the
\ntransferee shall be liable to pay to the State
\nGovernment in addition to the tentative price, the
\nadditional price, if any determined in respect thereto
\nunder these rules.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The additional price shall be payable by the
\ntransferee within a period of thirty days of the date
\nof demand made in this behalf by the Estate Officer.<\/p>\n
      Provided that the Chief Administrator may in a
\nparticular case, and for reasons to be recorded in
\nwriting allow the applicant to make payment of the
\n      said amount within a further period not exceeding
\n      thirty days.”\n<\/p>\n
\n
18.   A perusal of the above quoted rules shows that the<\/p>\n
“tentative price” means the price determined by the State<\/p>\n
Government from time to time in respect of a sale of site by<\/p>\n
allotment and while doing so, the Government has to take into<\/p>\n
consideration various factors including the amount paid as<\/p>\n
compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\n
19.   The phrase `additional price’ has been defined as the<\/p>\n
price determined by the State Government having regard to<\/p>\n
the enhanced compensation payable to the land owners in<\/p>\n
pursuance of the award passed by the court on a reference<\/p>\n
made under Section 18<\/a> or further appeal under the Act 1894.<\/p>\n
The sale price is the price payable in respect of an allotment of<\/p>\n
site. If the site sold by the competent authority forms part of<\/p>\n
the land acquired by the State Government under the Act<\/p>\n
1894 and no reference under Section 18<\/a> thereof is made<\/p>\n
against the award of the Collector or such reference having<\/p>\n
been made has failed, the sale price is the tentative price as<\/p>\n
defined in Rule 2(e) of the Rules but if the compensation
\nawarded by the Collector is enhanced by the court on a<\/p>\n
reference made under Section 18<\/a> of the Act 1894, then the<\/p>\n
sale price means the aggregate of the tentative price and the<\/p>\n
additional price. If the site allotted by the competent authority<\/p>\n
does not form part of the land acquired by the State<\/p>\n
Government under the Act 1894, then the sale price would<\/p>\n
mean such final price as may be determined by the State<\/p>\n
Government. However, there is nothing in the scheme of the<\/p>\n
Act 1964 and the rules from which it can be inferred that<\/p>\n
tentative price is synonymous with the provisional price, and<\/p>\n
that a person, to whom the plot has been allotted on<\/p>\n
provisional price, cannot be asked to pay the tentative price<\/p>\n
determined by the government. There is a difference between<\/p>\n
the “provisional price” and the “tentative price” and it may<\/p>\n
take a long time for the State to determine the tentative price.<\/p>\n
20.   In the instant case, the calculations had been furnished<\/p>\n
by the respondents as on what basis tentative price had been<\/p>\n
determined.<\/p>\n
\n\n      A.   Cost of land\n\n      1.   Cost of land per acre of Sector 70 SAS\n     Nagar                                    Rs.90,000\/-\n\n2.   Solatium charges @30%                    Rs.27,000\/-\n\n3.   Interest charges from the date of\n     Notification till the date of Award\n     @12% from 1980 to 1984 for 4\n     Years                                    Rs.43,000\/-\n\n4.   Interest charges 15% from 1984 to\n     1990 for 6 years on the cost of land    Rs.1,44,180\/-\n                                             ______________\n\n                                             Rs.3,04,380\/-\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
B.   Cost of Internal and External Development<\/p>\n
 1.  Water Supply @ Rs.1.35 lacs.              Rs.1,35,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 2.  Sewerage @ Rs.59,000\/-                    Rs. 59,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 3.  Sterm Water @ Rs.1,32,000\/-               Rs. 1,32,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 4.  Roads @ Rs.55,000\/- per acre              Rs. 55,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 5.  Bridges & Others @Rs.11,000\/-per acre Rs. 11,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 6.  Horticulture @ Rs.36,000\/- per acre       Rs. 36,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 7.  Street lightening @Rs.15,000\/-per acre    Rs. 15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 8.  Electrification @Rs.15,000\/-per acre      Rs. 15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 9.  Conservancy charges @Rs.9,000\/-per acre Rs.      9,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
10. Utility services @Rs.20,000\/-per acre       Rs. 20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 11. Maintenance & Re-surfacing of roads
\n     for 5 years @ Rs.63,000\/- per acre         Rs. 63,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 12. Maintenance of Public Health service
\n     @ Rs.39,000\/- per acre                      Rs. 39,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 13. Maintenance & Re-surfacing of roads
\n     Beyond 5 years @Rs.45,000\/- per acre        Rs. 45,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 14. Division of H.T. Line@ Rs.7,000\/- per acre Rs.     7,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 15. Earth Filling @Rs.10,000\/- per acre         Rs. 10,000\/-<\/p>\n
                                               _______________
\n                                                 Rs.6,51,000\/-<\/p>\n
C.(Establishment charges@14% + 3% on
\n     the cost of land.                                   Rs. 51,745\/-\n<\/p>\n
      (ii) Interest charges @1% for plotable area(55%)Rs. 2,662\/-\n<\/p>\n
      (iii) Interest charges for 3 years @10% each
\n            Year on development charges              Rs.1,51,200\/-\n<\/p>\n
       (iv) Unforeseen charges as well as escalation
\n            Charges @10%                             Rs.1,16,098\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                     __________________
\n                      Total expenditure per acre         Rs.12,77,064\/-<\/p>\n
          Total Expenditure of 306.59 acres of land
\n          Acquired for Sector 70 SAS Nagar          Rs.39,15,34,824\/-
\n          Saleable area 6,74,233 Sq.yds.\n<\/p>\n
          Rate per sq.yd. 39,15,34,824 = Rs.580\/-\n<\/p>\n
                            6,74,233<\/p>\n
21.   The plots measuring 100 sq.yds. were to be allotted at<\/p>\n
tentative price calculated at subsidized rate of 10% less than<\/p>\n
the reserve price while plots measuring 150, 200 and 250<\/p>\n
sq.yds. were to be allotted at tentative price equal to the<\/p>\n
reserve price. The plots measuring 300 and 400 sq.yds. area<\/p>\n
are to be allotted at tentative price equal to 1-1\/2 times of the<\/p>\n
reserve price and plots measuring 500 sq.yds. were to be<\/p>\n
allotted at tentative price equal to double the reserve price.<\/p>\n
Taking the overall position into account, the Government fixed<\/p>\n
the reserve price at Rs.520\/- per sq.yd. for calculating the<\/p>\n
tentative prices, in the above manner, for plots of various<\/p>\n
sizes.\n<\/p>\n
22.    There   is   nothing   on   record     to    show    that   the<\/p>\n
tentative price     determined     by   the        State   could   be<\/p>\n
unreasonable or arbitrary and it is not the case of the<\/p>\n
allottee that the market value of the land has not been<\/p>\n
enhanced while deciding the reference under the Act 1894.<\/p>\n
While deciding this case, the High Court placed heavy reliance<\/p>\n
upon the judgment of this Court in Preeta Singh (supra)<\/p>\n
wherein after taking note of various statutory provisions of<\/p>\n
Act 1964 and Rules 1965, particularly, Rule 2(aa) and sale<\/p>\n
price as determined in Rule 4, this Court came to the following<\/p>\n
conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
      “7. A conjoint reading of the above Rules would
\n      clearly indicate that the allottee is liable to pay a
\n      sale price including the additional price and the
\n      cost incurred and also the cost of improvement of
\n      the sites. It is to be remembered that the
\n      respondent HUDA is only a statutory body for
\n      catering to the housing requirement of the persons
\n      eligible to claim for allotment. They acquire the
\n      land, develop it and construct buildings and allot
\n      the buildings or the sites, as the case may be.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      Under these circumstances, the entire expenditure
\n      incurred in connection with the acquisition of the
\n      land and development thereon is required to be
\n      borne by the allottees when the sites or the
\n      buildings sold after the development are offered on
\n      the date of the sale in accordance with the
\n      regulations and also conditions of sale. It is seen
\n      that in the notice dated 9-8-1990, the total area, net
\n      area, the payable amount for the gross acreage, the
\n      acreage left for the developmental purpose, balance
\n      recoverable from the plot-holders, plot-table area
\n      have been given for each of the areas and recovery
\n      rate also has been mentioned under the said notice.
\n      Under these circumstances, there is no ambiguity
\n      left in the calculations. If, at all, the appellants had
\n      got any doubt, they would have approached the
\n      authority and sought for further information. It is
\n      not the case that they had sought the information
\n      and the same was withheld. Under these
\n      circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the
\n      action taken by the respondents. The High Court,
\n      therefore, was right in refusing to interfere with the
\n      order.”\n<\/p>\n
\n
23.   In Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate<\/p>\n
Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711, this Court, while considering a<\/p>\n
similar issue, laid down large number of principles including<\/p>\n
the following : –\n<\/p>\n
        “Where the plot\/flat\/house has been allotted at
\n        a tentative or provisional price, subject to final
\n        determination of price on completion of the
\n        project (that is acquisition proceedings and
\n        development      activities),   the    development
\n        authority will be entitled to revise or increase the
\n        price. But where the allotment is at a fixed price,
\n        and a higher price or extra payments are illegally
\n        or unjustifiably demanded and collected, the
\n        allottee will be entitled to refund of such excess
\n        with such interest, as may be determined with
\n        reference to the facts of the case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
24.   In Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. Vs. Sea Shore<\/p>\n
Apartments Owners’ Welfare Association (2008) 3 SCC 21,<\/p>\n
while deciding the similar issue, this Court held as under :-<\/p>\n
        “So far as price is concerned, in 1991, when the
\n        names of applicants were registered, it was
\n        clarified that the price indicated was ‘tentative
\n        price’ and it was subject to ‘final price’ being
\n        fixed by the Board. In any case when the scheme
\n        was altered from seven types to fifteen types
\n        flats, it was stated that the amount shown was
\n        merely tentative selling price. The intending
\n        purchasers, therefore, were aware of the fact
\n        that the final price was to be fixed by the Board.
\n        In fact an agreement to that effect was executed
\n        by all prospective allottees wherein they agreed
\n        that they would pay the amount which would be
\n        finally fixed by the Board…………….In the
\n        circumstances, it cannot be said that the
\n        allottees were not aware of the above condition
\n        and they were compelled to make payment and
\n        thus were treated unfairly or unreasonably by
\n        the Board.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
25.   The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid<\/p>\n
Judgments of this Court and particularly, Preeta Singh<\/p>\n
(supra) and in view thereof, the appeal is liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
26.   Before parting with the case, it may be pertinent to<\/p>\n
mention here that the allotment had been made to the
\nappellant within 48 hours of submission of her application<\/p>\n
though in ordinary cases, it takes about a year. Appellant had<\/p>\n
further been favoured to pay the aforesaid provisional price of<\/p>\n
Rs. 93,000\/- in four installments in two years, as is evident<\/p>\n
from the letter dated 8.4.1987. Making the allotment in such<\/p>\n
a hasty manner itself is arbitrary and unreasonable and is hit<\/p>\n
by Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution. This Court has consistently<\/p>\n
held that “when a thing is done in a post-haste manner,<\/p>\n
malafide would be presumed.” Anything done in undue haste<\/p>\n
can also be termed as “arbitrary and cannot be condoned in<\/p>\n
law.” [vide Dr. S.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &<\/p>\n
Ors. AIR 1981 SC 2181; Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas<\/p>\n
Nigam Ltd. Vs. Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors. (1995) 1 SCC<\/p>\n
638; Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M.<\/p>\n
Kamalia & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1159; and Zenit Mataplast P.<\/p>\n
LTd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009)10 SCC 388].<\/p>\n
     Thus, such an allotment in favour of the appellant is<\/p>\n
liable to be declared to have been made in arbitrary and<\/p>\n
unreasonable manner. However, we are not inclined to take<\/p>\n
such drastic steps as the appellant has developed the land<\/p>\n
subsequent to allotment.\n<\/p>\n
27.   We further find no force in submission made by Sh. Vijay<\/p>\n
Hansaria, Sr. Advocate, that in spite of making recalculation<\/p>\n
in view of the directions issued by the High Court in the case<\/p>\n
of D.S. Laungia (supra), State could not make any recovery<\/p>\n
from Sh. Laungia. This Court, vide order dated 20.05.2010,<\/p>\n
asked the respondents to explain this aspect and file an<\/p>\n
affidavit of the Administrator of the Authority.           In response<\/p>\n
thereto, an Affidavit had been filed by the Chief Administrator,<\/p>\n
Greater Mohali Development Authority, explaining the entire<\/p>\n
position in respect of the allotment and recovery of dues<\/p>\n
furnishing all details and according to this Affidavit, the<\/p>\n
money is being recovered from all defaulters including Shri<\/p>\n
D.S. Laungia along with interest.\n<\/p>\n
\n
28.   In view of the above, we find no force in the appeal, it<\/p>\n
lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.           No order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                                      ……\n<\/p>\n
                                ……………………………J.
\n                                   (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
\n                …………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                   (SWATANTER KUMAR)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,
\nJune 3, 2010.<\/p>\n
\n                                                 REPORTABLE\n\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3546 OF 2007\n\nSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.                    ....   Appellants\n\n     VERSUS\n\nCOL. KULDEEP SINGH                          .... Respondent\n\n\n                        JUDGMENT\n\n\nDr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     We have heard Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar, learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant. In spite of notice, respondent did<\/p>\n
not enter appearance.     We requested Sh. Vijay Hansaria,<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel for the respondent, to assist the Court<\/p>\n
as Amicus Curiae.\n<\/p>\n
\n
     For the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of<\/p>\n
2004 (Smt. Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decided<\/p>\n
on this date, the appeal stands allowed. Judgment and Order<\/p>\n
of the High Court dated 06.12.2006 is set aside and the
\nDemand Notice is upheld. The appellant is entitled to make<\/p>\n
recovery in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                               …………………………………J.
\n                                  (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)<\/p>\n
                               …………………………………J.
\n                                  (SWATANTER KUMAR)
\nNew Delhi,
\nJune 3, 2010.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           2<\/span>\n                                                    REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n\n               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3392 OF 2007\n\n\nSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.                      ....   Appellants\n\n     VERSUS\n\nG.S. RANDHAWA                                 .... Respondent\n\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n\nDr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     We have heard Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar, learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant. In spite of notice, respondent did not<\/p>\n
enter appearance. We requested Sh. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.<\/p>\n
     For the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of 2004<\/p>\n
(Smt. Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decided on this<\/p>\n
date, the appeal stands allowed. Judgment and Order of the High<\/p>\n
Court dated 06.12.2006 is set aside and the Demand Notice is
\nupheld. The appellant is entitled to make recovery in accordance<\/p>\n
with law.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                …………………………………J.
\n                                   (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)<\/p>\n
                                …………………………………J.
\n                                   (SWATANTER KUMAR)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,
\nJune 3, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010 Author: . B Chauhan Bench: B.S. Chauhan, T.S. Thakur REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5292 OF 2004 FULJIT KAUR …. Appellant VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. …. Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. […]<\/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-255694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010 - 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\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-25T21:38:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-25T21:38:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4786,\"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\\\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-25T21:38:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010 - 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\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-25T21:38:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-25T21:38:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010"},"wordCount":4786,"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\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010","name":"Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-25T21:38:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulj1t-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fulj1T Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 June, 2010"}]},{"@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\/255694","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=255694"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255694\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}