{"id":268092,"date":"2009-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2"},"modified":"2017-07-17T14:25:16","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T08:55:16","slug":"om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                                   W.P.(C) No. 3475 of 2004\n\n          Om Narayan Singh @ Tun Tun Singh                                    Petitioner\n                                           Versus\n          1. Union of India represented by General Manager,\n             South Eastern Railway, Kolkata\n          2. The Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway,\n             Tatanagar Railway Station, Jamshedpur                            Respondents\n                                             ---\n          CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik\n\n           For the Petitioner:  M\/s. P.K. Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Ayush Aditya, Advocate\n           For the Respondents: Mr. Pradip Modi, Advocate\n                                              ---\n10. 02.09.2009<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\"> Heard Shri P.K. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri<br \/>\n          Pradip Modi, learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">          2.     The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for an order quashing<br \/>\n          the appellate order dated 13.4.2004 (Annexure-9), by which the Appellate<br \/>\n          Authority had dismissed the petitioner&#8217;s appeal against the order dated 2.9.1993<br \/>\n          (Annexure-4) whereby the respondent authority had passed an order of eviction<br \/>\n          against the petitioner from the premises in question, under the provisions of the<br \/>\n          Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Prayer has also<br \/>\n          been made for quashing the aforesaid order dated 2.9.1993 (Annexure-4) passed<br \/>\n          by the Estate Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">          3.     As it appears from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, a<br \/>\n          similar order was passed against the petitioner for his eviction from the premises<br \/>\n          in question by the Estate Officer on 4.5.1979. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had<br \/>\n          preferred an appeal which was also dismissed and thereafter, the petitioner had<br \/>\n          approached this court by filing a writ application vide CWJC No. 1173 of<br \/>\n          1985(R).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">          4.     After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,<br \/>\n          this court while disposing of the writ application, had by order dated 7.11.1990<br \/>\n          quashed the impugned orders of the Estate Officer and that of the Appellate<br \/>\n          Authority and remanded the case to the Estate Officer with a direction to afford<br \/>\n          one opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their case to<br \/>\n          enable disposal of the matter in accordance with law. A further observation was<br \/>\n          recorded on the basis of the assurance given by the learned counsel for the parties,<br \/>\n          that they would appear before the Estate Officer on the dates specified i.e. on<br \/>\n          23.11.1990, where-after, the Estate Officer shall fix an appropriate date for<br \/>\n          enabling the parties to adduce evidences and shall proceed to dispose of the<br \/>\n          matter in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">          5.     After the matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer, the petitioner<br \/>\n          and the concerned representative of the respondents, appeared before the Estate<br \/>\n          Officer on 23.11.1990, where-after, the Estate Officer had fixed dates for<br \/>\n          enabling the petitioner to adduce evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">6.     Shri P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, while referring<br \/>\nto the copy of the order sheet of the proceedings before the Estate Officer vide<br \/>\nE.C. Case No. 66 of 1978, would inform that though, the petitioner had appeared<br \/>\nbefore the Estate Officer, but almost on every occasion, the Estate Officer was not<br \/>\navailable to hold office on account of his pre-occupation with other matters and<br \/>\nthe proceedings remained adjourned for several dates. Learned counsel submits<br \/>\nfurther that even though, vide order dated 25.6.1993, the Estate Officer fixed the<br \/>\nnext date for hearing on 28.7.1993 and had also directed to inform the date<br \/>\naccordingly to the parties concerned, but no such information was conveyed to<br \/>\nthe petitioner. A similar order was passed on the next date i.e. on 28.7.1993 fixing<br \/>\nthe case for hearing on 2.9.1993 and to inform the date to both the parties, but no<br \/>\nsuch information regarding the date fixed, was conveyed to the petitioner. Yet, by<br \/>\nthe impugned order dated 2.9.1993 (Annexure-4), the Estate Officer had passed<br \/>\nan ex-parte order of eviction against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">       Referring to the impugned order of eviction, as passed by the Estate<br \/>\nOfficer, learned counsel submits that the impugned order suffers from serious<br \/>\nperversity in as much as, the ex-parte order was passed without issuing prior<br \/>\nnotice to the petitioner and furthermore, no discussion on the issues involved in<br \/>\nthe proceedings, was made at all by the Estate Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">       Assailing the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, learned counsel<br \/>\nsubmits that the Appellate Authority has also committed serious error in law by<br \/>\ntotally ignoring the fact that the petitioner was not offered adequate opportunity<br \/>\nof producing evidence and neither was the petitioner informed about the dates<br \/>\nfixed in the case for hearing and yet, the ex-parte order was passed against him<br \/>\nand that too, without assigning adequate reason or recording satisfaction, as<br \/>\nrequired under the law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">7.     Counsel for the respondent Union of India vehemently opposes the prayer<br \/>\nof the petitioner and would want to controvert the entire grounds advanced by the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">       Shri Pradip Modi, learned counsel for the respondents, would want to<br \/>\ninform, by reference to the earlier order passed by this court in the earlier writ<br \/>\napplication, that while remanding the case to the Estate Officer, this Court had<br \/>\ndirected the parties to appear before the court below with a corresponding<br \/>\ndirection to the Estate Officer to afford opportunity to the petitioner to adduce<br \/>\nevidence, but in spite of repeated chances given to the petitioner, no show-cause<br \/>\nreplies at all was filed by the petitioner and neither was any evidence sought to be<br \/>\nadduced. Learned counsel adds that under the provisions of law, lands have been<br \/>\ndeclared as public land and the petitioner having been informed about his<br \/>\nunauthorized occupation and if such occupant fails to offer any explanation as to<br \/>\nunder what circumstances, he comes in unauthorized possession of the land, the<br \/>\nconcerned authorities of the respondents can have the competence to issue an<br \/>\norder of eviction straightway against the encroacher. Learned counsel in this<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>context, would refer to the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises<br \/>\n(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and argue that the grounds<br \/>\nadvanced by the petitioner alleging that he was not provided adequate opportunity<br \/>\nof being heard, is misleading, as it would appear from the impugned order of the<br \/>\nEstate Officer itself which indicates that the petitioner was given advance<br \/>\ninformation regarding the dates fixed and yet, the petitioner did not choose to<br \/>\nappear before the Estate Officer or to adduce any evidence or even to file show-<br \/>\ncause replies. The Appellate Authority had considered this ground and after<br \/>\nperusing the records, had dismissed the appeal by assigning reasons and thus, the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s claim of not being informed about the dates fixed or not being<br \/>\nafforded adequate opportunity, is therefore, not tenable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">       Shri Modi would further submit that the purview of a writ application<br \/>\nunder <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution is limited only to see as to whether the<br \/>\nimpugned order suffers from any perversity, illegality or infirmity and since<br \/>\napparently, there is no such infirmity or illegality pointed out by the petitioner,<br \/>\nthis writ application is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel adds further that<br \/>\neven if petitioner would have been able to point out some error or perversity in<br \/>\nthe impugned orders, yet, this court has to see as to whether any substantial<br \/>\ninjustice has been caused by the purported error or perversity and if no such<br \/>\nsubstantial injustice has been caused, then this court should not interfere with the<br \/>\nimpugned orders. Learned counsel refers in this context to the Division Bench<br \/>\nJudgments passed by the Patna High Court in the case <a href=\"\/doc\/240789\/\" id=\"a_1\">Vijay Kumar vs. State of<br \/>\nBihar<\/a> [1993 (1) PLJR 99] and in the case of Sheikh Abraham vs. State of<br \/>\nBihar [1993(1) PLJR 255].\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">8.     Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also having gone through<br \/>\nthe impugned orders, I find that, while disposing of the earlier writ application,<br \/>\nthis court had quashed the earlier impugned orders of the Estate Officer and that<br \/>\nof the Appellate Court and had given the petitioner an opportunity of producing<br \/>\nevidence in the proceeding before the Estate Officer. The intention apparent in the<br \/>\norder of this court passed by the Division Bench was to enable the parties a<br \/>\nreasonable opportunity of being heard and also to enable the Estate Officer to<br \/>\nconsider the evidences, if adduced by the parties, and to take an appropriate<br \/>\ndecision on the basis of such evidences.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">9.     From the copy of the order sheet annexed to the writ application,<br \/>\npertaining to the proceedings before the Estate Officer which was resumed after<br \/>\nremand of the case, it appears that though, the parties hade appeared before the<br \/>\nEstate Officer on 21.5.1993 and dates were fixed thereafter by the Estate Officer<br \/>\nto enable the parties to adduce evidence, but on each of such dates, the<br \/>\nproceeding could not be taken up on account of absence of the Presiding Officer<br \/>\nand this feature continued for almost three years. The order dated 25.6.1993<br \/>\nindicates that the case was fixed for hearing of both the parties on 28.7.1993 and<br \/>\nthe Estate Officer had directed the office to inform the next date to the parties. On<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the next date i.e. on 28.7.1993, though, the representative of the petitioner therein,<br \/>\nnamely, the Works Supervisor was present, but the opposite party namely, the<br \/>\npetitioner in the present writ application, was not present. The matter was<br \/>\nadjourned to 2.9.1993 for evidence with a further direction that it be informed to<br \/>\nboth the parties. In the order sheet, it is nowhere recorded that the information<br \/>\nconveying the next date fixed in the case, was sent or served upon the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">10.    Furthermore, from the impugned order dated 2.9.1993, it appears that the<br \/>\ncase was taken up for ex-parte order and while doing so, the Estate Officer had<br \/>\nrecorded his order in the following manner:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>                       &#8220;Now, I take up the case for exparte decision and Eviction<br \/>\n                   Order dated 18.5.1979 passed by the then Estate Officer, South<br \/>\n                   Eastern Railway, Bilaspur at Chakradharpur in this case under<br \/>\n                   Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized<br \/>\n                   Occupants) Act, 1971, hereby confirmed under the facts and<br \/>\n                   circumstances of the case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>                       Copy of the order sheet send to the petitioner department<br \/>\n                   and opposite party for serving according to the rules&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_14\">11.    It is manifest from a bare reading of the aforesaid order that the Estate<br \/>\nOfficer has proceeded to confirm the order, which was earlier set aside by the<br \/>\norder of this court passed in the earlier writ application. The Estate Officer has<br \/>\nnot discussed the materials placed on record, nor has recorded his satisfaction for<br \/>\npassing the order of eviction against the present petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">12.    From perusal of the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, it appears<br \/>\nthat though, the petitioner had pleaded the aforesaid ground but the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority did not consider the same in proper perspective and had allowed itself<br \/>\nto be swayed by the purported claim of the respondent that despite being granted<br \/>\nseveral opportunities, the petitioner intentionally failed to appear and submit his<br \/>\nshow-cause replies and evidences in the proceedings before the Estate Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">13.    As was observed above, even if the Estate Officer had reason to decide the<br \/>\ncase ex-parte, but the final decision could be taken and order could have been<br \/>\npassed only after discussing the materials before him and after recording his<br \/>\nsatisfaction that the materials brought before him do justify the order of eviction<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner, from the lands under reference.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">14.    In the light of the above facts, I find that the impugned order of the Estate<br \/>\nOfficer suffers from serious perversity and infirmity. Accordingly, the impugned<br \/>\norder of Estate Officer as contained in Annexure-4 and of the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority as contained in Annexure-9, are hereby quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">15.    The matter is remanded back to the Estate Officer with a corresponding<br \/>\ndirection both to the petitioner and to the opposite party to appear before the<br \/>\nEstate Officer on 10th September 2009. The petitioner shall submit his show-<br \/>\ncause replies, if any, on that date. Where-after, the Estate Officer shall fix a date<br \/>\nwithin one week from the date of appearance of the parties to enable them to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       adduce evidence, if any and within two months from the date of this order, shall<br \/>\n       take a final decision in the matter by passing a reasoned and speaking order in<br \/>\n       accordance with law. If the petitioner does not comply with the order in the terms<br \/>\n       stated above, or fails to file his show-cause replies or to adduce evidence on the<br \/>\n       date fixed and within the period granted by the Estate Officer, then it will be<br \/>\n       deemed that the petitioner does not want to raise any defence and thereafter, the<br \/>\n       Estate Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.<br \/>\n       This order shall, however, be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000\/- by the<br \/>\n       petitioner to the counsel for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">                                                                   (D.G.R. Patnaik, J)<br \/>\nRanjeet\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3475 of 2004 Om Narayan Singh @ Tun Tun Singh Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India represented by General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata 2. The Estate Officer, South [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T08:55:16+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T08:55:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":2014,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T08:55:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T08:55:16+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T08:55:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2"},"wordCount":2014,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2","name":"Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T08:55:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-narayan-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Om Narayan Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 2 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268092","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=268092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}