{"id":28831,"date":"2002-12-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002"},"modified":"2018-08-21T10:11:49","modified_gmt":"2018-08-21T04:41:49","slug":"r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: J M Member, R Rao, B Taimni<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p> B.K. Taimni, Member  <\/p>\n<p>1. The Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed<br \/>\na complaint alleging negligence on the part of Respondent, Ludhiana Improvement<br \/>\nTrust.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner in response to an<br \/>\nadvertisement floated by the Respondent in a newspaper in the year 1976 applied for<br \/>\nallotment of a plot measuring 150 sq. yards. He deposited Rs. 600\/- as earnest money.<br \/>\nSince he was neither allotted a plot then nor under any of the scheme thereafter<br \/>\nproviding for the allotment for old applicants, a complaint was filed by the petitioner<br \/>\nbefore the District Forum praying for directions to the Respondent for allotment of plot<br \/>\nmeasuring 150 sq. yard in any scheme at old rates i.e. of 1976 and compensation of<br \/>\nRs. 2,00,000\/-. The District Forum after hearing the parties held that plea taken by the<br \/>\ncomplainant &#8211; much after filing the complaint. written version filed by the Respondent<br \/>\nand rejoinder filed by the complainant &#8211; that the original scheme provided for &#8216;first come<br \/>\nfirst served&#8217; cannot be entertained now, on the well accepted principle that the<br \/>\ncomplainant cannot go beyond his pleadings. This ground was neither pleaded in the<br \/>\ncomplaint and nor taken in the rejoinder filed by the complainant. District Forum,<br \/>\nhowever, held that in the light of proviso to Rule 4 of &#8216;The Punjab Town Improvement<br \/>\nTrust (utilisation of land &amp; Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, the complainant should have<br \/>\nbeen allotted a plot. Not doing so is a deficiency on the part of the Respondent, hence,<br \/>\nthe Respondent was directed to include the name in the list of persons for draw of lots in<br \/>\nany subsequent scheme in which plots of 150 sq. yard are allotted by the<br \/>\nRespondent\/Opposite Party. Not being satisfied with the above relief, Petitioner filed an<br \/>\nappeal before the State Commission who after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal,<br \/>\nhence this Revision Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. It is argued by the Petitioner that there is no dispute that the Complainant&#8217;s<br \/>\nRegistration No. was 26 of 1976. Scheme for allotment was &#8216;First come First Get&#8217;. He<br \/>\nwas not allotted any plot even when his name was high on the list of those who<br \/>\nregistered themselves under the same scheme; He has not been allotted a plot even<br \/>\nunder any of the subsequent schemes. Only in compliance of the order of the District<br \/>\nForum\/State Commission has the name of the Petitioner been included in Shahede<br \/>\nAzam Sardar Bhagat Singh Nagar. His grouse now is that he should be charged the<br \/>\n1976 prices of the plot as it was on account of deficiency of the Respondent that no plot<br \/>\nwas allotted to him. On the other hand it is argued by the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nRespondent that the orders of both the lower forums are correct and are as per law<br \/>\nwhich needs to be maintained.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. We heard the arguments of parties yet on request, learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nparties were given two days time to give their arguments in writing. This not having been<br \/>\ndone, we go on to decide on the basis of material on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. We have seen the voluminous material on record and heard the arguments. We<br \/>\nfind that there is no dispute that the Complainant did register himself for allotment of a<br \/>\nplot of 150 sq yard with the Respondent in 1976 and paid earnest money of Rs. 600\/-.<br \/>\nThe plea that allotment was to be made in &#8216;First Come First Served&#8217; basis was neither<br \/>\nreferred to in the complaint nor in the rejoinder filed by the Complainant, whereas there<br \/>\nis a specific reference to draw of lots for application received in 1976, in which the name<br \/>\nof the Petitioner was included but he was not successful. In the rejoinder filed by the<br \/>\nPetitioner, the fact of draw of lot is neither contradicted nor challenged. Further, neither in the<br \/>\nappeal filed before the State Commission nor in the Revision Petition filed before the<br \/>\nNational Commission, has the Petitioner, who is a lawyer by profession, countered the<br \/>\nproposition of law that the Complainant cannot go beyond its pleadings which is well<br \/>\nsettled law. No effort\/attempt to file a revised complaint is on record to revise the<br \/>\ncomplaint to contain the Complainant&#8217;s later averments on this point. Hence, we agree<br \/>\nwith the District Forum that the Petitioner can not be allowed to go beyond his pleadings.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. The thrust in the rejoinder filed before the District Forum and in the menu of<br \/>\nappeal filed, before the State Commission appears to be that the Respondent should<br \/>\nhave included his name for draw of lots framed under &#8216;Punjab Town Improvement<br \/>\n(Utilisation of Land allotment of plots) Rules, 1983. The District Forum has given relief,<br \/>\nin view of no action by the Respondent under the proviso of Rule 4 of these Rules. In<br \/>\nour view the District Forum erred in this regard. Rule 11(4) of the same Rule read as<br \/>\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Every person whose application for allotment of residential plot of multi-storeyed<br \/>\nLease is pending with any Trust on the commencement of these rules shall also<br \/>\nbe  required to apply afresh for allotment of residential plot of multi-storeyed<br \/>\nhouse, as the case may be in Form &#8216;B&#8217; in accordance with his eligibility as<br \/>\nspecified in Rule 10.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner applied afresh for allotment<br \/>\nof plot to take advantage of these rules. It is only after an application made that he<br \/>\nwould have been eligible to have his name included for allotment following procedure<br \/>\nunder Rule 12. Point of limitation has also been raised in the affidavit filed by the<br \/>\nChairman, Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Admitted position of law is that law<br \/>\npoint\/question of limitation can be raised at any stage. Admitted position is application<br \/>\nwas made for allotment of plot in 1976 by the Complainant. Draw of lots was held on<br \/>\n30.7.76. The Complainant was not successful. Cause of action thus arose in 1976.<br \/>\nNext time, action taken by the Petitioner in only in 1982 by way of requesting the<br \/>\nRespondent to look into the matter. Any amount of correspondence does not extend<br \/>\nthe limitation. Complaint is filed only in September, 1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. Be that as it may, we find that the Petitioner has no case to claim a plot on 1976<br \/>\nprices. District Forum and the State Commission in our view have &#8211; interpreted the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Rules generously. Record also shows that the Petitioner has been<br \/>\noffered, to be included in the list of applicants in a new scheme in pursuance of the<br \/>\norders of the lower forums. The petitioner is not entitled to any other relief. This<br \/>\nRevision Petition is devoid of merits, hence, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their<br \/>\nown costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>National Consumer Disputes Redressal R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002 Bench: J M Member, R Rao, B Taimni ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member 1. The Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed a complaint alleging negligence on the part of Respondent, Ludhiana Improvement Trust. 2. Briefly, the [&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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002 - 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\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-12-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-21T04:41:49+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-21T04:41:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1141,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002\",\"name\":\"R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-21T04:41:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002 - 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\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-21T04:41:49+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-21T04:41:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002"},"wordCount":1141,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002","name":"R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-21T04:41:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-sharma-vs-ludhiana-improvement-trust-on-30-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.G. Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 30 December, 2002"}]},{"@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\/28831","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=28831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}