{"id":37587,"date":"2008-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-21T00:22:49","modified_gmt":"2018-06-20T18:52:49","slug":"janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008<\/div>\n
             C.W.P No.1155 of 2008                         1\n\n             In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.\n\n\n                                             C.W.P No.1155 of 2008\n\n                                             Date of Decision: 18.12.2008\n\n\nJanak Raj and others\n                                                    ....Petitioners.\n\n               Versus\n\nState of Haryana and others\n                                                    ....Respondents.\n\n\nCoram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar\n        Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur\n\n\nPresent: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate\n         for the petitioners.\n\n          Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG, Haryana\n          for the State.\n\n          Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate\n          for respondents No.5 to 9.\n                   ...\n<\/pre>\n
J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).\n<\/p>\n
             The case set up by the petitioners before us is, that the<\/p>\n
petitioners’ predecessors in interest entered into an agreement to sell dated<\/p>\n
7.12.1979, wherein the property in question (over which the petitioners’<\/p>\n
predecessors were tenants) was sought to be purchased by the petitioners’<\/p>\n
predecessors from Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass. Ram Piari and Bhagwan<\/p>\n
Dass, however, admittedly did not transfer the ownership of the land in<\/p>\n
question by executing any registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners’<\/p>\n
predecessors. The petitioners’ predecessors, therefore, filed a civil suit at<\/p>\n
Karnal. In the aforesaid civil suit filed by the petitioners’ predecessors, they<\/p>\n
claimed specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979.
\n              C.W.P No.1155 of 2008                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
             The claim raised by the petitioners’ predecessors on the basis of<\/p>\n
the agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979, was dismissed by the trial Court at<\/p>\n
Karnal, by a judgement\/decree dated 24.1.1983. The trial Court arrived at<\/p>\n
the conclusion, that the petitioners’ predecessors had failed to prove, that the<\/p>\n
agreement to sell had been executed (by the petitioners’ predecessors) in<\/p>\n
respect of the land, which is subject matter of the present controversy. It is<\/p>\n
not a matter of dispute, that an appeal was preferred by the petitioners’<\/p>\n
predecessors against the judgement\/decree dated 24.1.1983 before the lower<\/p>\n
Appellate Court, and yet again (after the dismissal of the same by the lower<\/p>\n
Appellate Court), before this Court. This Court eventually dismissed RSA<\/p>\n
No.716 of 1986 on 16.5.1986. It is, therefore, clear that the claim of the<\/p>\n
petitioners’ predecessors on the basis of the agreement to sell dated<\/p>\n
7.12.1979 failed, and as such, the claim of the petitioners’ predecessors on<\/p>\n
the basis of the agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979, became final.           The<\/p>\n
petitioners, therefore, can no longer rely on the agreement to sell dated<\/p>\n
7.12.1979, so as to claim any relief.\n<\/p>\n
             Whilst Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass were owners of the land<\/p>\n
under reference, they filed an application for ejectment against the<\/p>\n
petitioners herein on account of non-payment of rent. The instant<\/p>\n
application was filed on 30.10.1986. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade,<\/p>\n
Karnal, allowed the aforesaid application by passing an ex parte order<\/p>\n
against the petitioners on 23.2.1987. The petitioners preferred an appeal<\/p>\n
against the order dated 23.2.1987 before the Collector, Karnal. The<\/p>\n
Collector, Karnal, accepted the appeal preferred by the petitioners on<\/p>\n
14.7.1987, and remanded the matter for re-adjudication to the Assistant<\/p>\n
Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal.\n<\/p>\n
              C.W.P No.1155 of 2008                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
             During the pendency of the ejectment proceedings initiated<\/p>\n
against the petitioners by the original landlords, part of the aforesaid land<\/p>\n
was purchased by respondents No.5 to 9 (herein) on 14.10.1987. Having<\/p>\n
done so, respondents No.5 to 9 moved an application before the Assistant<\/p>\n
Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal, seeking to be impleaded as parties in the<\/p>\n
ensuing litigation as they had allegedly stepped into the shoes of the<\/p>\n
previous landlords. The aforesaid application came to be dismissed by the<\/p>\n
Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal, on 2.3.1989, and the appeal filed<\/p>\n
against the order dated 2.3.1989 was dismissed by the Collector, Karnal on<\/p>\n
5.8.1989.\n<\/p>\n
             The entire remaining land, which is subject matter of the<\/p>\n
present controversy, was purchased by respondents No.5 to 9 (herein)<\/p>\n
through two subsequent sale deeds dated 12.11.1990 and 13.2.1991.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, respondents No.5 to 9 completely stepped into the shoes of the<\/p>\n
earlier landlords i.e. Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass.\n<\/p>\n
             Having acquired ownership rights in respect of the suit land,<\/p>\n
respondents No.5 to 9 then preferred a civil suit, seeking possession of the<\/p>\n
land in question from the petitioners (herein) by alleging, that the petitioners<\/p>\n
were in unauthorised possession of the suit land. The aforesaid suit filed by<\/p>\n
respondents No.5 to 9 at Karnal, was dismissed on 23.12.2002. It is not a<\/p>\n
matter of dispute, that the aforesaid order dated 23.12.2002 eventually<\/p>\n
attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the same.<\/p>\n
             For the first time, respondents No.5 to 9 filed an application for<\/p>\n
ejectment under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,<\/p>\n
1953, on the ground of non-payment of rent. It is important to notice, that<\/p>\n
the conceded position before this Court at the hands of the petitioners is,
\n              C.W.P No.1155 of 2008                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
that the petitioners had not paid any rent since the year 1979 onwards. It is<\/p>\n
also conceded, that consequent upon the filing of the aforesaid application<\/p>\n
by respondents No.5 to 9 (herein) the petitioners actually did not pay any<\/p>\n
rent to respondents No.5 to 9.\n<\/p>\n
             The ejectment application was contested, firstly, by asserting<\/p>\n
that the petitioners had acquired ownership rights over the land in question.<\/p>\n
The claim of ownership raised in response to the ejectment application, was<\/p>\n
based on adverse possession. It was asserted that the petitioners were in<\/p>\n
occupation of the land in question, and had not paid any rent since the year<\/p>\n
1979, and as such, they could no longer be treated as tenants. Secondly, it<\/p>\n
was claimed by the petitioners, that the petitioners, having entered into an<\/p>\n
agreement to sell with the earlier landlords, namely, Ram Piari and<\/p>\n
Bhagwan Dass, their relationship of landlord and tenant with Ram Piari and<\/p>\n
Bhagwan Dass had come to an end. On the instant issue, the petitioners<\/p>\n
placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in R.<\/p>\n
Kanthimathi Vs. Mrs. Beatrice Xavier, 2003(2) PLJ 211. The third<\/p>\n
contention, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the<\/p>\n
action of the petitioners in not paying rent to respondents No.5 to 9 was<\/p>\n
bonafide, it was alternatively pleaded, that in case the petitioners (herein)<\/p>\n
are declared to be tenants, they would be ready and willing to discharge<\/p>\n
their responsibility and pay arrears of rent, interest, as well as, costs. It is<\/p>\n
only these three submissions, which have been pressed at the hands of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
             In so far as, the issue pertaining to adverse possession is<\/p>\n
concerned, the petitioners are estopped in law from raising the same after<\/p>\n
having acknowledged, that they entered the possession over the land in
\n             C.W.P No.1155 of 2008                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
question as tenants of Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass. In so far as the present<\/p>\n
proposition is concerned, reliance may be placed on Section 116 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the 1872 Act). Section<\/p>\n
116 of the aforesaid Act is being reproduced hereunder: —<\/p>\n
            “116.    Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in<\/p>\n
            possession: – No tenant of immovable property, or person<\/p>\n
            claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of<\/p>\n
            the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such<\/p>\n
            tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such<\/p>\n
            immovable property; and no person who came upon any<\/p>\n
            immovable property by the license of the person in possession<\/p>\n
            thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had title to<\/p>\n
            such possession at the time when such license was given.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
On account of the clear mandate of Section 116 of the 1872 Act, since it is<\/p>\n
not disputed by the petitioners, that Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass were<\/p>\n
originally owners of the land in question, and that, the predecessors in<\/p>\n
interest of the petitioners were tenants under them, and that, the petitioners<\/p>\n
had acquired the rights from their predecessors, who were tenants under<\/p>\n
Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass, we are satisfied that the claim of adverse<\/p>\n
possession, raised by the petitioners, is wholly frivolous, specially because<\/p>\n
respondents No.5 to 9 stepped into the shoes of Ram Piari and Bhagwan<\/p>\n
Dass after purchasing the land under reference. In our view, the fact that the<\/p>\n
petitioners had not paid any rent from 1979 onwards is inconsequential.<\/p>\n
Additionally, the petitioners have not invited our attention to any evidence<\/p>\n
to establish any action at the hands of the petitioners proclaiming ownership<\/p>\n
rights over the land in question during the period they were in possession of
\n              C.W.P No.1155 of 2008                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
the land in question. In view of the above, the first contention advanced by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the petitioners, does not merit acceptance and is,<\/p>\n
accordingly, declined.\n<\/p>\n
             The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, is based on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in R.<\/p>\n
Kanthimathi ‘s case (supra). We are afraid, that the submission advanced<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is clearly inapplicable to the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances of the present case. In order to even prima-facie raise the<\/p>\n
instant contention, namely, that once there is an agreement to sell between<\/p>\n
the landlord and tenant, then the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases<\/p>\n
to exist, vests the onerous responsibility in the petitioners to establish, that<\/p>\n
there was factually an agreement to sell between the predecessors of the<\/p>\n
petitioners and Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass. We are of the view, that in so<\/p>\n
far as the finding on the aforesaid proposition is concerned, the same was<\/p>\n
rendered in furtherance of a civil suit filed by the petitioners themselves at<\/p>\n
Karnal, wherein it came to be concluded, that the petitioners had failed to<\/p>\n
prove that the agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979 had been executed by them<\/p>\n
in respect of the land, which is subject matter of the present controversy.<\/p>\n
That being so, it is not possible for us to draw any inference on the basis of<\/p>\n
the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979. It is, therefore, not possible<\/p>\n
for us to accept, that the relationship between the petitioners’ predecessors<\/p>\n
and Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass, of landlord and tenant, ever came to an<\/p>\n
end.\n<\/p>\n
             The third contention advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, was to the effect, that the petitioners would be ready and willing<\/p>\n
to tender rent, interest thereon and costs, if the authorities recorded a finding
\n             C.W.P No.1155 of 2008                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
to the effect that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists between the<\/p>\n
parties. In so far as the present issue is concerned, we have already held in<\/p>\n
our conclusions recorded in furtherance of the first, as well as, the second<\/p>\n
submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the<\/p>\n
relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners’ predecessors<\/p>\n
and Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass never came to an end. Since the<\/p>\n
petitioners have merely inherited the rights of their predecessors, the<\/p>\n
relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and Ram Piari<\/p>\n
and Bhagwan Dass, in the first instance, and thereafter, with respondents<\/p>\n
No.5 to 9 continued to subsist.      The only question that remains to be<\/p>\n
considered is, whether the petitioners can be permitted to tender all arrears<\/p>\n
of rent at the present juncture ? It is not possible for us to allow the<\/p>\n
petitioners to redeem themselves by making any payment of rent, interest<\/p>\n
thereon and costs at the present juncture.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the conclusions drawn by us, hereinabove, there can<\/p>\n
be no doubt, whatsoever, about the relationship between the petitioners and<\/p>\n
respondents No.5 to 9. The petitioners are tenants under respondents No.5<\/p>\n
to 9. There can also be no doubt about the fact, that the petitioners had<\/p>\n
failed to tender any rent before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal,<\/p>\n
when an ejectment application was filed by respondents No.5 to 9, or at any<\/p>\n
time thereafter. This factual position stands acknowledged, even at the<\/p>\n
hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the<\/p>\n
acknowledged factual position, we are satisfied that the petitioners deserve<\/p>\n
to be ejected from the suit land forthwith. Ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n
            In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that<\/p>\n
exemplary costs should be imposed on the petitioners for misusing the
\n             C.W.P No.1155 of 2008                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
process of law to their own benefit. The petitioners had been blatant in<\/p>\n
asserting, that they failed to tender any rent since 1979, although, they were<\/p>\n
in possession of the suit land. Their claim for the purchase of the land in<\/p>\n
question was dismissed by the Civil Courts. This position attained finality<\/p>\n
as far back as in the year 1986, when RSA No.716 of 1986 was dismissed<\/p>\n
by this Court on 16.5.1986. Although, the petitioners knew, that they were<\/p>\n
not owners of the land in question, they continued to tress-pass over it. They<\/p>\n
denied the claim at the hands of respondents No.5 to 9 so much so, that they<\/p>\n
did not consider it appropriate even to tender rent. As of now, even if the<\/p>\n
acknowledged stance adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is<\/p>\n
taken on its face value, the petitioners have been in continuous possession<\/p>\n
of the suit land since 1979, without paying even a single Rupee towards<\/p>\n
rent. Even if, we assume that the rate of rent was Rs.10,000\/- per acre per<\/p>\n
year (although it must really be much more) rent payable by the petitioners<\/p>\n
would be at least Rs.1,00,000\/- a year. The petitioners have failed to pay<\/p>\n
rent for a period of 29 years. They are, therefore, liable to pay rent alone to<\/p>\n
the tune of Rs.29 lacs. While determining the liability of the petitioners,<\/p>\n
one is liable to take into consideration the component of interest also, but<\/p>\n
while disposing of the instant writ petition, we do not desire to take the<\/p>\n
same into consideration. Additionally, for misusing the process of law, the<\/p>\n
petitioners have made themselves liable to costs. We hereby assess the said<\/p>\n
costs at Rs.10,000\/-.    The aforesaid total component of costs come to<\/p>\n
Rs.29,10,000\/- (29,00,000\/- + 10,000\/-) . The petitioners shall pay the costs<\/p>\n
assessed, hereinabove within three months from today. It needs to be<\/p>\n
clarified, that we have not required the petitioners to pay arrears of rent or<\/p>\n
interest thereon. It is only in equity, that while determining the component
\n               C.W.P No.1155 of 2008                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
of costs, we have assessed the rental value of the land, which remained in<\/p>\n
continuous unauthorised occupation of the petitioners (from the year 1979<\/p>\n
onwards).\n<\/p>\n
              The instant writ petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                                     ( J.S. Khehar )\n                                                            Judge\n\n\n                                                     ( Nirmaljit Kaur )\n18.12.2008                                                      Judge.\n        sk.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008 C.W.P No.1155 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.W.P No.1155 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.12.2008 Janak Raj and others ….Petitioners. Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents. Coram:- Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.S. […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJanak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008 - 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\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-20T18:52:49+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-20T18:52:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2286,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-20T18:52:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008 - 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\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-20T18:52:49+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-20T18:52:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008"},"wordCount":2286,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008","name":"Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-20T18:52:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janak-raj-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Janak Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/37587","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=37587"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37587\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37587"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37587"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}