{"id":40088,"date":"1999-12-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-12-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999"},"modified":"2018-02-21T06:56:01","modified_gmt":"2018-02-21T01:26:01","slug":"dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999","title":{"rendered":"Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 24 December, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 24 December, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2000 IIAD Delhi 346, 83 (2000) DLT 610<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT <\/p>\n<p>A.K. Sikri, J.<\/p>\n<p>1.     This  writ  petition is filed by 4 petitioner who are all  working  in Slum and JJ. (Wing) which was, at material time, with DDA. This wing is not transferred to MCD. Admittedly they were initially appointed as muster roll employees on daily wages. Subsequently, they were made work-charged employees  and were designated as mates\/Benders etc. The petitioners  filed  this case  alleging that for last more than five years they were performing  the duties  of Lower Division Clerk without any break. However they were  still treated as work-changed and benefit of regularisation of their services  as LDCs was not given to them although regular vacancies of LDCs existed  with the  respondents. It is further stated that petitioners  are  educationally qualified for the post of LDCs. Taking undue advantage of their weak  position  being unemployed, petitioners were taken by the respondents as  workcharged  basis although they are entrusted with the duties of LDCs.  It  is further  alleged in the writ petition that many persons who are juniors  to the  petitioners  have been regularised as LDCs ignoring the claim  of  the petitioners.  On the basis of these basic averments petitioners have  filed<br \/>\nthis  writ  petition seeking direction to the effect  that  petitioners  be treated as regular LDCs from the date they have been discharging the duties of  LDCs  and they may also be given the pay in the regular scale  of  LDCs i.e. Rs. 260-400 (pre-revised).\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   This  petition  was  listed  for the first  time,  for  admission,  on 16.12.1987 when notice to show cause was issued to the respondents.  Thereafter  matter  was taken up from time-to-time and ultimately  on  12.5.1989 rule  was  issued  in the writ petition. Petitioners  had  also  filed  CMs 5022\/87 &amp; 1173\/88. They were disposed of by passing the following order :\n<\/p>\n<p>     In  the answer to the show cause notice, it is stated that  the  petitioners  were  given an opportunity to appear in the test for the  post  of L.D.C. which was held from April 11, 1987 to April 13, 1987 alongwith other work  charged employees but the petitioners did not qualify. In the  subsequent test all the four petitioners appeared in the departmental test  held on  October  9, 1988 for the post of L.D.C. and were  declared  successful. They have been promoted to the post of L.D.C. vide order dated November 18, 1988. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be appointed on regular basis with  retrospective effect or whether they are entitled to the wages of  an L.D.C.  though appointed as work-charged employee, is a question which  can only  be determined on the merits of the writ petition. No  interim  relief can be granted at this stage. Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   From the aforesaid order, it is clear that during the pendency of this writ  petition, petitioners have been appointed as LDCs after  they  passed departmental  test  which was held on October 9, 1988.  The  only  question which  is  to be determined now as to whether they are entitled to  be  appointed  on  regular basis with retrospective effect and whether  they  are entitled  to  the  wages  of  an  LDC  though  appointed  as   work-charged mates\/Benders, etc. <\/p>\n<p>4.   In  the  counter affidavit filed by the respondents DDA it  is  stated that as per recruitments rules for appointment of LDC, work-charged employee  is  eligible to be promoted as LDC only if he  possesses  the  required educational  qualification  and  also subject  to  qualifying  departmental written  test. The petitioners could be promoted to the post of LDC as  per the  recruitment rules and not otherwise. It is further stated  that  petitioners were provided opportunity to appear in the test for the post of LDC which was held from April 11, 1987 to April 13, 1987 but petitioners  could not  qualify  the said written test. Thereafter they appeared in  the  said departmental test on 9.10.1988 and since they were declared successful this time,  the petitioners were promoted to the post of LDC vide  Office  Order No. 288\/ADMN\/SEC\/88 dated 18.11.1988. It is further mentioned that respondent  being  statutory  body is to act according to  rules  and  regulations prescribed for the appointment of LDC and other staff.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   During  the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners  emphasised that since these petitioners were discharging the duties of LDC which  they discharged  for long periods they should be treated as  regularised  w.e.f. dates from which they started working as LDC in the year 1981. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Narender Chadha  Vs. UOI, reported as 1986(1) SLR 437. Learned Counsel also referred to  various documents annexed with the petition as well as rejoinder as per which these petitioners were discharging the duties of LDCs.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Insofar  as relief of regularisation of the petitioners from the  back date is concerned i.e. the date from which they were discharging the duties of  LDCs,  it cannot be granted. Admittedly petitioners  were  employed  as work-charged  employees. For promotion to the post of LDC, the  petitioners have  to  undergo the selection process as per  the  statutory  recruitment rules and passing of written test is one of the pre-conditions. Petitioners could  not be treated as promoted to the post of LDC unless they  qualified this  test.  In April, 1987 when this test was held petitioners  failed  to qualify.  They  could  pass the test only in October, 1988  and  were  thus promoted in November, 1988. Merely because the petitioners were discharging the  duties of LDCs would not give them the right to be regularised as  LDC from retrospective effect. This principle of law is now well established by various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court and since  law<br \/>\non this point is now well settled it does not require further discussion.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Coming to the second issue regarding the entitlement of the  petitioners  to get the salary of LDC on the ground that they were discharging  the functions  of LDC, the petitioners have specifically made this averment  in the writ petition and it is stated that petitioners started performing  the duties  of LDCs since November, 1981. In para 2 of the writ  petition  even name  of the section\/office is mentioned where these petitioners were  performing  the  duties of LDCs. In fact number of documents  are  also  filed alongwith  the petition which go on to demonstrate that  these  petitioners were  working  as LDCs even before 1988. In fact in the  counter  affidavit filed by the respondent, there is no categorical denial to these  averments except  averment  in  para 1 that the petitioners who  were  earlier  daily wagers  were made work-charged employees and designated mate,  Beldar  etc. and  they have been performing the duties as such as per the directions  of<br \/>\nsectional heads under whom they have been working. No explanation is  given to  any  of the documents annexed with the counter  affidavit.  During  the arguments  also,  Mr. Apurab Lal learned Counsel for  the  respondent  when confronted  with these documents, could not give any satisfactory reply  or say  that petitioners were not working as LDCs even before 1988.  His  only submission  was that these documents do not show that the petitioners  were working  as  LDCs since 1981 as these documents are of the  year  1985  and onward.  However as pointed above although the petitioners have made  categorical averment that they were discharging the duties of LDCs since November  1981  there  is no specific denial to this averment. It  is  also  not stated  that these petitioners started discharging the duties of LDCs  only in  1985 and not before. In view of these facts and when the averment  made by the petitioners in the writ petition are not denied, the same are deemed<br \/>\nto  have  been accepted. Accordingly, it can be said that  the  petitioners were  discharging the duties as LDCs since November, 1981. On this  factual position, petitioners would be entitled to the salary as LDCs w.e.f  November, 1981. My aforesaid conclusion stands fortified in view of the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of DDA Vs. Virender Kumar  Tyagi,   which is directly on the point. In that case petitioner was given a letter of appointment  as work-charged  driver but he was being asked to function as a legal  assistant. However the wages paid to him were that of work-charged driver. In the petition  filed by him, interim order was passed directing the DDA  to  pay petitioner the salary of legal assistant. Against this DDA filed the appeal and while dismissing the appeal Division Bench made following observations:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;8. In this context, we also note the provision of Article 23  of the Constitution, which reads as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     23.  Prohibition of traffic in human begins and forced labour.  &#8211;      (1)  Traffic in human beings and &#8220;begar&#8221; and other similar  forms  of  forced  labour are prohibited and any contravention  of  this  provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The word &#8220;begar&#8221; in this Article has obvious reference to  traffic  in  the human beings and forced labour. In  this  case,  the respondent  may actually not be performing forced labour, but  he is certainly made to work as a Legal Assistant, and if he is  not paid as a Legal Assistant, it cannot be said that &#8220;begar&#8221; is  not being  performed  by him. It is only when he is paid as  a  Legal Assistant  that it can be said that prohibition of Article 23  of the Constitution is not attracted to this case.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.   Thus  I hold that petitioners be given the salary and  allowances,  at the  minimum of pay scale and without any increments since November,  1981, which was admissible to LDCs. Arrears on this account be paid to the  petitioners within two months from today.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.     No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 24 December, 1999 Equivalent citations: 2000 IIAD Delhi 346, 83 (2000) DLT 610 Author: A Sikri Bench: A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by 4 petitioner who are all working in Slum and JJ. (Wing) [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40088","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 24 December, 1999 - 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\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 24 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-12-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-21T01:26:01+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 24 December, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-12-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-21T01:26:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1612,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999\",\"name\":\"Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 24 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-12-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-21T01:26:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 24 December, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 24 December, 1999 - 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\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 24 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-12-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-21T01:26:01+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 24 December, 1999","datePublished":"1999-12-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-21T01:26:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999"},"wordCount":1612,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999","name":"Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; ... on 24 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-12-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-21T01:26:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-chand-ors-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-24-december-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dinesh Chand &amp; Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority &amp; &#8230; on 24 December, 1999"}]},{"@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\/40088","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=40088"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40088\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}