{"id":45408,"date":"2008-12-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-02T22:21:16","modified_gmt":"2018-03-02T16:51:16","slug":"shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And … on 23 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And … on 23 December, 2008<\/div>\n
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                                  C.W.P. No. 15264 of 2007\n                                         DATE OF DECISION : 23.12.2008\n\nShadi Lal\n                                                            .... PETITIONER\n\n                                   Versus\n\nPanchayat Samiti Mukerian and others\n                                                        ..... RESPONDENTS\n\nCORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL\n            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH\n\n\nPresent:    Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate,\n            for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate,\n            for the respondents.\n\n                         ***\n\nSATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.\n<\/pre>\n
            The petitioner, who was a tenant of Panchayat Samiti,<\/p>\n
Mukerian – respondent No.1, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and<\/p>\n
227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19.5.2004,<\/p>\n
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian, exercising the powers<\/p>\n
of the Collector under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and<\/p>\n
Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’), ordering the<\/p>\n
eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute, and recovery of amount<\/p>\n
of due rent, amounting to Rs.2,20,548\/- from the petitioner as arrears of land<\/p>\n
revenue; as well as the order dated 15.2.2005, passed by the Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, exercising the powers of the Commissioner
\n CWP No. 15264 of 2007                                                 -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
under the Act, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid<\/p>\n
order.\n<\/p>\n
            The brief facts of this case will show how a tenant of a local<\/p>\n
body, by mis-using the provisions of law, remained in possession of a shop<\/p>\n
let out to him in a public auction for 16 years without payment of a even a<\/p>\n
single penny as rent.\n<\/p>\n
            In the present case, in an open auction, the petitioner took shop<\/p>\n
No. 13 on rent from respondent No.1 Samiti at the monthly rent of Rs. 825\/-<\/p>\n
being a highest bidder. He took possession of the shop on 1.1.1988. As per<\/p>\n
the terms and conditions of the auction, the rent was to be paid by the tenant<\/p>\n
by 10th of every month. The rent was also to be increased by 10% every<\/p>\n
year. The petitioner did not pay any rent after taking possession of the shop,<\/p>\n
in spite of the notices issued to him in this regard. Ultimately, respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 Samiti was constrained to file an application for ejectment under the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act in April, 1993 and for recovery of the rent due,<\/p>\n
amounting to Rs. 62,557\/- at the rate of Rs. 825\/- per month, including 10%<\/p>\n
annual increase for each year, in the rent as per the agreement between the<\/p>\n
parties. In the said ejectment application, the petitioner was duly served. He<\/p>\n
appeared before the Collector and contested the application. Both the parties<\/p>\n
were directed to lead evidence in support of their respective version.<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 Samiti examined two witnesses and produced several<\/p>\n
documents. The petitioner was afforded many opportunities to cross<\/p>\n
examine the witnesses and lead evidence, but on three consecutive dates i.e.
\n CWP No. 15264 of 2007                                                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
on 15.3.1994, 18.3.1994 and 21.3.1994, neither the petitioner nor his<\/p>\n
counsel came present. Ultimately, the Collector proceeded the ex-parte<\/p>\n
proceedings against the petitioner and decided the ejectment application<\/p>\n
vide order dated 29.3.1994, ordering the eviction of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
further ordering the recovery of the rent upto 31.3.1993, amounting to Rs.<\/p>\n
62,557\/- as arrears of land revenue.\n<\/p>\n
            Against the abovesaid order, the appeal was filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in June, 1994. The said appeal remained pending for four years<\/p>\n
because of non-availability of the record of the Collector. Ultimately, vide<\/p>\n
order dated 21.1.1998, the case was remanded to the Collector, Mukerian, to<\/p>\n
decide the case after affording one more opportunity to the petitioner to<\/p>\n
rebut the evidence led by respondent No.1-Samiti. After the remand, the file<\/p>\n
could not be re-constructed due to non-cooperative attitude of the counsel<\/p>\n
for the parties and the original file was not available, as the record of the<\/p>\n
case was destroyed in a fire incident at Record Room, Hoshiarpur.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Collector, Mukerian, vide letter No. 2369 dated 29.7.1988<\/p>\n
directed respondent No.1-Samiti to file a fresh case. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
respondent No.1-Samiti, after serving notice to the petitioner for payment of<\/p>\n
arrears of rent of Rs. 2,20,548\/- from 1.1.1988 to 30.4.2000, filed a fresh<\/p>\n
eviction application under the provisions of the Act, before the Sub<\/p>\n
Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian, exercising the powers of the Collector. In<\/p>\n
the said ejectment application, after the evidence led by respondent No.1<\/p>\n
Samiti, the petitioner was afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, but in
\n CWP No. 15264 of 2007                                                  -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
spite of availing several opportunities, the petitioner, yet again, did not lead<\/p>\n
any evidence in support of his claim. When the case was fixed for<\/p>\n
arguments, the petitioner only filed written arguments. The Collector, after<\/p>\n
hearing both the parties, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner, vide<\/p>\n
impugned order dated 19.5.2004, while observing as under :<\/p>\n
                   “I have perused the evidence brought on the file and also<\/p>\n
             carefully gone through the written arguments submitted by the<\/p>\n
             counsel for the petitioner. From the documentary evidence it is<\/p>\n
             clear that the Panchayat Samiti Mukerian is the owner of the<\/p>\n
             shop no. 13. The respondent in his written statement admitted<\/p>\n
             that he is in possession of the shop in dispute. The counsel for<\/p>\n
             the petitioner argued that shop no. 13 was leased to the<\/p>\n
             respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 825\/- per month with a<\/p>\n
             stipulation of 10% increase in rent every year and respondent<\/p>\n
             defaulted in making payment of Rs. 2,20,548\/- upto 30.4.2000.<\/p>\n
             The respondent has failed to comply with the terms and<\/p>\n
             conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. No<\/p>\n
             evidence was produced by the respondent to controvert this<\/p>\n
             issue. I am fully agree with the argument of the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
             counsel that the respondent also breached the terms and<\/p>\n
             conditions laid down in the agreement. The respondent is in the<\/p>\n
             arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2,20,548\/- and he is liable to<\/p>\n
             pay the same.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 CWP No. 15264 of 2007                                                 -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the<\/p>\n
Commissioner. On 4.10.2004, during the pendency of the appeal, possession<\/p>\n
of the shop in question was taken by respondent No.4. The Commissioner,<\/p>\n
vide his order dated 15.2.2005, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
            After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the<\/p>\n
impugned orders, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned<\/p>\n
orders, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Undisputedly, in a<\/p>\n
public auction, the petitioner had taken the shop in question on rent from<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 Samiti at the monthly rent of Rs. 825\/-. Though the<\/p>\n
petitioner has denied that there was no stipulation of 10% yearly increase in<\/p>\n
the rent, but a perusal of the terms and conditions of the auction (Annexure<\/p>\n
P-10) shows that there was a clause providing 10% yearly increase in the<\/p>\n
rent. Admittedly, possession of the disputed shop was taken by the petitioner<\/p>\n
on 1.1.1988. Thereafter, from the said date till 4.10.2004, when possession<\/p>\n
of the shop was taken by respondent No.4, not even a single penny was paid<\/p>\n
by the petitioner towards the rent. Neither during the course of arguments<\/p>\n
nor in the petition itself, any sufficient reason has been given by the<\/p>\n
petitioner for non-payment of rent for such a long period. The petitioner was<\/p>\n
taking frivolous plea that there was no provision for increase of rent and<\/p>\n
because of that, he was not paying the rent, as respondent No.1 Samiti was<\/p>\n
demanding the rent after adding 10% yearly increase in the rate of rent. This<\/p>\n
explanation appears to be unjustified, because not even for a single day, the
\n CWP No. 15264 of 2007                                                 -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner has paid any amount of rent. In this petition, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
taken various pleas that his ejectment order as well as the order of recovery<\/p>\n
of due rent as arrears of rent are discriminatory and violative of Articles 14<\/p>\n
and 16 of the Constitution of India, against the principles of natural justice,<\/p>\n
abuse of powers, the authorities who have passed the impugned orders have<\/p>\n
no jurisdiction and the second application for eviction was not maintainable.<\/p>\n
In our opinion, a tenant, who has not even paid a single penny after the<\/p>\n
inception of tenancy and enjoyed possession for 16 years, is not entitled to<\/p>\n
be given a hearing on these frivolous pleas, particularly in exercise of the<\/p>\n
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India.\n<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Sub Divisional<\/p>\n
Magistrate was empowered to perform the function of the Collector under<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Act only vide Notification No. S.O. 44\/P.A. 31\/73\/<\/p>\n
S.2\/2000 and the said notification was published in the Official Gazette on<\/p>\n
13.6.2000. Therefore, when the second application was instituted on<\/p>\n
2.6.2000, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was having no jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
entertain the same. We do not find any force in the contention of learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner. The aforesaid notification was issued and<\/p>\n
published in the Official Gazette on 13.6.2000, but when the notice of<\/p>\n
petition was issued and the order of ejectment was passed, the Sub<\/p>\n
Divisional Magistrate was authorised to perform the function under the Act<\/p>\n
as a Collector and he was very much competent to pass the impugned order.
\n CWP No. 15264 of 2007                                                 -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error, as far as the order of eviction<\/p>\n
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian, exercising the powers<\/p>\n
of Collector under the Act, is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
            From the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
always provided more than sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in<\/p>\n
support of his claim, but he never availed such opportunities, because<\/p>\n
evidently he was having no evidence in support of his claim. In our opinion,<\/p>\n
by adopting the delaying tactics and by not leading evidence in support of<\/p>\n
his claim in spite of availing several opportunities, the petitioner has mis-<\/p>\n
used the process of law with intention to delay the proceedings and to take<\/p>\n
illegal and undue advantage of enjoying possession without payment of rent.<\/p>\n
Even in this Court, the petitioner has taken more than three years. This is the<\/p>\n
second petition filed by him. Earlier, CWP No. 9620 of 2005 came up for<\/p>\n
motion hearing on June 17, 2005, which was adjourned to 1.7.2005, on the<\/p>\n
request made by counsel for the petitioner. On 1.7.2005, it was again<\/p>\n
adjourned to 1.8.2005, as no one was present on behalf of the petitioner. On<\/p>\n
1.8.2005, counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjournment to seek<\/p>\n
instructions from his client as to whether he has any evidence of payment of<\/p>\n
rent since 1.1.1988. The case was then adjourned to 14.11.2005. On that<\/p>\n
day, the case was again adjourned to 7.3.2006 on the written request made<\/p>\n
by counsel for the petitioner. On 7.3.2006, counsel for the petitioner again<\/p>\n
requested for more time to file additional documents, but the prayer was<\/p>\n
declined and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the
\n CWP No. 15264 of 2007                                                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner to file fresh one, if so advised, by appending necessary documents<\/p>\n
and complying with the orders made in the writ petition. Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
instant second petition has been filed by the petitioner. In this petition also,<\/p>\n
no document regarding payment of rent since 1.1.1988 has been filed. Even<\/p>\n
in this case, the petitioner was not interested to argue the case and was<\/p>\n
seeking adjournment on one pretext or the other. On 9.9.2008, no one was<\/p>\n
present on behalf of the petitioner, but in the interest of justice, the case was<\/p>\n
adjourned to 17.11.2008. On that day, a request for adjournment was made.<\/p>\n
The request was allowed and case was adjourned to 3.12.2008 subject to<\/p>\n
payment of costs. Thereafter, on 3.12.2008, the case was argued. All these<\/p>\n
facts show that the petitioner is mis-using the process of law.<\/p>\n
             In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and<\/p>\n
the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000\/-.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                              ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )\n                                                       JUDGE\n\n\nDecember 23, 2008                                  ( JASWANT SINGH )\nndj                                                      JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And … on 23 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15264 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 23.12.2008 Shadi Lal …. PETITIONER Versus Panchayat Samiti Mukerian and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL […]<\/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-45408","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And ... on 23 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\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And ... on 23 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-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=\"2008-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-02T16:51:16+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\\\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And … on 23 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-02T16:51:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1867,\"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\\\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And ... on 23 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-02T16:51:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And … on 23 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":"Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And ... on 23 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\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And ... on 23 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-02T16:51:16+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\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And … on 23 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-02T16:51:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008"},"wordCount":1867,"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\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008","name":"Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And ... on 23 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-02T16:51:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shadi-lal-vs-panchayat-samiti-mukerian-and-on-23-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shadi Lal vs Panchayat Samiti Mukerian And … on 23 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\/45408","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=45408"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45408\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}