{"id":4707,"date":"2009-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-02T08:11:28","modified_gmt":"2017-11-02T02:41:28","slug":"maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka … on 31 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka … on 31 July, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                        1\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                                 R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009\n\n                                 Date of decision: 31.7. 2009\n\n\nMaghar Singh\n                                                    ......Appellant\n\n                       Versus\n\n\n\nThe Municipal Committee Cheeka and others\n                                                  .......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:   Ms.Monisha Gandhi, Advocate,\n           for the appellant.\n\n           Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate,\n           for the respondents.\n\n                ****\n\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           Plaintiff-respondent No.1filed a suit for possession and<\/p>\n
mesne profits and the same was decreed by the Additional Civil<\/p>\n
Judge (Sr.Divn.) Guhla vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.2008.<\/p>\n
In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
17.12.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant.<\/p>\n
           Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
           “2.         Tersely   a   suit   for   possession   of   land<\/p>\n
           measuring 19 kanals 17 marlas as fully detailed in para<\/p>\n
           No.1 of the plaint was filed by plaintiff-respondent against<\/p>\n
           the present appellant. A prayer for recovery of mesne<\/p>\n
           profits w.e.f. 1.1.1998 was also made in the said suit.<\/p>\n
           The Municipal Committee claimed ownership on the suit<\/p>\n
           property on the basis of mutation No.1247 dated<\/p>\n
           11.6.1996 and it was contended that right of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
           was protected by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High<\/p>\n
           Court, Chandigarh in Civil Misc. No.5957-C of 1998 and<\/p>\n
           Regular Second Appeal No.3811 of 1997. The present<\/p>\n
           appellant was stated to be in unauthorised and illegal<\/p>\n
           possession of the suit property and request was made to<\/p>\n
           the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the<\/p>\n
           suit property to the Municipal Committee and on failure of<\/p>\n
           the said person to comply with the request of the<\/p>\n
           Municipal Committee, the necessity arose for filing the<\/p>\n
           present suit. The suit was filed through Sh.Sat Pal Singla<\/p>\n
           and Sh.Ujjagar Singh, who were duly authorised by<\/p>\n
           Municipal Committee, Cheeka to file and pursue the suit<\/p>\n
           vide resolution No.2 dated 20.7.1999.<\/p>\n
           3.          On notice being given, the suit was contested<\/p>\n
           by the appellant by submitting that the suit was not
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
          maintainable and the plaintiff was having no locus standi<\/p>\n
          or cause of action to file the suit. The jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
          trial Court was disputed as far as the relief of mesne<\/p>\n
          profits is concerned. It was contended that the suit land<\/p>\n
          is   agricultural land and no suit for recovery of mesne<\/p>\n
          profits is triable by civil court and under the provisions of<\/p>\n
          Punjab Tenancy Act, the jurisdiction solely vests in the<\/p>\n
          revenue courts.      The plaintiff was termed guilty of<\/p>\n
          concealment of material facts from the court and it was<\/p>\n
          put forth that the present appellant is the owner of the suit<\/p>\n
          land and his ownership rights were conferred in a civil<\/p>\n
          court decree dated 29.1.1974 passed in civil suit No.78 of<\/p>\n
          1974 by the court of Sh.R.S.Garg, the then learned Sub<\/p>\n
          Judge IInd Class, Kaithal in suit titled as “Tek Singh etc.<\/p>\n
          vs. Gram Panchayat Sailimpur”. The said decree dated<\/p>\n
          29.1.1974 was challenged by some of the inhabitants of<\/p>\n
          the village in civil suit No.478 of 1991 titled as “Ram<\/p>\n
          Chander etc. vs. Tek Singh etc.” and the said suit was<\/p>\n
          decreed by the Court of Sh.N.D.Achint, the then learned<\/p>\n
          Sub Judge, Guhla vide judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
          2.11.1992 and decree dated 29.1.1974 passed by the<\/p>\n
          Court of Sh.R.S.Garg was set aside. The judgment and<\/p>\n
          decree dated 2.11.1992 passed in civil suit No.478 of<\/p>\n
          1991 was set aside in appeal by the court of
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
            Sh.S.P.Singh, the then learned Additional District Judge,<\/p>\n
            Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.1997 and<\/p>\n
            thereafter the plaintiffs of suit No.478 of 1991 preferred<\/p>\n
            Regular    Second Appeal No. 3811 of 1997 before the<\/p>\n
            Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, but the said<\/p>\n
            RSA was withdrawn by the plaintiffs as is evident from the<\/p>\n
            order dated 24.3.1999. It was put forth that the decree<\/p>\n
            dated 29.1.1974 thus, remained intact and has not been<\/p>\n
            set aside by any court of competent jurisdiction and the<\/p>\n
            present appellant continues to be the owner of the suit<\/p>\n
            property. It was also submitted that the suit has not been<\/p>\n
            filed through a proper and authorised person.         It was<\/p>\n
            denied if the possession of the appellant over the suit<\/p>\n
            property was unauthorised and a prayer was made for<\/p>\n
            dismissal of the suit.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
            “1.         Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for<\/p>\n
            possession as prayed for ? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2.          Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of<\/p>\n
            recovery of mesne profits from the plaintiff as prayed for?<\/p>\n
            OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3.          Whether the suit     is filed within limitation?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 OPD
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4.           Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
                 maintainable in the present form? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            5.           Relief. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The lis involved in the present case is as to whether the<\/p>\n
defendant had become owner of the suit land by virtue of civil Court<\/p>\n
decree dated 29.1.1974 or Municipal Committee, Cheeka was owner<\/p>\n
of the suit land?\n<\/p>\n
            The Municipal Committee, Cheeka filed a suit for<\/p>\n
possession and mesne profits. Both the Courts below have held in<\/p>\n
favour of the Municipal Committee. Learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
has vehemently argued that the suit of the Committee was liable to<\/p>\n
be dismissed as the appellant was owner in possession of the suit<\/p>\n
property on the basis of civil Court decree dated 29.1.1974. The<\/p>\n
appellant had filed a suit seeking declaration that he was co-owner in<\/p>\n
possession of the land measuring 2173 kanals 12 marlas with other<\/p>\n
co-owners. The said suit was decreed by Sub Judge (IInd Class),<\/p>\n
Kaithal and the decree was upheld upto this Court. Gram Panchayat<\/p>\n
was no more in possession of the suit land on 11.6.1996 when<\/p>\n
Municipal Committee came into being.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
has submitted that the Municipal Committee was owner of the suit<\/p>\n
land. The said right of the Committee was upheld by this Court in<\/p>\n
CM No.5957-C of 1998.          The defendants in the said suit were<\/p>\n
directed to deposit the arrears of mesne profits w.e.f. 1.1.1998. To
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
avoid payment, the regular second appeal was itself got dismissed<\/p>\n
as withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
           Admittedly, Ram Chand and others filed a civil suit<\/p>\n
No.478\/91 against Tek Singh and others challenging the correctness<\/p>\n
of decree dated 29.1.1974 on the following grounds:-<\/p>\n
           i)               The Gram Panchayat in the said suit was<\/p>\n
                  sued through its Sarpanch, Bachan Singh, who<\/p>\n
                  happened to be the father of defendant No.1 in that<\/p>\n
                  suit.\n<\/p>\n
           ii)              One     Phulla       the   then   Panch   of   Gram<\/p>\n
                  Panchayat, Saleempur instead of contesting the suit<\/p>\n
                  colluded with the DH (the defendants in this suit) and<\/p>\n
                  filed   written statement admitting the claim of the<\/p>\n
                  plaintiffs in the said suit.\n<\/p>\n
           iii)             The said Phulla had no authority to make a<\/p>\n
                  statement depriving the Gram Panchayat of the land<\/p>\n
                  and as such the impugned decree passed in civil suit<\/p>\n
                  No.78 of 1974 on 29.1.1974 is null and void and does<\/p>\n
                  not pass at title to the defendants (in this suit).<\/p>\n
           iv)              One Sadhu son of Shri Devatia who is also<\/p>\n
                  beneficiar under the impugned decree was expied on<\/p>\n
                  2.4.1978 and his estate is now being represented by<\/p>\n
                  defendant No. 27 to 33.”\n<\/p>\n
           The said persons had filed the suit in a representative
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
capacity as the Gram Panchayat, thus, was not challenging the said<\/p>\n
decree. The said suit was decreed by Additional Senior Sub Judge,<\/p>\n
Guhla vide judgment and decree dated 2.11.1992.            However,<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Kaithal set aside the said judgment and<\/p>\n
decree vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.1997, inter alia, on<\/p>\n
the ground that the Gram Panchayat Saleempur had become extinct<\/p>\n
in the year 1982 and the Municipal Committee, Cheeka had come<\/p>\n
into being when the suit in question was filed.<\/p>\n
           RSA No.3811 of 1997 was filed challenging the judgment<\/p>\n
and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge. In the said<\/p>\n
appeal, the following order was passed on 28.7.1998:-<\/p>\n
           ”            C.M. No. 725-C of 1998 under Order 1 Rule<\/p>\n
           10 CPC on behalf of Municipal committee, Cheeka to be<\/p>\n
           impleaded as a party to the appeal to be heard with the<\/p>\n
           main case.\n<\/p>\n
                        Admitted.\n<\/p>\n
                        Order dated 22.12.1997 whereby parties were<\/p>\n
           directed to maintain status quo regarding possession as<\/p>\n
           well as nature of the property, is modified to the extent<\/p>\n
           that the trial court shall determine within three months<\/p>\n
           from the date of appearance before the trial Court rent of<\/p>\n
           the land\/premises in occupation of the appellants and on<\/p>\n
           determination within three months, thereafter, appellants<\/p>\n
           shall deposit the amount including the arrears w.e.f.
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
           1.1.1998 with the Municipal committee, Cheeka who<\/p>\n
           would invest the same in FDR in a nationalised bank<\/p>\n
           carrying maximum interest and the FDR shall be kept in<\/p>\n
           trust.   The question of disbursement of the amount so<\/p>\n
           deposited in the FDR along with interest thereon shall be<\/p>\n
           decided at the time of the decision of the appeal. In case<\/p>\n
           the appellants fail to deposit the amount so determined,<\/p>\n
           the say granted in their favour shall stand vacated.<\/p>\n
                         Appeal be set down for final disposal within<\/p>\n
           two years.”\n<\/p>\n
           In CM No.875-C of 1999 in the said RSA No.3811 of<\/p>\n
1997, the following order was passed on 24.2.1999:-<\/p>\n
           ”             In this application prayer made is to dismiss<\/p>\n
           RSA No.3811 of 1997 as withdrawn. It is, however, made<\/p>\n
           clear that withdrawal of the appeal shall not affect the<\/p>\n
           right of the Municipal Committee, Cheeka, District Kaithal<\/p>\n
           to proceed against the appellants in accordance with<\/p>\n
           law.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           There is no dispute that initially the land vested in Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat, Salimpur and thereafter, vide notification Ex.P-2, the<\/p>\n
entire land of Village Salimpur was included in Municipal limits of<\/p>\n
Cheeka Municipality. The case of the defendant is that the Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat had ceased to be owner of the suit property in the year<\/p>\n
1994 on the basis of civil Court decree dated 29.1.1974. In fact 2173
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
kanals 12 marlas of land was transferred by the Gram Panchayat to<\/p>\n
various inhabitants of the village vide Civil Court decree dated<\/p>\n
29.1.1974.\n<\/p>\n
                Admittedly, the suit was filed by the inhabitants of the<\/p>\n
village and Sarpanch Bachan Singh, who was father of one of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs in that suit, appeared and admitted the claim of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
in that suit.\n<\/p>\n
                Rule    16   of   the   Punjab    Village   Common   Lands<\/p>\n
(Regulation)Rules, 1964 reads as under :-<\/p>\n
                  16. Procedure where a Panchayat sues or is sued in<\/p>\n
                  its representative capacity:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (1)        The Panchayat shall by a resolution to be<\/p>\n
                  recorded in the proceeding book, appoint its Sarpanch<\/p>\n
                  or any other     panch to contest any suit filed by or<\/p>\n
                  against the Panchayat.         The Sarpanch or panch so<\/p>\n
                  appointed shall file a copy of the resolution duly<\/p>\n
                  attested by the Sarpanch under the seal of the<\/p>\n
                  Panchayat in the court along with other documents.<\/p>\n
                  (2)        The actual expenditure incurred in the defence<\/p>\n
                  of the case shall be chargeable to the funds of the<\/p>\n
                  Panchayat.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (3)        The Sarpanch or panch so appointed shall not<\/p>\n
                  be competent to compound or admit claim of the party<\/p>\n
                  suing the Panchayat without prior authorisation by the
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
              Panchayat by a       resolution in writing passed in a<\/p>\n
              meeting      specially    called     for    the     fraud,<\/p>\n
              misrepresentation, concealment of facts or collusion<\/p>\n
              with the opposite party, the Sarpanch or panch shall be<\/p>\n
              personally liable for the loss caused to the Panchayat.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat on<\/p>\n
21.1.1974, whereas, the civil suit was filed on 28.1.1974 and the suit<\/p>\n
was decreed on the very next day i.e. 29.1.1974 as the Sarpanch,<\/p>\n
who appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat admitted the claim<\/p>\n
of the plaintiffs in that suit.   The said facts in themselves are<\/p>\n
sufficient to establish collusion between the plaintiffs and the<\/p>\n
Sarpanch, who had appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. In<\/p>\n
normal circumstances, resolution would have been passed by the<\/p>\n
Gram Panchayat after the filing of the suit authorising the Sarpanch<\/p>\n
to contest the case. The said decree was, in fact, not a consent<\/p>\n
decree but it was a collusive decree.\n<\/p>\n
           The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
is that the decree passed on the basis of consent was as valid and<\/p>\n
as binding as based on contest. May be, that as broad proposition<\/p>\n
one may agree to it but where a consent goes against public policy, it<\/p>\n
would not absolve the Court from its duty.         The parties cannot<\/p>\n
achieve what is contrary to law and a decree merely based on such<\/p>\n
consent is ineffective, null and void. It is a settled proposition of law<\/p>\n
that where a decree is passed on the basis of consent, which is not
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
lawful then the Court should not enforce the decree in execution<\/p>\n
proceedings. The fact that the resolution was passed by the Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat before the filing of the suit on 28.1.1978 itself was<\/p>\n
sufficient for the Court to hold that the resolution could not be said to<\/p>\n
be a proper authorisation by the Panchayat allowing the Sarpanch to<\/p>\n
admit the claim of the plaintiff suing the Panchayat.<\/p>\n
           A consent decree is passed in a case where the<\/p>\n
defendant admits the claim of the plaintiff and on the basis of<\/p>\n
admission consent decree is passed. However, in a case where<\/p>\n
defendant admits the claim of the plaintiff to defeat the right\/interest<\/p>\n
of another, such a decree is a collusive decree. The suit land was<\/p>\n
public property and Sarpanch without proper authority could not give<\/p>\n
his consent. The land was owned by Gram Panchayat.<\/p>\n
           The plaintiffs and the Sarpanch had colluded with each<\/p>\n
other to defeat the right\/interest of the Gram Panchayat and hence,<\/p>\n
the said decree could not be said to be a consent decree but the<\/p>\n
decree had been obtained by the plaintiffs in collusion with the<\/p>\n
Sarpanch. Such a collusive decree was not even required to be<\/p>\n
challenged by the Gram Panchayat by filing an independent suit<\/p>\n
           The Apex Court in Gram Panchayat of village Naulakha<\/p>\n
v. Ujagar Singh<\/a> 2000 (4) RCR (Civil) 749, held that a judgment<\/p>\n
obtained by collusion was not necessary to be challenged by way of<\/p>\n
filing an independent suit and it could be contended in a later suit by<\/p>\n
way of defence that the earlier decree was result of collusion. Para
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
Nos. 6 to 8 are reproduced herein below:-\n<\/p>\n
           “6.        It appears from commentary in Sarkar’s<\/p>\n
           Evidence Act     on Section 44 that it is the view of the<\/p>\n
           Allahabad, Calcutta, Patna, Bombay High Courts that<\/p>\n
           before such a contention is raised in the latter suit or<\/p>\n
           proceeding, it is not necessary to file an independent suit.<\/p>\n
           The passage from Sarkar’s Evidence which refers to<\/p>\n
           various decisions reads as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “Under Section 44 a party can, in a collateral proceeding<\/p>\n
           in which fraud may be set up as a defence, show that a<\/p>\n
           decree or order obtained by the opposite party against<\/p>\n
           him was passed by a Court without jurisdiction or was<\/p>\n
           obtained by fraud or collusion and it is not necessary to<\/p>\n
           bring an independent suit for setting it aside.<\/p>\n
           Thus, in order to contend in a latter suit or proceeding<\/p>\n
           that an earlier judgment was obtained by collusion, it is<\/p>\n
           not necessary to file an independent suit as stated in<\/p>\n
           Jagar Ram’s case for a declaration as to its collusive<\/p>\n
           nature or for setting it aside, as a condition precedent. In<\/p>\n
           our   opinion,   the   above   cases    cited     in   Sarkar’s<\/p>\n
           Commentary are correctly decided. We do not agree with<\/p>\n
           the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana<\/p>\n
           High Court in Jagar Ram’s case. The Full Bench has not<\/p>\n
           referred to Section 44 of the Evidence Act nor to any
\n R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
          other precedents of other Courts or to any basic legal<\/p>\n
          principle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          7.           The law in England also appears to be the<\/p>\n
          same, that no independent suit is necessary. In Spencer-<\/p>\n
          Bower and Turner on Res judicata it is stated that there<\/p>\n
          are exceptions to the principle of res judicata. If the party<\/p>\n
          setting up res judicata as an estoppel has alleged all the<\/p>\n
          elements of an estoppel (i.e. ingredients of res judicata), it<\/p>\n
          is still open to the latter (the opposite party) to defeat the<\/p>\n
          estoppel by setting up and establishing certain affirmative<\/p>\n
          answers. Of these there are four main classes- fraud,<\/p>\n
          cross-estoppel, contract and public policy.      The author<\/p>\n
          clearly says that no active proceedings for ‘rescission’ of<\/p>\n
          the earlier judgment are necessary.          They state as<\/p>\n
          follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “The avoidance of a judicial act on the ground of<\/p>\n
                  fraud or collusion is effected not only by active<\/p>\n
                  proceedings for rescission but also by setting up<\/p>\n
                  the fraud as a defence to an action on the<\/p>\n
                  decision, or as an answer to any case which,<\/p>\n
                  whether by way of estoppel or otherwise,<\/p>\n
                  depends for its success on the decision being<\/p>\n
                  treated as incontrovertible.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009                                         14<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             Thus, the law is well settled that no independent suit as<\/p>\n
             a condition precedent is necessary.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             8.       Collusion, say Spencer-Bower and Turner is<\/p>\n
             essentially play acting by two or more persons for one<\/p>\n
             common purpose- a concerted performance of a fabula<\/p>\n
             disguised as a judicium an unreal and fictious presence<\/p>\n
             of a contest by confederates whose game is the same.<\/p>\n
             As stated by Lord Selborne L\/C in Baswell v. Coaks,<\/p>\n
             1894(6) Rep. 167, there is no judge; but a person<\/p>\n
             divested with the ensigns of a judicial office, is<\/p>\n
             misemployed in listening to a fictitious cause proposed<\/p>\n
             to him, there is no party litigating no real interest<\/p>\n
             brought into question and to use the words of a very<\/p>\n
             sensible civilian on this point, fabula non judicium, hoc<\/p>\n
             est; in scena, non in foro, res agitur. That, in our view,<\/p>\n
             is the true meaning of the word ‘ collusion’ as applied<\/p>\n
             to a judicial proceeding.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In these circumstances, the Courts below        had rightly<\/p>\n
decreed the suit of the Municipal Committee.<\/p>\n
           No substantial question of law arises in this regular<\/p>\n
second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                               (SABINA)
\n                                                JUDGE
\nJuly 31, 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka … on 31 July, 2009 R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1428 of 2009 Date of decision: 31.7. 2009 Maghar Singh ……Appellant Versus The Municipal Committee Cheeka and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA […]<\/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-4707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka ... on 31 July, 2009 - 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\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka ... on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-02T02:41:28+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka … on 31 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-02T02:41:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2948,\"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\\\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka ... on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-02T02:41:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka … on 31 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka ... on 31 July, 2009 - 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\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka ... on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-02T02:41:28+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka … on 31 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-02T02:41:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009"},"wordCount":2948,"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\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009","name":"Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka ... on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-02T02:41:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghar-singh-vs-the-municipal-committee-cheeka-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maghar Singh vs The Municipal Committee Cheeka … on 31 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4707","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=4707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4707\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}