{"id":48494,"date":"2003-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003"},"modified":"2016-04-29T18:27:18","modified_gmt":"2016-04-29T12:57:18","slug":"y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2003 VAD Delhi 213, 105 (2003) DLT 565, 2003 (71) DRJ 707<\/div>\n
Author: S Mahajan<\/div>\n
Bench: S Mahajan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
S.K. Mahajan, J.<\/p>\n
1. The petitioner had filed this petition for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to issue the deed of conveyance with regard to the property in question in terms of the application of the petitioner filed on 25.3.1994 and for quashing the demand made vide the letter dated 9.5.1994.   While the matter was pending, the Court on 13.5.1997 directed the respondents to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and then pass an order in accordance with law.  On such directions being given, the respondents after hearing the petitioner passed the order dated 13.5.1997 and pursuant to that order made a demand on 5.9.1997 reducing the earlier demand by about Rs. 57,000\/-.   By the demand letter dated 5.9.1997, the respondents have claimed damages for unauthorised construction in the property and enhanced ground rent for the period 31.12.1987 to 13.4.1994.   Pursuant to this demand having been made, the writ petition was amended and the petitioner has challenged the demand dated 5.9.1997 as well.  This demand has now further been reduced by the respondents by its letter dated 25.2.1999.   By letter dated 25.2.1999, the respondents have claimed damages for unauthorised construction only up to 2.5.1999 when the property was demolished and have claimed enhanced ground rent @ Rs. 8,360.40 paise per annum for the period  31.12.1987 to 13.4.1994 and interest as well for the said period.   The controversy in the present petition, therefore, is confined only to the demand raised by letter 25.2.1999.  The facts in short giving rise to the present petition are :\n<\/p>\n
 The property in question was allotted in the name of one Mr. R.P. Mahajan.   The brother of the allottee filed suit in the Court of Sub-Judge being Suit No. 149\/1981 seeking declaration that the property was the joint property of all the brothers and the petitioner was holding the same as benami for all of them.  By a judgment and decree passed on 31.3.1984, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and it was declared that the property was the joint property of all the brothers.  Pursuant to the decree passed in the aforesaid suit, the property was mutated in the name of all the four brothers.   By the sale deed dated 8.1.1989, all the four brothers, after obtaining necessary sale permission from the office of the Land and Development Officer, sold the property to one Mr. Rajiv Sikka.  The property was duly mutated in the name of  Mr. Rajiv Sikka by the respondents vide the letter dated 17.1.1989.   Before the property was mutated in the name of  Mr. Rajiv Sikka, he entered into an agreement on 12.10.1988 with the petitioner for sale of the said property.  On payment of the entire sale consideration, the petitioner took possession of the property.  Mr. Rajiv Sikka  on receiving entire sale consideration executed an agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt, possession letter and other necessary documents required for conveying the property in favor of the petitioner.   The petitioner after purchasing the property demolished the same and after getting the plans sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, erected a new building on the aforesaid plot of land.  The completion certificated was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 20th June, 1990.\n<\/p>\n
2. In the year 1990-1991, the Government of India announced a Scheme for conversion of leasehold property into freehold and invited applications from the property owners for conversion of their properties under the Scheme.  The petitioner on 25.3.1994, made an application for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold in the prescribed proforma.   A sum of Rs. 1,04,541\/- was deposited by the petitioner towards conversion fee, additional conversion fee, arrears of ground rent and processing fee, etc.  Without processing the application of the petitioner for conversion, the respondents sent the demand letter dated 9.5.1994 claiming damages from the petitioner for unauthorised construction in the building for the period 14.7.1987 to 31.3.1994.   The respondents also demanded from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 54,686\/- by way of ground rent and another sum of Rs. 17,356\/- by way of penalty.  It was pointed out to the respondents that the building plans were sanctioned in the end of the year 1988\/89 and there was thus no question of their being unauthorised construction in the premises till 31.3.1994.   It was also explained to the respondent that the petitioner was not liable to pay enhanced ground rent as the sale in favor of  Mr. Rajiv Sikka was the first sale and not second sale as has been treated by the respondents.  Along with his letter dated 19.5.1994, the petitioner also enclosed an order dated 16.9.1991 passed under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 with regard to another property having similar facts wherein the mutation in favor of the actual owner was not treated to be the first transfer under the lease deed.   Since the demand was reiterated by the respondents by their letter dated 11.11.1994, the petitioner again vide his letter dated 5.4.1995 called upon the respondents to examine the documents furnished by him along with his application.   The case having not been settled to the satisfaction of the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs: –\n<\/p>\n
(i)   A writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing the respondents to issue the conveyance deed with regard to the property H- 32, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi in terms of the application of the petitioner No. 006427 filed on 25.3.1994 with the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   A writ be also issued quashing the erroneous demand made by the respondents in the letter dated 9.5.1994.\n<\/p>\n
3. As already mentioned above, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the respondents reconsidered the demand and after reducing damages, sent their final demand dated 25.2.1999, which is the subject matter of controversy in the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are claiming the enhanced ground rent only on the ground that the mutation of the property in favor of four brother pursuant to the decree passed by the Court of Sub-Judge was being treated as the first transfer and transfer in favor of  Mr. Rajiv Sikka being considered the second transfer, respondents were seeking to enhance the ground rent under the terms of the lease deed.   It is submitted by the petitioner that since the mutation in favor of the brothers of the original allottee was pursuant to a decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that the property was allotted in the name of the original allottee for and on behalf of the brothers, the mutation in the name of four brothers pursuant to the decree could not be said to be first transfer as this was the original allotment in the name of the four brothers.  The petitioner has not pressed his challenge to the demand made by the respondent towards damages for unauthorised construction at the revised land rates up to the date of demolition of the property.\n<\/p>\n
5. It is the submission of Mr. Chawla appearing on behalf of the respondents that though the property was mutated in the name of the four brothers pursuant to a declaration granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, however, while mutating the property in their name and while granting permission for sale of the property to Mr. Rajiv Sikka, it was clearly stated that it would be the second sale in favor of Mr. Sikka and the said persons having accepted the sale in favor of Mr. Sikka to be the second sale, the petitioner cannot now raise the question that the sale in favor of Mr. Sikka was not the second sale.  It is submitted that the demand for enhanced ground rent made in the letter under reference was, therefore, validly made and the petitioner is liable to pay the same.\n<\/p>\n
6. I am not impressed with the arguments of Mr. Chawla that the demand made for enhanced ground rent and the interest claimed thereon vide the letter dated 25.2.1999 on the ground that the sale in favor of Mr. Sikka was second sale was valid demand.   Once the property had been mutated in the name of the four brothers pursuant to the order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction granting declaration that the property though allotted in the name of one person at the time of original allotment actually belonged to four brothers, the same cannot said to be a transfer by the original allottee in favor of his brothers.  No consideration had passed at the time of mutation in the name of the brothers of the original allottee.  The Court having accepted the contentions of the brothers of the original allottee that allotment was made for and on behalf of all the brothers and passed decree in their favor declaring them to be the owners would clearly imply that the property in the first instance belonged to all the four brothers and not to one in whose name it was originally allotted.   That being the correct legal position, it could not be said that mutation in the name of other three brothers pursuant to the decree of the Court was the first sale or transfer.  In case the mutation in the name of the other three brothers is not the first sale or transfer, the respondent could not treat the sale in favor of Mr. Rajiv Sikka as the second sale.  Any order passed by the respondents earlier treating sale in favor of Sikka to be second sale and payment of unearned increase at the time of the said sale would not validate the order which could not have been passed.  Moreover, as is evident from the order passed on 16.9.91 passed by the appropriate authority under Section 33 of the displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, filed by the petitioner, the respondent had earlier been not treating the mutation in similar circumstances as existed in favor of the brothers of the original allottee in the present case as first sale\/transfer.  The respondents in that case had mutated the property bearing No. D\/23 Kalkaji, New Delhi, in the name of the person in whose favor the Civil Court had passed a decree declaring him to be real owner, without treating the same to be first sale.  The respondents, therefore, by their own conduct cannot discriminate persons who are similarly placed.  The property having been sold by four brothers to Mr. Sikka, it was the first sale and in terms of the lease deed, the respondents could not enhance the ground rent such cases.  The demand, therefore, made in the letter dated 25.2.1999 claiming enhanced ground rent and claiming interest on the alleged enhanced ground rent up to 13.4.1994 cannot be sustained.   This demand, in my opinion, is clearly unauthorised and illegal and the petitioner is not bound to pay the same.\n<\/p>\n
7. For the foregoing reasons, while I quash the demand of enhanced ground rent and interest thereon made by the respondent vide the letter dated 25.2.1999, I, however, uphold the demand of damages for unauthorised constructions for the period 1.4.1987 to 2.5.1989.   The effect of this order is that the petitioner would be liable to pay Rs. 20,960\/- as damages for unauthorised construction for the aforesaid period.     While making application for conversion, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,04,541\/- as conversion fee.  It is submitted by the petitioner that as is evident from the conveyance deed, he was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 95,980\/- and he is, therefore, entitled to the refund of excess amount. Mr. Chawla states that at this stage he is not aware whether the respondents were entitled to charge any processing charges or any other amount besides the conversion fee for conversion of land from leasehold to freehold.   He submits that in case any other amount was liable to be paid and the amount of Rs. 8,571\/- has been paid in excess by the petitioner towards the conversion charges, he will ensure that the same is refunded to the petitioner within a reasonable time.\n<\/p>\n
8. During the tendency of this petition, pursuant to the orders passed on 4.8.1999, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 91,365\/- with the respondent being the demand raised vide letter dated 25.2.1999.  Since this Court has held that the respondent is not entitled to claim enhanced ground rent and interest thereon, the respondent is liable to refund the amount of enhanced ground rent and interest to the petitioner. I, therefore, direct that the respondents would refund the aforesaid amount of Rs. 91,365\/-  after deducting a sum of Rs. 20,960\/- being damages for unauthorised construction claimed in the letter dated 25.2.1999, within three months from the date of this order.   In case the amount is not refunded within the period granted by the Court, the respondent will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order.  With these observations, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003 Equivalent citations: 2003 VAD Delhi 213, 105 (2003) DLT 565, 2003 (71) DRJ 707 Author: S Mahajan Bench: S Mahajan JUDGMENT S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The petitioner had filed this petition for issue of a writ of mandamus to […]<\/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-48494","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nY.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003 - 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\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-29T12:57:18+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-29T12:57:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2157,\"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\\\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003\",\"name\":\"Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-29T12:57:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003 - 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\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-29T12:57:18+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-29T12:57:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003"},"wordCount":2157,"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\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003","name":"Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-29T12:57:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-p-narula-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Y.P. Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/48494","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=48494"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48494\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48494"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48494"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48494"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}