{"id":53440,"date":"2009-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-14T08:41:32","modified_gmt":"2018-12-14T03:11:32","slug":"ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its … vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its … vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 2009<\/div>\n
R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1994                                                       1\n\n\nIN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT\n              CHANDIGARH\n\n                              R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1994\n                              Date of Decision : 1.9.2009\n\n\nM\/s Budhi Raja Traders through its Prop. Ved Parkash r\/o Vill. Devi\nNagar, Teh. Kalka Distt. Ambala\n\n                                                            .......... Appellant\n                              Versus\n\nThe State of Haryana\n                                                            ...... Respondent\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA\n\nPresent :   Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate\n            for the appellant.\n\n            Mr. Rajeev Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana.\n\n                  ****\n\nVINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n
            This order shall dispose of (i) RFA No. 2068 of 1994, titled<\/p>\n
M\/s Budhi Raja Traders Vs. The State of Haryana, (ii) RFA No. 2069 of<\/p>\n
1994, titled M\/s Krishan Lal and Co. Vs. The State of Haryana, (iii) RFA<\/p>\n
No. 2070 of 1994, titled Ram Kirat Vs. The State of Haryana and (iv) RFA<\/p>\n
No. 2040 of 1994, titled M\/s Hanuman State Trader Vs. The State of<\/p>\n
Haryana, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these<\/p>\n
appeals.\n<\/p>\n
            For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from RFA No.<\/p>\n
2068 of 1994, titled M\/s Budhi Raja Traders through its Prop. Ved Parkash<\/p>\n
r\/o Vill. Devi Nagar, Teh. Kalka Distt. Ambala Vs. The State of Haryana.
\n R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1994                                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
             The State of Haryana vide notification dated 31.8.1987 issued<\/p>\n
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
as “the Act”) showed its intention to acquire land in the area of Panchkula<\/p>\n
for development and utilization of land as recreational and commercial for<\/p>\n
Sector 3 Urban Estate, Panchkula. Notification under Section 6 of the Act<\/p>\n
was published in Haryana Government Gazette dated 26.7.1988. The award<\/p>\n
was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27.3.1989. The award was<\/p>\n
consolidated for compensation regarding to the acquired land as well as<\/p>\n
regarding building structure and trees standing thereon and also for the loss<\/p>\n
of business and shifting charges in respect of the interested persons.<\/p>\n
             The land lowers being dissatisfied with the award of the Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition Collector sought reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking<\/p>\n
enhancement of the market value of the land as well as the superstructure.<\/p>\n
             The question of market value of the acquired land is not the<\/p>\n
subject matter of this appeal, as the same has been adjudicated separately by<\/p>\n
filing separate regular first appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             In the case of RFA No. 2068 of 1994, titled M\/s Budhi Raja<\/p>\n
Traders through its Prop. Ved Parkash r\/o Vill. Devi Nagar, Teh. Kalka<\/p>\n
Distt. Ambala Vs. The State of Haryana, the Land Acquisition Collector<\/p>\n
assessed the compensation payable for superstructure as Rs. 6691\/-. The<\/p>\n
appellant had claimed compensation to the tune of rupees nine lac for<\/p>\n
building structure. He further claimed compensation for loss of business.<\/p>\n
Though on the pleadings of the parties, one of the issues framed, was “What<\/p>\n
was the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition ?”, as
\n R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1994                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
already observed above, the said issue was not pressed.<\/p>\n
            The only dispute with which we are concerned is with regard to<\/p>\n
the compensation payable for the superstructure. In support of the claim set<\/p>\n
up by the landowners, the appellant examined Sh. H.L. Dhammi,<\/p>\n
Superintending Engineer ( Retired) from P.W.D. ( B & R) Haryana, who<\/p>\n
appeared as PW-1 and submitted his report, which was said to have been<\/p>\n
prepared on the basis of P.W.D. Schedule of rates. The report was duly<\/p>\n
exhibited as Ex. P1.\n<\/p>\n
            The respondent \/ State contested the reference by examining<\/p>\n
Sh. O.P. Sardana, Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, who submitted his<\/p>\n
report with regard to the assessment of the value for the superstructure. The<\/p>\n
learned reference Court accepted the version of the State and thereby<\/p>\n
assessed the compensation payable at Rs. 8363\/-.\n<\/p>\n
            The finding recorded by the learned Reference Court reads as<\/p>\n
under :-\n<\/p>\n
                  “12. Report copy of which is Ex.P-1
\n                  has been prepared by engineers of
\n                  HUDA     i.e.     a     state     owned    Public
\n                  undertaking           in    the    discharge     of
\n                  their       Public         duties.      All    the
\n                  structures         as       claimed       by    the
\n                  petitioner has been evaluated by
\n                  engineers        while      preparing      report
\n                  Ex. R.1. It is not the case of the
\n                  petitioner        in       the    petition     that
\n                  any of the existing structure has
\n                  not been take into consideration
\n                  while      preparing        report      Ex.    P.1.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1994                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Hence there cannot be said to be
\n                 any dispute regarding measurement
\n                 of       the    existing           structure      as
\n                 mentioned in report Ex. R.1. The
\n                 very      perusal       of    report     Ex.     R.1
\n                 show      that        the     same     has      been
\n                 prepared         by     applying        different
\n                 rates for different items as per
\n                 Haryana P.W.D. Schedule of rates
\n                 with latest premium. 10% extra for
\n                 other under seen items have also
\n                 been       allowed           while      preparing
\n                 report Ex. R.1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 13. On the other hand perusal of
\n                 report Ex. P-1 as prepared by me
\n                 expert engaged by the petitioner
\n                 shows      that       the     said     report     is
\n                 imaginary          without           giving      any
\n                 detail of rates of different items
\n                 as per Haryana P.W.D. Schedule of
\n                 rates. He applied the principle of
\n                 per square feet cost of existing
\n                 building structure without giving
\n                 any detail as to how he arrived at
\n                 the said cost. He has mentioned in
\n                 his      report    that       office    room     was
\n                 having ‘kuthca’ floor and wooden
\n                 batten roof and that country made
\n                 wood      has    been       used.    However,    he
\n                 has applied the rate at Rs. 60\/-
\n                 per      sq.    feet.       Similarly,    he    has
\n                 mentioned         that       the     labour     huts
\n                 were having thatch roof. However,
\n                 he    applied         construction       rate     as
\n R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1994                                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Rs. 30\/- per sq. feet. Even for
\n                 brick         wall       of     the        jharna      he
\n                 applied the rate of Rs. 50\/- per
\n                 sq. feet. Proper depreciation of
\n                 the      building         structure         has       also
\n                 not      been       deducted         by    PW1    while
\n                 preparing            report         Ex.P.1.       Hence
\n                 report        Ex.     P.1      as    given       by    Sh.
\n                 H.L. Dhammi i.e. expert appointed
\n                 by the petitioner does not inspire
\n                 confidence and hence the same is
\n                 not accepted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 14. However,             while       preparing         the
\n                 reports        Ex.       P.1    to    Ex.    R.2       the
\n                 engineers of the respondent State
\n                 have deducted 20% of the assessed
\n                 value on the plea that the owner
\n                 did not allow dismantling of the
\n                 foundation            and       on        account       of
\n                 alleged        non-adoption           of     standard
\n                 section             of         foundation             etc.
\n                 However, no detail of the same has
\n                 been given by the engineer of the
\n                 respondent State as well. Hence in
\n                 my view this deduction of Rs. 821+
\n                 851       =      Rs.           1672\/-        is       not
\n                 sustainable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 15. Further                   admittedly               the
\n                 petitioner is still in possession
\n                 of the premises in dispute as he
\n                 is    running         his      business       despite
\n                 the      fact       that       notification            for
\n                 acquisition              of         the      building
\n                 structure was issued in the year
\n R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1994                                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
                  1987.      Hence     the      value        of    the
\n                  building         structure      has        further
\n                  deprecated.        Hence      it   cannot          be
\n                  said that the deprecated value of
\n                  the building has not been properly
\n                  assessed         while    preparing         report
\n                  Ex. R.1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  16. As       a    sequel      to      my        above
\n                  discussion, I am of the view that
\n                  the petitioner is entitled for Rs.
\n                  8363\/-      as     compensation        for       the
\n                  existing           building        structure.
\n                  Accordingly,         this      issue        stands
\n                  decided      partly      in   favour       of    the
\n                  petitioner          and       against            the
\n                  respondent.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant<\/p>\n
contends that, the award passed by the learned Reference Court deserves to<\/p>\n
be modified inasmuch as the learned Reference Court had completely<\/p>\n
ignored the evidence of the expert produced by the appellant, which was not<\/p>\n
permissible. It was for the Court to have drawn a balance between the<\/p>\n
reports of the experts, produced by the State and that produced by the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
             In support of this contention the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of<\/p>\n
RFA No. 1797 of 1994 titled Ved Parkash and Company Vs. The State of<\/p>\n
Haryana, through Land Acquisition Collector, HUDA, Panchkula, decided<\/p>\n
on 26.5.2009. This Court in similar circumstances was pleased to hold that,<\/p>\n
the report by the expert produced by the appellant could not be totally
\n R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1994                                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
rejected and thereby accepted the appeal while enhancing the compensation<\/p>\n
by 50% of the assessed compensation by the learned Reference Court.<\/p>\n
             The learned Sr. DAG, Haryana, however, contends that the<\/p>\n
facts of the case of Ved Parkash and Company Vs. The State of Haryana<\/p>\n
( supra) are distinguishable, as the report by the expert of the appellant was<\/p>\n
rightly rejected, as it was not based on any settled principle and was merely<\/p>\n
imaginary, whereas that was not the case in the case relied upon by the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
             The contention raised by the learned Sr. DAG, Haryana cannot<\/p>\n
be accepted. The facts of the case in Ved Parkash and Company Vs. The<\/p>\n
State of Haryana ( Supra ) were identical, rather the expert produced in the<\/p>\n
said case was also Mr. Dhammi, whose report has been relied upon by this<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Ved Parkash and Company Vs. The State of Haryana<\/p>\n
(Supra)<\/p>\n
             In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ved<\/p>\n
Parkash and Company Vs. The State of Haryana ( Supra ), these appeals are<\/p>\n
allowed. The appellants are held entitled to enhancement of the<\/p>\n
compensation by 50% of the assessed value by the learned Reference Court.<\/p>\n
The appellants shall also be entitled to other statutory benefits on the<\/p>\n
enhanced compensation.\n<\/p>\n
             The claim regarding loss of business, is rejected in view of the<\/p>\n
decision by this Court in the case of Ved Parkash and Company Vs. The<\/p>\n
State of Haryana ( Supra ).\n<\/p>\n
1.9.2009                                        ( VINOD K. SHARMA )\n  'sp'                                               JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court M\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its … vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 2009 R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1994 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1994 Date of Decision : 1.9.2009 M\/s Budhi Raja Traders through its Prop. Ved Parkash r\/o Vill. […]<\/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-53440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its ... vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 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\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its ... vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-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=\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-14T03:11:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its … vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-14T03:11:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1496,\"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\\\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its ... vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-14T03:11:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its … vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 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":"M\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its ... vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 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\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its ... vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-14T03:11:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its … vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-14T03:11:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009"},"wordCount":1496,"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\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009","name":"M\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its ... vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-14T03:11:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-budhi-raja-traders-through-its-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Budhi Raja Traders Through Its … vs The State Of Haryana on 1 September, 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\/53440","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=53440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}