{"id":66071,"date":"2011-08-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011"},"modified":"2019-01-22T05:20:18","modified_gmt":"2019-01-21T23:50:18","slug":"sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir &#8230; vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir &#8230; vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw<\/div>\n<pre>            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                                          Date of decision: 16th August, 2011\n+                                 W.P.(C) 3873\/2008\n\n         SRI DOODH NATH MAHADEO MANDIR SABHA\n         (REGISTERED)                                ..... Petitioner\n                      Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv.\n\n                                      Versus\n         UOI &amp; ANR                                         ..... Respondents\n                              Through:     Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, CGSC with\n                                          Mr. Nitish Gupta, Adv. for\n                                          respondents.\nCORAM :-\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW\n1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may               Not necessary\n         be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              Not necessary\n\n3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             Not necessary\n         in the Digest?\n\nRAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.       The petitioner claiming to be an allottee for temple\/religious purpose<br \/>\nof land in Sector-V of R.K. Puram, New Delhi filed this writ petition<br \/>\nseeking following reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                   a. &#8220;Issue a writ of mandamus mandating the<br \/>\n                      respondents herein to take urgent steps to remove<br \/>\n                      the encroachers by demolishing the unauthorized<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C)3873\/2008                                                       Page 1 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n                        structures put up by the encroachers in the temple<br \/>\n                       premises of the petitioner situated in Sector-V, R.K.<br \/>\n                       Puram, New Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                   b. Issue a writ of mandamus mandating the respondent<br \/>\n                      to take other necessary steps as a follow up of the<br \/>\n                      allotment letter dated 31.12.1976 and letters dated<br \/>\n                      21.06.2005 and 03.04.2008, having accepted the<br \/>\n                      whole money payable, the balance of `43,393\/- having<br \/>\n                      been accepted on 09.04.2008.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                   c. Issue appropriate writs in the nature of directions,<br \/>\n                      directing an enquiry as to the cropping up of several<br \/>\n                      encroachers having nexus with L&amp;DO and MCD<br \/>\n                      officials\/Police from 1980 onwards.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>2.       This Bench on 10th November, 2009 ordered that the writ petition<br \/>\ncould not be entertained qua prayer &#8216;a&#8217; and entertained the writ petition<br \/>\nqua prayer &#8216;b&#8217; only.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.       The petitioner aggrieved from the aforesaid order preferred an intra<br \/>\ncourt appeal being LPA No.50\/2010 which was dismissed on 19 th January,<br \/>\n2010. The said order has attained finality.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.       The counsel for the petitioner has argued that though in pursuance to<br \/>\nthe allotment, a Perpetual Lease Deed of the land was to be executed in<br \/>\nfavour of the petitioner but has not been so executed. On enquiry, it is<br \/>\nstated that the respondent L&amp;DO is refusing execution of the said Lease<br \/>\nDeed for the reason of non-payment by the petitioner of damages claimed<br \/>\nby the respondent L&amp;DO on account of the petitioner having allegedly<br \/>\nallowed commercial shops etc. to have come into existence on the land<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C)3873\/2008                                                         Page 2 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n aforesaid. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of the<br \/>\nrespondent L&amp;DO of the said damages is unsustainable in as much as it is<br \/>\nnot the petitioner who has allowed any such persons but the said persons<br \/>\nare encroachers for whose removal prayer paragraph &#8216;a&#8217; on which writ<br \/>\npetition had not been entertained was sought.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.       The counsel for petitioner has in this regard also invited attention to<br \/>\nthe order dated 29th August, 2001 in W.P.(C) No.3028\/1998 preferred by<br \/>\nthe Mandir Market Welfare Association (Regd.). It is informed, that the<br \/>\nsaid Association represents the occupants on the land allotted to the<br \/>\npetitioner; they had by the said writ petition sought to restrain the<br \/>\ngovernment and its agencies from demolishing the shops on the said land;<br \/>\nthey had further claimed that they had been inducted into possession of the<br \/>\nshops by the petitioner herein as a tenants. The petitioner herein was also a<br \/>\nparty to that writ petition and had denied the said claim of the Association.<br \/>\nThe said writ petition was disposed of holding that it raised disputed<br \/>\nquestions of fact which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and<br \/>\ngiving liberty to the Association to prefer a Civil Suit and granting<br \/>\nprotection in the interregnum.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.       The counsel for the petitioner informs that the Association in fact<br \/>\npreferred a Suit for permanent injunction impleading the respondents<br \/>\nherein as well as the petitioner herein as defendants but which Suit was<br \/>\ndismissed vide judgment dated 30th April, 2005 which is stated to have<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C)3873\/2008                                                        Page 3 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n attained finality.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.       It is the contention of the petitioner that the Market Association and<br \/>\nits members having failed to establish that they had been lawfully inducted<br \/>\non the land as tenants by the petitioner, the respondent L&amp;DO cannot<br \/>\nclaim damages on the premise of the petitioner having inducted the<br \/>\nmembers of the said Association.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.       A perusal of the judgment dated 30th April, 2005 of the Civil Judge<br \/>\ndismissing the Suit of the Association shows that the suit was dismissed on<br \/>\na preliminary issue of locus standi of the Association to prefer the Suit.<br \/>\nThere was thus no adjudication on merits as to whether the members of the<br \/>\nAssociation were inducted by the petitioner or were illegal encroachers.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.       The counsel for the petitioner however contends that the said<br \/>\npersons inspite of opportunity having failed to prove their case, the<br \/>\nrespondent L&amp;DO cannot claim damages treating them to have been<br \/>\ninductees of the petitioner. It is urged that it is admitted by the respondent<br \/>\nL&amp;DO also that the said persons were in existence since prior to the<br \/>\nallotment of the land in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.      Per contra, the counsel for the respondent L&amp;DO contends that it is<br \/>\nnot the admitted position; that though encroachments existed prior to<br \/>\nallotment but the same were removed prior to the allotment and vacant<br \/>\npeaceful physical possession of the land allotted was delivered at the time<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C)3873\/2008                                                       Page 4 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n of allotment.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.      Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner controverts and contends<br \/>\nthat the map drawn up at the time of delivery of possession also shows the<br \/>\nshops.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.      The persons who would have the evidence in their power and<br \/>\ncontrol to show whether it is the petitioner who has inducted them or not<br \/>\nare not parties before this Court. The contention of the counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner that they having failed to establish their claim, the respondent<br \/>\nL&amp;DO should be directed to presume and proceed on the basis that they<br \/>\nwere not inducted by the petitioner cannot be accepted. As aforesaid, there<br \/>\nis no adjudication on merits in this regard. It is for the petitioner to<br \/>\napproach the Forum where the said questions can be decided and which<br \/>\nForum can be by way of Civil Suit only.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.      If it were to be held that it is the petitioner who has inducted or<br \/>\nallowed the land to be used for the purposes other than for which it was<br \/>\nallotted, the respondent L&amp;DO cannot be compelled to execute the Lease<br \/>\nDeed in favour of the petitioner. Such determination entails disputed<br \/>\nquestions of fact not only between the petitioner and the respondents but<br \/>\nwould also require the presence of the inductees who have been claiming<br \/>\nthat they have been inducted by the petitioner. What has been held in the<br \/>\njudgment dated 29th August, 2011 in the W.P.(C) No.3028\/1998 supra filed<br \/>\nby the Market Association, in the order dated 10th November, 2009 of this<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C)3873\/2008                                                    Page 5 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n Bench refusing to entertain the writ petition qua prayer &#8216;a&#8217; and in the order<br \/>\ndated 19th January, 2010 aforesaid of the Division Bench, holds good for<br \/>\nthe said aspect of the matter also.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.      The petition is therefore dismissed as not maintainable qua prayer<br \/>\n&#8216;b&#8217; also with liberty however to the petitioner to take appropriate remedies<br \/>\nin law.\n<\/p>\n<p>         No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW<br \/>\n                                                    (JUDGE)<br \/>\nAUGUST 16, 2011<br \/>\n&#8216;pp&#8217;<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C)3873\/2008                                                     Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir &#8230; vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011 Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16th August, 2011 + W.P.(C) 3873\/2008 SRI DOODH NATH MAHADEO MANDIR SABHA (REGISTERED) &#8230;.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. Versus UOI [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66071","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir ... vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir ... vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-21T23:50:18+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir &#8230; vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-21T23:50:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1160,\"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\\\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir ... vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-21T23:50:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir &#8230; vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir ... vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir ... vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-21T23:50:18+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir &#8230; vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-21T23:50:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011"},"wordCount":1160,"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\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011","name":"Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir ... vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-21T23:50:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-doodh-nath-mahadeo-mandir-vs-uoi-anr-on-16-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Doodh Nath Mahadeo Mandir &#8230; vs Uoi &amp; Anr on 16 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/66071","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=66071"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66071\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66071"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66071"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66071"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}